SA vs. Z, esp. screen?

I was pretty set on picking up a Z, but have recently been having second thoughts, mainly due to re-thinking the benefits of having everything integrated into the machine....

My main uses are office productivity (spreadsheets, etc), reviewing large arch. plans and specs, massive keyword searches through expansive databases, and photo editing. I`m a consultant that travels a lot, but don`t mind lugging a bit of extra weight around. My current laptop does not have an optical drive and I find it a bit of a PIA since a number of clients can`t use FTP sites and are forbiden to use USB drives for security reasons. So since I`ll usually be toting an external anyway, I figured it might be nice to have everything all together, and as for the graphics card, while a lot of post occurs at the desk, enough occurs on the road that lugging around the full Z dock might be a bit of a deal breaker (not to mention 2 (?!"/) power supplies - is there a way to plug the dock power supply directly to the laptop when I don`t need the dock dangling from the machine?)

Started considering the SA as an alternative but am seeing some negative comments regarding the screen quality (e.g. the recent thread about 512 SSD failure).

I would be looking at a 1600x900 in either the SA or the Z (I would like the higher res. in the Z but don`t think my eyes could hack it for extended periods); my question is, are there differences in the two screens (SA vs Z) in the same res., and if so, what are they?

Reliabilty is super important to me, so any comments comparing the two on that aspect are very welcome. Any other thoughts?

I really wish that I could see the Z first hand, but the SONY stores in Quebec say that they are only available as special order due to langauge laws...crazy.

Thanks in advance.

 

I have both, difference is night and day.

Viewing angles, color gamut, contrast, brightness, etc.

SA screen is simply horrible, I use a Z and my GF uses an SA.

 

At either resolution, the Z screen is flat-out better than the SA.

 

What about the build quality of the two?

 

SA can't compete.

Except for the battery rattling, I can't find any flaws in my Z1, it's solid.

My girlfriend's SA's fans are humiliating in public, she can't even use speed mode in the library as the fan kicks up like an airplane for no reason at all.

 

The Z is too underpowered for my needs.

What are your thoughts on the durability of the SA?
Does it have a sturdy enough backing for the machine to survive consistent travel?

How does it fair against the Alienware line, specifically the M14x?

 

If you are not a photographer or photo editor, then there will be no different between Z2 and SA LCDs. I agreed that Z2 has much better LCD quality, but it has nothing to help you if you only use it for web, documents, or watching a movie.
If money is not your concern, go for Z2 since it's a beautiful laptop. However, there are some downside too as you may already know. Z2 is lacking of internal optical drive and a dedicated graphics (external through PMD). CPU, Memory, and SSD are not user upgradable.
With SA, you have lower LCD quality, but it still way better than any other laptops at the same spec. You can upgrade CPU, Memory or SSD if you want, and also you have internal optical drive.
SA downside is it weighs more than Z2, but you don't have to mess with external PMD in case it needed.
Battery life may be the same for both Z2 and SA.

 

^ you can't upgrade the CPU on SA; it's soldered onto the motherboard.

 

In case anybody is following this thread and looking for more info, check out this one:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sony/651041-sony-vaio-z-vs-sony-vaio-s.html

my bad for botching the search function and thanks to forum regulars for not jumping down my throat....is there any way to merge the threads, or delete this one...?

 

I am not 100% sure, but both CPU-Z and PCWizard report CPU type is socket rPGA988B

 

They tell that on my Z1 as well and it has a soldered CPU.

 

That's good to know.