New Vaio 2008 model listing with indication prices - FW - Z - SR - BZ

Don't forget that the pics are showing the Z and SR at different sizes. If you scale them to the same size, here's what you get:

 

^^They look identical.

 

How it's possible???

What about 3Dmark's scores of the Z series?

 

Here's the actual difference in screen coverage (16:9 vs 16:10):

 

Thanks for sharing SoundsGood.

Really weird though, when I switch between the "Specificatios"-tab of the Z and the "Specifications"-tab of the SR on sonystyle.com, those two seem very different in size; Since the width of the images there is equal, and both models have equal widths in practice as well, I don't understand how the heights can seem to differ that much in those images (at the "Specifications"-tab on sonystyle.com) ...

I'm confused :S

 

Do please consider that the difference will optically decrease the more you scale down the image.

 

Phil and others:

Can you install a second hard drive into the optical drive bay of the Z? Is that even an option on any of the Sony's?

Answer much appreciated.

 

seems like you can with the dual raid ssd drive configuration 64x2=128gb ssd

 

Hm..good question. Are there any "multi drivers" in latest sony vaio models? Maybe in BZ model??

It would be awesome if we could use a second battery in a multi drive...

 

I noticed that they have some of the newer models on Newegg (one SR, and two lower end FW). Anyone willing to order from Newegg? The SR model is $1399 after $50 instant rebate, and the two FWs are $1149/$1199, difference is in OS.

SR:
P8400, Vista Premium, 2GB (1 slot occupied), HD 3470, 250GB 5400RPM, 13.3" LED ECO
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834117791

FW:
P8400, Vista Premium, 3GB (2 slots occupied), HD 3470, 250GB 5400RPM, 16" ECO, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834117792
*, Vista Business, *, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834117793

Not sure if they're available immediately. Anyone getting their new Sony with warranty?

 

Anyone know if the 2.26 P___ is equivalent or slower to the T___ 2.4 ghz's?

I got a 2.4 GHZ SR at sony for 1789 w/ 1GB RAm, 250GB and ATi, at Newegg I could get that same config for 1535.58 but with the 2.26 GHZ.

 

I WISH they would just use the P8600 as defualt... that's THE ONLY THING holding me back from buying pre-configured. i just want a configuration that has the P8600 but NOT 4 GB Ram and a huge harddrive.

 

any input on this

 

I took two pieces of paper, taped them together, then measured and cut to see the footprint size of the FW.

It's huge! Just trying to find a place to put it on my kitchen table (where I often work) was difficult.

Based on the size of this baby, I think it will feel pretty heavy when moving it around. Just my 2 cents.


EDIT: Keep in mind that I've got a Dell D420 (11.63 x 8.27 x 1" and only 3.1 lbs.) so I'm used to very small and very light. You may feel differently about the size/weight of the FW.

I actually started considering the FW for myself, since I work from home and don't like to be pinned down to one spot (where my 20" external monitor is). BUT... after looking at the gargantuan FW paper cutout I made I think I''d better stick to something smaller!

 

I went back and forth on the FW sizing issue, considering other laptops that are 15.4" & 14" but in the end Sony awesome HiColor screen wins and I'll just have to live with FW size

 

Regarding the screen size of the Z vs. the SR/SZ, here's what I calculated (availible in the spreadsheet I posted a while back):

Vaio Z screen dimensions: 11.42" x 6.42"
Vaio SR/SZ screen dimensions: 11.28" x 7.05"

So the Z's screen is just 0.14" wider than the SR/SZ, and is about 0.63" inches shorter vertically. Also, the Z is 7.7% smaller in area (width x height) than the SR/SZ.

Also, 1366x768 has slightly more pixels total than 1280x800, so I'm not too worried about losing desktop space or anything. The main concern I guess is that the screen will be too small, which is valid, but then it comes down to preference. If you want the extra 7.7% screen space, go for the SR/SZ. If .5 pounds lighter and the other portability features of the Z are important to you, it may be worth it.

 

Speaking of which... what's up with all the different types of XBRITE?

The Z has XBRITE-DuraView, the SR has XBRITE-ECO. Both are LED backlit.

The FW offers XBRITE-ECO or XBRITE-HiColor, but neither are LED backlit.

I'm guessing that XBRITE-ECO must be somewhere in the middle, but how are we to know how XBRITE-DuraView compares to XBRITE-HiColor?

 

you can't go wrong with XBrite HiColor... I loved it on a FZ.

 

Sony just made the base price for the SR cheaper by like $50.
but then they upped the 3470 upgrade to $99 from $50.

wth sony playing games?

 

Why is it not LED backlit?

 

huh? its still 1399 over here and the upgrade has always been 99 since the first minute it came out

 

I have an SZ now which I will be upgrading to a Z as soon as I can figure this question as to the Z being too small. Is 7.7% screen space really make a difference? Your making me think twice about this decision. And will text be comprable to SZ as I see now? I now the reolution on SZ 1200x800 and the Z I would like to order has 1600x900, will these resolution REALLY make a BIG DIFFERENCE? CONFUSED....

 

the graphics card is not the only thing that has to be changed, its usually followed with a better cooling system hence why vaios have not burned out their GPUs. the SR is tiny so you pay extra comparing it to the FW.

 

7.7% screen space is not that much, but the resolution difference is huge. I wonder how such a high resolution would look on a 13.1" screen. Right now I am using an old Dell with a 1680x1050 resoultion, so I imagine things would be weird on the Z.

 

I know going from 1024x768 to 1200x800 is a considerable difference, so then going to 1600x900 just almost must be a big difference...

