SONY unibody-design

Why the hell doesn't Sony come out with a UNIBODY design? It's the most durable laptop design out there...it just can't be beat as far as durability and toughness go.

It's a no-brainer as far as i'm concerned. It's the future....

I love Sony, just wish they'd go UNIBODY.

 

There are Lenovo users out there who'd beg to differ.

The new Z has a precision-milled cover. It's the closest they have right now.

 

All non unibody cases flex...and that causes problems. Problems you definitely notice over time. They begin to "give" over time begin to creak and sqeak, its a huge problem for the lid/LCD screen especially because if the screen flexes it'll become damaged & wear out faster (as mine has).

This happens to all non unibody enclosures. They just aren't as durable and never will be.

The unibody enclosure eliminates all flex and therefore your laptop will last longer...

 

Poweruser, i think the issue is with engineering. Unibody is a good solution, but if it was the only solution everyone would be using it. I have seen Lenovo's that are crazy strong, and that was years before any body did unibody. I think you are exaggerating a problem that doesn't really exist sorry.

 

The unibody design concept has its own set of flaws. Some manufacturers take the approach that if it is rigid it can break, dent, or shatter easier and therefore utilize a solid but flexible design. The assumption that rigid = strong is not always true. The Unibody concept can also be more costly and difficult to repair.

 

Have you any idea how hot a unibody chassis will be if it was made to the same dimensions of the thin & sleek Z series? Apple are having a lot of problems with the i7 chips & heat:

Core i7-equipped MacBook Pro hits 100 degrees Celsius, your lap cowers in fear -- Engadget

"The metal shell proved ineffective at dissipating the heat"

I think the current Z model is fantastically designed. It's strong & sturdy and copes well when running hot.

 

Yes but a unibody design does not mean that the laptop has to be made out of AL. AL is prone to denting when dropped and scratches so it has its drawbacks as well.
Although if you look after your laptop and don't drop it you shouldn't have these problems.

A true carbon fibre or magnesium alloy unibody chassis I think should in theory be more durable etc than an AL unibody chassis.

The Panasonics of this world are among a few of the toughest laptops out there and these laptops are not unibody in design. Or at least i don't think they are?

 

Apple unibody is probably the prettiest but durable? Obviously you never had/used one. It is almost piece of art and like that adorable but usability is different story the heat but above all the dents that you cannot hammer out like in a car.
IBM are definitely the toughest (except Panasonic) unfortunately heavy and ugly.
When weight and durability are concerned Sony`s carbon models are the best.

 

I'm going to be honest, even if it exposes my ignorance/stupidity . I truly don't understand the adoration of form over function...like appearances even matter. For me, as long as the laptop isn't butt ugly, I don't much care what it looks like. Said differently, appearance is an item of convenience, especially in the ultra-portable form factor. Advanced engineering is its own art form.

More important is how it works...its performance, power, display, functionality and options. As a techie at heart, I find the phenominal engineering feat of the Z11 a masterful work of engineering art - yes, art. True, you have to remove a few screws to actually see it, but it's amazing to see.

And yet, Sony wasn't content to allow that engineering-only art to be "good enough." They went and designed it to be capable of running advanced, power-hungry programs - including the latest games - all while remaining cool to the touch. And then they make it super thin and strong with a moderate assortment of lid designs to choose from.

That leaves me close to speechless. What an amazing acheivement. Seriously. It stands alone in a category it created for itself as a device with the fewest compromises of any ultraportable ever.

 

This isn't a discussion of esthetic's or whether or not you find unibody "pretty". That's irrelevant.

This is a merit-based discussion on how the unibody design is superior to the typical bolted-on frame with many seams/screws concept.

The bottom line is, nothing beats it. It's sturdier than hell and gives NO flex. I don't care what material SONY decides to make a unibody out of...choose any material and it's still sturdyer in a unibody form than its piecemeal equivalent.

No "piecemeal" enclosure is equal to or superior than that of unibody. It just isn't and never will be.

Hurry up SONY.

 

You obviously have very strong feelings about this even thought there are some real valid points why it's not such a great thing.

I don't want a unibody sony. I don't want dents all over the place...I don't want to burn my lap...I don't want the extra weight it adds (compare macbook pro to Z please). I don't want to lose 1/2 my ports because too many holes makes a unibody too weak. And lastly, I'd like to be able to replace my battery when I want to.

