New Sony Vaio Z speculation/news thread

This is strange. It certainly didn't happen to me. And looking at Windows update, I see no graphics drivers under either Important Updates or Recommended Updates, and can only find them underthe Optional Updates page, where they have to be manually selected by the user to be installed, even if he has set the computer to auto-install recommended updates and not just critical updates (which is the Sony default).
So without more evidence, I will presume this a PEBKAC.

 

Eh... for real world usage... you wont need that much CPU power in the Z anyways (unless you're always encoding/decoding videos or running VM's etc.). The only benefit i see going with Sandy Bridge is for improved integrated graphics and better power management.

 

shanks. this may be the case.
still hybrid graphics drivers are annoying to deal with limiting to driver choice...

 

I'm on SP1 W7 and nothing happened to my hybrid driver either :\

 

Regarding the price of the Lenovo X1 Lenovo ThinkPad X1 shows up online, looks freakishly thin -- Engadget I don't want to know what the new Z will cost...

 

I think NightFyre is worried about the prices in Europe.

Maybe Sony will also be kind enough to charge the new VAIO Z series starting from under $2k USD (for the base config) for the European market as well?

 

Well that is the thing, I do just about everything with the Z including the things you just mentioned.

 

I just saw the X1 article on Engadget. I'm really curious to know why higher resolutions (>= 1600x900) don't seem to be the norm on laptops this size. Does the average consumer really can't stand it?

 

Well... basic config with 64GB SSD and 2GB RAM without the external box for $1.999
Seriously: I hope that the basic model with 128GB SSD and 4GB RAM will cost something between 1.600€ and 1.800€ in Europe, so I'll get the laptop with the FullHD display for around 1.800€ after the student rebate.

 

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride...

 

because consumers still accept < 1600x900 on 14" and even 15" screens... I had an uncle, in his 30's not very tech savy look at my laptop and called it useless/cheap because the screen (res) is so small... I would've lectured him on screen res, but simply put, the average consumer just thinks large screen = large workspace... it's dumb, but hey, you can't expect everyone to be geeks

edit: WHOAH! I thought the SB/SA bezel was bad... From the picture of it here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/lenovo-ibm/569934-thinkpad-x1.html

the bezel on the X1 is humongous... now I wonder why consumers accept that! that's not 13.3"... that's 14" now...

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately, some may say), I can relate to that.

My parents are like that too. Maybe they fit into the definition of typical consumers or maybe my whole family (including me) are all weird oddballs. My parents simply cannot understand my fondness & obsession with having high resolution screens on my notebooks whenever that option is possible. I've been lectured by them quite a few times when they saw the screen of my "low resolution" 1600x900 screen of my VAIO Z690 notebook while I was doing my work on it. They were typically like "The screen & texts are so small & you spend the whole day staring at them. Do you want to go blind?" You can imagine the horror on their faces when they came across my VAIO P688 notebook where I ran it at its native res of 1600x768 at 100% dpi.

I don't really like the low resolution 1366x768 screens on the new VAIO SB series but if you think that is too low, you guys should have seen the gigantic calculator (only able to perform simple calculations & nothing else) my dad has. Not only is the body of the calculator big, the screen is huge as well & the numbers on the screen are just crazily enormous! Just like my dad is amused at my fondness for high resolution screens, I couldn't ("for the heck of me") understand why one needs to use such a huge calculator.

I guess this is the reason (to a certain extent) why manufacturers are still producing notebooks with low resolution screens as standard for quite a number of different models.

 

Now the question is what kind of display does that come with and what will the maxed out version cost?

 

When the new VAIO Z series is finally released, one (in the US, of course) can always hope that the Microsoft store is going to offer the base config model for sale. If they do, we can all patiently wait & hope for those unbelievably massive discounts....

 

When I look at the tablets available, even though below 10", they have the same kind of screen resolution as a 12"/13" laptop. Why would it be ok for a tablet but not for a larger laptop?

 

@beaups, is there an express card slot either on the main body or the external unit?

Everyone in my family thinks the texts on my Z and P are quite small. lolol I have no problem reading either.

 

i know where you get the discount coupon. hehehe....

 

You can't say that and leave us hanging! If it isn't grounds for banning you from NBR, I'll try to get a rule made so it is

 

But the FHD became a free or $100 upgrade for much of the Z1X run, no?