From the other hand; I can't imagine that Sony just created an expensive 13,1" with a resolution (1600x900) that would make it impossible/uncomfortable to work with... Damn, I want a Z but I'm scared/confused as well!

 

depending on how you configure it, it will weigh from 6.4 to 6.7 lb. the general 15.4" laptop is about 6.18 lbs and the 17" desktop replacements are around 8-10 lbs.

if you used a 15.4" this won't feel that heavy, if you've used the standard desktop replacement it will feel great

 

To me, the only reason to get the high screen resolution is if you get the blu-ray drive, otherwise I would rather have the 1366x798 resolution.

 

Just imagine...

 

I totally agree with your statement. The Z with 1600x900 is so high-end and ridiculously expensive that it would not let down people, hopefully such as myself, that will consider buying this particular model.

Tell me, I borrowed a friends TZ. And the was uncomfortably small until I manipulated DPI. Can The Z be as bad as the TZ?

Also, how do you REFRESH a page?...lol

 

Yeah, but the 1600x900 resolution offers options that the 1366x798 doesn't. I don't remember what they were, but I would have to go to Sonystyle CTO to figures those out later.
That's whats making it so hard to decide...Oh I think its the CPU on the 1600x900. It offers 9600 v/s 8500.

 

I'm guessing that this higher resolution will result in a screen that has the same size type as the TZ. Look at that and if you don't like it, stick with the standard-resolution screen.

I would opt for the higher resolution given the 0.61-inch loss in vertical resolution due to the move to 16:9.

 

You could buy and install that cpu yourself.

 

Ok, How is this better?

 

Almost exactly as bad:

11.1 @ 1366 x 768 = 141 PPI - TZ
13.1 @ 1600 x 900 = 140 PPI - Z

 

Maybe the Z is so high-end that it really only is intended to be nothing more than the perfect portable movie player!

 

YIKES!, It is very close. Ok that answers my question. THANKS SOOOOOOOOO MUCH. I still getting a Z, but with 1366x768. How did you calculate PPI for this model?

 

In the post I made a while back, I compared the DPIs (or PPIs) so you can see which resolution would be best. Personally I'm gonna get the 1366x768 version because 1600x900 would most likely cause too much eye strain when reading/typing for hours. It's pretty much identical to the TZ in PPI. You might be able to scale everything up in Vista, but I doubt it would scale things like icons, etc., in which case the feature just becomes useless to me (although I may be wrong about this). Either way, I don't think the 1600x900 is worth paying the extra money if you're gonna scale everything up anyway. Also, I bet you'd get slightly better battery life with the low-res version.

And whether or not 7.7% difference in screen space is too small for you depends on your personal preference. Remember though that the even the low-res (1366x768) Z still has more total pixels than the SZ/SR, so technically you can fit more on the screen. Also, in terms of scroll-space (vertical resolution), the Z is only 4% less than the SZ/SR, which really isn't that much if you think about it.

 

SoundsGood.....I have an SZ what's the PPI on 1200x800 compared to Z with 1366x768?

 

Ok Good to know, Ok I've decided on the 1366x768. There's nothing like eye fatigue. Now how does 1366x768 compare to the SZ at 1200x800? Would you say similar since Z at 1600x900 is simlar to TZ....

 

I did the math yesterday, comparing FW and SZ. SZ has 113.5 PPI. FW is slightly better, 111.9 PPI. So, PPI wise, if one is comfortable with SZ, one should feel comfortable with FW too. I think I would buy FW to replace my SZ.

 

Here's a little cheat-sheet I made for myself, listed by smallest text first:

11.1 @ 1366 x 768 = 141 / Sony TZ
13.1 @ 1600 x 900 = 140 / Sony Z
15.4 @ 1680 x 1050 = 129 / My Dell 6000
12.1 @ 1280 x 800 = 125 / My Dell D420
13.1 @ 1366 x 768 = 119 / Sony Z
13.3 @ 1280 x 800 = 113 / Sony SR
16.4 @ 1600 x 900 = 112 / Sony FW
15.4 @ 1440 x 900 = 110 / Dell 1530
20.0 @ 1680 x 1050 = 99 / My Dell 20" Monitor
15.4 @ 1280 x 800 = 98 / FYI only

 

OK, will one feel comfortable from the SZ to the Z with 1366x768?

 

This helps alot, but where does the SZ fall in the list compared to Z with 1366x768?

 

Same as Sony SR, I believe.

 

btw guys Vista SP1 is allowing GPU to use memory that it has addressed but isnt using. therefore the GPU's would get a considerable boost on 4 GB ram. I believe thats why if you look at the specs it says upto 1500something MB for GPU.

 

It's hard to say for sure until you actually see it in person, but according to the calculations, it should be very close. Certainly not enough to cause eye strain I would think.

P.S. If you want to play around with the calculations spreadsheet I made, I've attached it to this post. It's pretty useful for calculating all kinds of screen statistics for any screen you want. You can change any non-colored value and the colored (calculated) values will update instantly.

 

Last question on PPI. Will the Z at 119 PPI make a difference from a SZ with 113 PPI? I wish I could see the difference.

Thanks, I'll just Google it, Maybe they might show text on different PPI's. I am so glad I got this information from all of you. I was about to get that 1600x900 Z, I'm glad I slept on it. A few more days of research and I will place my order. Cross my fingers.

 

it shouldn't be too different to your eye

 

Hey, when watching Blu-Ray movies, will 1600x900 make a really big difference with 1366x768?

I know I can't afford Blu-Ray, but I was just curious. I would rather have Blu-Ray than SSD, I think..lol.

 

I think it will be fine.

But I think you would have hated yourself if you went with the higher res.