 

I think that maybe you missed my point. The "hidden" message in my reply is that there's nothing intrinsically more structurally sound about a uni-body construction than what Sony has done with the Z11. Thus, if the choice to go with a uni-body doesn't have to be for structural reasons, the only other choice (that I can see) is aesthetics.

As for your comment about "no...enclosure is equal to or superior than that of uni-body," it is important to note that you are expressing your opinion and not a fact. Disallowing flex does NOT necessarily make a structure stronger. Consider a skyscraper, for example. If it didn't flex, it would break and topple over in a steady wind (of surprising low force). Granted, a laptop is not a skyscraper, but it does illustrate the point that flex and strength are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, to the extent that a structure cannot flex, it exposes itself to a greater risk of breaking/damage. Flex represents structural "give" and the less give a structure has, the more the structure has to take an impact/force "on the chin."

 

This is an interesting discussion, I've been thinking about Sony using multiple parts + screws as well. Would you have any data / statistics available, it would be great to look at the figures.

 

Yes but as mentioned you could have an all carbon fibre unibody laptop etc.
Unibody is just the form of design but it has come to be associated with Macs.

 

PowerUser,

You state things that are patently false as if they are proven laws of nature.

The unibody has its strengths and weaknesses. It is very rigid which does provide a platform with little flex and one that won't develop creaks over time. However, the unibody is actually bad in relation to durability because of this rigidity. A study of high school level physics will reveal how stiff objects experience much greater forces at impact than softer ones. A semi-flexible body attached to a stiff frame can greatly increase durability, which is exactly what car designers do (not to mention Thinkpad designers).

Also, the unibody design gives less airflow which greatly increases heat (which is really bad for electronics over the long term).

You can love the unibody design all you want, it is pretty cool. But please don't go around making false statements in support of your preferred design approach.

 

Please tell me you are kidding .. and as the owner of an IT company and an owner of over 20 unibody macbook pros .... your a little off the mark.

1: unibody design transfers ALMOST ALL external stresses to internal components. for example a trucking company had 11 MBP15" units die in under 4 months because of board fractures from vibration in vehicle mounts .. Apple happlily NULLIFIED the warranty because of undue stresses. Ideally for such a design you would need to incorperate a shock mount which adds to the dimentions of the machine.

2: unibody design is inherently bad for cooling as you need to keep as much " meat " on the outside to retain rigidity. therefor you should design it with smaller venting and less ports and holes in the main structure, its basic design theory and practicality.

3: excuse me flex can be good. ever dropped a unibody, NORMALLY the damn thing bends or dents amd many times causes internal damage. I can live with a cracked corner or even part of a missing shell ... I CANNOT live wothout a functional machine.

another poster said it much more elloquantly though

Thank you Frink

now im just scratching the basics.

FEELING sturdy and BEING sturdy and durable are completly different concepts.

Ever tried a toughbook? the casing is over 40 pieces, and 130 screws and well its build quality makes your " unibody " seem like tinkertoys for quality and durability. its just not THIN AND PRETTY.

Very true, A true carbon fibre unibody would be much stronger than AL which is inherently malleable and the strength of said existing machine comes from an annodizing process on the outer .5mm its metalurgy basics people, AL is CHEAP, flexable untreated and easy as heck to mill. any shopteacher letalone welder or machinist can tell you this.

now a Carbon fibre unibody with a MG/Ti chassis for backup would be spectacular but expensive.

Quite correct and the unibody design is just that .. design it actually is purely aesthetics and not form at this point in time

 

This is the key for me.

 

Love the summary, knight427. Nice and nerdy, just the way I like it. Flex is part of the design of laptops, specifically with the Z series. I'll agree that some level of flexibility is desirable. Use the reed in the wind analogy, if you will.

I've posted this several times, and I realize this is a first gen but watch this video.
YouTube - The Test Lab: VAIO Z Pressure Test

PowerUser123,

I think we can all agree that solid aluminium is structurally rigid and aesthetically pleasing, but saying it superior to all other designs is wildly subjective. There just isn't any factual data supporting this.

We hear you, you want a unibody Sony. I'd like to see one too.

We've stated several concrete reasons why unibody construction isn't the end-all, be-all of laptop design. Each have their own merits, but there is no absolute winner.

 

I want my next Sony to be made of marshmallows that way if you drop it there will always be something soft for it to land on

 

ROFLMAO, priceless

but im thinking that may be a little too soft but would come in handy for a quick sugar fix

 

On a serious note I have owned a few macbook pro's including the air and also a unibody 15" and I think the Sony is just as strong and light as any unibody macbook/pro.