 

It goes without saying that I appreciate high resolution on tiny screens. From the UX to the P to the Z, all of my computers are exceptionally high resolution for their size. Interestingly enough the UX has the highest pixel density of the 3 computers even though it is the lowest resolution.

I do appreciate a large display also though. I use a 40" 1080P BRAVIA as my monitor at my desk.

The way I look at it is that the highest possible resolution is the most important thing, the actual size of the display is not that important. I'd take a 9" 1080P screen if there was a notebook with one. I'd also be happy with a 13" 2560x1600 display, if only they made something like that.

I am not even sure how I got by with a 1280 x 800 screen 5 years ago.

 

the MS deals are posted on Slickdeals... there's no coupons... they just have a 40% off discounts every quarter to get rid of "old" stock. Either it's visible online, or just call in.

Yeah... it's weird... the smaller the screen the higher the res... cellphones have insanely high ppi's... then we have those 83" TV's with just 1080p...

 

I believe thats due to viewing distance. Small displays get viewed close up whilst the larger ones get viewed from further away.

 

Achusaysblessyou is fast.

 

I think you are right. It may also be due to the fact that the keyboard is present in laptops, and so to maintain a comfortable typing posture, the arms must be angled in such a way that our eyes are sufficiently far enough from the screen. At that distance, higher resolutions make it more difficult to see the words. With the cellphone's touch interface on a smaller screen, it makes more sense to bring the screen closer, and hence the higher resolution makes sense.

There is another factor involved. For iOS, Android and WP7, multi-touch zooming is a fundamental feature. This eliminates to a large extent the issue of words appearing too small: we can adjust the sizes to anything we want. While this is present in Windows, it's not as easily accessible, certainly not as intuitive.

 

that's true. as well, 13x7 honestly isn't that bad when you're only using a single window(typical web-browsing). its the designers and programmers that have to use multiple windows that have an issue with lower-res screens.

although, i think economics play the biggest role in the proliferation of 13x7 screens

 

What do you mean 13x7?

are you talking about 1366x768?

And yes I am a professional programmer as well as amateur videographer. I think pretty much anyone that is really serious about getting some work done on the computer would benefit from the highest possible resolution. You can always mess with the DPI if text is too small, but you can't adjust any setting to make more resolution.

 

Eh for typical single window, 4:3 is best... cuz we need more vertical space rather than wide space... I mean what's the use of widescreen, when you cant fit two windows side by side... and then with one window you got all this white space on the sides and have to scroll down all the time?

Haha thanks, i try my best

 

do you really want to spend time looking for a 4:3 laptop and then using w/e processor it has?

i dunno, i like having my forums stretch out their posts.

 

Well, 4:3 is better for single windows browsing (if the res is high enough ie: 1600x1200), but of course no one really makes those panels or incorporates them into a laptop or desktop monitor. But 1366x768 is just horrid... at least MBP 13" has a 1280x800 => slightly more vertical pixels, but still annoying especially when you're word processing, etc.

 

The Vaio Z is no longer listed on Sony's website next to their other ultraportables... could the new Z be here already?

 

The old Z is still listed on the Canadian site.
I really hope the new Z comes out soon. The only laptop that fits my current requirements is the x220. I saw the SB in store and thought the screen was no were near as good as the old Z.

You wouldnt think its hard to produce a high end ultraportable laptop with a decent screen. Im not even fussed on discrete graphics.

 

No, beaups said announcement in June (he's got some sort of insider info). The thing is that the Z series was supposed to be "discontinued" in the US in ~January and replaced shortly by the SA series, then later the Z series, but because of the disaster in Japan, the SA was pushed back and they brought back a limited Z CTO for a while. (but yeah the Z was there at least 2 days ago)

my only gripe on the x220 is its low res screen. And they went from 16:10 to 16:9... It beats me why they did that... 16:10 is much more useful IMHO...

 

Hey beaups, do you know if the new Z will look ,ore like Lenovo ThinkPad X1 with gorilla glass? Looks like they are in the same screen size and target the same market segment.

 

They maybe in the same size region, but the new Z will have a 13.1'' screen and the X1 will have a 13.3'' screen. In this kind of size class 0.2 of an inch is a lot.

 

Does gorilla glass come in the matt version?

 

Huh? 16:9 is the standard for TV and movies these days. 16:10 is neither fowl nor fish, and if watching a movie on it, you either get black borders, or have to distort the aspect ratio.

New games already tend to support 16:9 and 4:3, but not always 16:10.

 

lemme guess, you only watch movies, browse the web, and play games on your lappy.