@ The OP, To say that unibody is much stronger without evidence to back them claims up is a bit foolish in my personal opinion

 

That's preposterous. The relatively large mass of the internal components would quickly gain sufficient momentum to overcome the spring stiffness and thus the entire force of impact would be transferred directly to the internal components, which they themselves could not withstand due to their rigidity and fragility. Also, even under normal use, the thermal output from the primary components would certainly exceed the melting point of the marshmallow body. Boy, sometimes you have to wonder if people have any idea of how the world works.

 

LOL I was all set to email Sony with my new idea for a new Sony 'M' Series

 

They tried that. Apparently the batteries had problems with spontaneous combustion.

 

There are many ways to skin a cat. Unibody is one way of making a strong structure, but there are others.

In any case Apple did not invent unibody computers by any means. I had Panasonic W5 and Y5 laptops that were magnesium alloy unibodies, and those were bought in 2006 and 2007. And Panasonic had been making unibodies before that. Incidentally theirs were very light for the size:
- 12" 4:3 screens with integrated DVD drive at 2.8lbs, 12 hour battery life
- 14" 4:3 screen with DVD at 3.5 lbs, 8 hour battery life

Those are real life battery numbers and the devices can be dropped from 10 foot or put under a couple hundred pounds of pressure without breaking anything inside.

So I wouldnt fetish-ize Apple too much on the issue. They didnt invent unibody and they havent even done it as well was what was done long before. How they got a patent on it cannot imagine. The people at the patent office should be fired, honestly.

 

lol, look at how hot a unibody mac gets:

Core i7 MacBook Pro Hits 100 Degrees Celsius in Benchmark Tests - Reviewers actually had to stand the system on its side, in order to continue their performance examination - Softpedia

100 degrees Celsius is the boiling temperature of water, which is 212 Fahrenheit.

 

Guys come on. No where did I mention Apple. Just because I'm discussing "unibody" doesn't mean we're discussing Apple. Apple doesn't "own" the unibody concept so please, for the sake of this discussion, disassociate the two.

Macbook's becoming boiling hot is comical but in no way relevant as that's directly the fault of Apple's design and not the fault of the unibody itself. See what I mean?

 

In earthquake zones put me in a building that flexes. You can have the unibody building.

 

Unibody is over-rated. Period.

Any damage done to it is transferred through the entire structure. Unless you design in areas to absorb damage. Look at modern cars, yes the occupants are safer, but the car is designed to absorb the energy in a crash, which leads to MANY MANY cars being totaled more often than before.

Ultra portable laptops have zero room energy absorption. You need every square millimeter for cooling or part. Even then there is the fact that any damage would mean replacing the entire unibody, which is not as cheap as a $20-$30 piece of plastic or magnesium from Ebay.


As for the strength issue...
There are older Dells (and possibly a few Sonys) that were magnesium and you could actually run them over with a car and not do damage. There were NOT unibody.

The Mac unibody is more about marketing and image than it is about strength. The layered design Sony uses is awesome as it allows room for flex and if something is damaged, it's easily and cheaply replaced.

I would much rather replace a bumper on my car than the unibody. Unibody is easier to build tough, light and cheaply. It doesn't mean it's the best way to build something. Try towing with your unibody car and see what happens.

 

I have a Dell XPS from work. It is basically a magnesium allow base and plastic cosmetic casing, I dont know what the frame inside it is, if any. tOn 3-4 occasions over the past 18 months the laptop has dropped from the handrest of my sofa at home flat to the ground. Okay yes, a couple pieces of cosmetic plastic chipped off it near the hinges and the battery casing cracked. But inside not a single component broke or stopped working. Externally all structural points and joints are fine.

So the unibody approach is more visual than anything. You dont need it in order to have a laptop that can take a beating.

 

So, what is an example of a unibody design? I want to see what all the fuss is about. Does the Z11 qualify as a unibody given that everything, including the backing, is all bolted onto the main aluminum chassis?

 

I wasn't using that example to make apple look bad, i was trying to make the point that unibody isnt thermally effective, especially at dissipating heat.

 

HP envys are magnesium alloy...

 

Magnesium in notebooks is not new.

Sony was doing it 12+ years ago, as was Dell.
Sony still uses a lot of it, the SZ has quite a bit of it inside. It also has quite a bit of aluminum.