 

16:10 = 1920x1200
16:9 = 1920x1080

Need I say more?

Anyway some black bars while watching a movie, no big deal. In exchange, when the thing is being used as a "computer", you have the extra vertical real estate.

 

aside that you usually get black bars even on 16:9 when watching movies, but the loss of screen real state is not that desirable.

I actually liked the change from 4:3 to 16:10, since it gave me the option to actually see 2 documents side by side, which is far more useful than seeing one on top of the other, avoiding to lose space due to the menu bars.

However a change from 16:10 to 16:9 I havent noticed a significant difference.

btw coding is what I do for living, so...

 

16/9 makes the Z more compact than others 13" laps. I have an xps 1330 and i now hate its 16/10 for that.
Besides 1080 is more than enough to read documents and code or anything as long as your eyes can handle it with 100 dpi and it allows for 2 documents side by side (i love win7 and its windows key+right/left arrows shortcut for that ).

 

Didn't mean to imply the built in Z display needed even higher res...

Instead, I was just making a comment on external monitors. I would take 1920x1200 over 1920x1080, and I don't mind some black bars while watching a movie on such a monitor.

 

I'd be happy to accept 1366 x 768...



... on my 4" cell phone screen. For my Z2, it'll be FHD for me, thank you. I'm just watching the calendar flip toward June/July and checking this thread from time to time at this point.

My mom borrowed my Toshiba M400 w/1400x1050 screen recently and did have a little trouble. As my eyeballs get older and squishier and Windows and Windows apps seem to be taking their sweet time heading towards full resolution independence, I do understand why one would seek a lower dpi, but I wouldn't confuse a bigger screen with a bigger workspace.

 

Looks like the new MBA will have Thunderbolt and i7 but only the ULV and low voltage versions. Assuming the new Z has the full dual-core i7, there's still nothing else in sight that will have its capabilities. 'course nothing else has its price either.

 

Lenovo X1?

Lenovo ThinkPad X1 confirmed, faster-charging integrated battery detailed -- Engadget

Lenovo ThinkPad X1 shows up online, looks freakishly thin -- Engadget

The only thing is that it probably doesn't have thunderbolt. It does have a full-powered cpu though... well purportedly. Also... look at the price tag... sure to match the new Z... but the screen res is smaller...

 

The low-res screen is the main reason I don't put it in the Z2 category. If Lenovo offers FHD and i7 as options, I would put it up there even without the Thunderbolt port.

 

I hear the "economics" explanation a lot anecdotally, but haven't seen it reported by an industry source. What doesn't compute for me about that explanation is that, for example, the Z screens - both of them - are not mass produced, but are the only ones I know of with their size and resolutions, not to mention other imaging qualities, so they clearly have them custom made and once they are paying for such exceptionally high quality small LCDs, I don't buy that it would materially add to their cost if they spec'd the aspect ratio of these to be 16:10. Then there is the fact that Apple seems to have no trouble getting 16:10 screens. Those are just two data points that, I believe, pretty much disprove the "theory" that all laptops are going to 16:9 because the LCD makers are forcing the economy of scale of a single aspect ratio. I can imagine that an MSI-size company may have to just choose off the shelf LCDs, but not the likes of Sony, HP, Dell, Apple, Lenovo. I would posit that the computer mfrs have the clout in the relationship, not the LCD makers. Further, since Sony and Samsung are also "market makers" for TV LCDs, that further pushes the market power to them and away from the LCD mfrs.

If someone has an industry source or even more compelling logical explanation, I could change my view, but for now, I say that the laptop makers think "we" want 16X9s by and large so that's what they spec and, as a result, the LCD makers do have economies of scale with 16X9s and they are a little cheaper now to produce, but neither the cost nor the availability are likely to be major constraints preventing 16:10s from being spec'd on most (non-Apple) laptops, but rather the laptop makers' belief that the market prefers 16X9 is what has driven it to become the standard at least in the consumer market. Not sure I can make the same case for business class machines, but the cost argument doesn't sway me there either, so I tend to think it's also a marketing-driven spec, not cost-driven.

I'm only using "common sense" here, so please chime in and prove or argue the other (more prevalent) belief.

 

Economics and business are different subjects.

 

Can someone clarify for me why they're putting the video card in the external optical drive? Im not getting this. Does that mean you're stuck with crap quality display unless you have the Optical Drive connected?

 

meaning...?

 

probably something related to game theory