Open most HP or Dell these days though and you might find a thin strip of metal shielding and that's it.

 

Depends on the model...consumer lines are usually in the 500-1,000 price point doesn't leave a lot of room for metal construction. There's still a solid metal chassis inside the Dell Latitude e6XXX line as well as most HP Elitebooks.

Truth of it is that most pro grade laptop chassis outlive the components useful life. When most consumers tether laptops to their desk and buy new ones at the first sign of problems, there's little added value to overbuilding the chassis.

My work Dell D610 when I turned it in for a D630 was still perfect despite being a hand me down. It was horribly slow and underpowered compared to the C2D 2.2 the D630 had but it was plenty tough. The D630 was flawless outside of the Nvidia chip problems and had only light paint chips after 2 yrs of going everywhere with me. I was scheduled for an E6400 when I changed jobs to a non-tech company and wound up w/ a recycled 5yr old Thinkpad R51. It's an absolute tank of a computer but despite not having the rollcage tech, it feels fairly solid and like new outside of the horsedrawn carriage of a processor and legally blind compatible 10x7 screen. I do find it funny that my entire Adamo is thinner than the R51's screen.

 

The Sony TT that i own is essentially unibody design.

It seems like some people have slightly different perceptions of what a unibody design is.

The Panasonic models have removable keyboards, the dvd is enclosed but the top case is not one solid sheet so to speak.

http://davesource.com/Solutions/Disassembling-a-Panasonic-Y5/

 

Your conclusion is still wrong. The macbook not being thermally efficient isn't a result of the unibody, rather, this is a poor reflection of Apple's chosen design of the unibody itself & how Apple's management of thermal properties (which was adequate with last years tech but now under-designed).

A unibody can be milled/formed/stamped in any infinite number of ways in any material to allow for more efficient cooling. Someone mentioned the Z being more efficient at cooling and that's because it has a fan port on one side, right? Well there's no reason a unibody couldn't have this too.

Ask yourselves this question, would you rather have whatever notebook you use now as-is with the piecemeal frame, or the same notebook with a unibody enclosure?

If you're at the store and two laptops are sitting side by side, identical in every way including price (same manufacture, identical design) except one is unibody and the other is not, which do you choose?

I rest my case.

 

Rest if you wish, but you're still missing an obvious point. Uni-body construction is, by definition, an exoskeletal design. Just like an insect's body, all the structural strength/integrity comes solely from the exterior.

The problem with that is, as other posters in this thread have stated, that the more holes you poke in that exoskeleton, the weaker it becomes. In the case of a laptop, that means that if you have serious heat-generating components inside it (like an Intel i7 processor and and nVidia graphics chip), you have a difficult choice to make:

1. Poke more holes in the shell and thereby weaken it

OR​

2. Choose cooler components and/or underclock them to prevent the heat

OR​

3. Cross your fingers and hope for the best ​

Unibody is nice, but it has its limits. All that's required to admit this is a basic knowledge of physics and a degree of intellectual honesty.

 

IMHO having a unibody design does not equate to better performance. There are many factors that contribute to a "good" notebook.

Without hard evidence (ie. comparing 2 versions of the same notebook - one with unibody design and the other without) to support the assertion, such debate is simply going nowhere.

 

the one with the higher reliability and resistive strength ... at this point that is the non unibody. I hate treating machines like china dolls so overall durability is highest on my list over aesthetics.

 

With regards to the unibody vs non debate...

Taking an analogy from cars and trucks, in this case there is a very definite and obvious tradeoff. Most passenger cars sold today are of unibody construction. However if you want a rugged durable off-road vehicle, unibody is a poor choice.

The reason cars have unibody is because it allows greater flexibility in the design and layout of the car without the hard constraints a frame imposes. Trucks, off-road vehicles, military vehicles etc. with only few exceptions do NOT use unibody construction.

There are many reasons those types of vehicles don't use it but what is germain here is that the blanket statements you make:

just do not hold water. You need to gain a more nuanced view and in the process perhaps gain a better engineering understanding.

 

If you are changing your argument from, "unibodies are more durable" to "unibodies are prettier" you won't get an argument from me.

 

I think your question itself is a no-brainer. If you think UNIBODY as ultimate in design why more notebook manufacturers arent following it ? If you look at Apple users forum you will see tons of people having issues with their unibody notebooks. So having unibody or non-unibody doesnot make much of a difference rather than what you can do with it.

 

Unibody isn't any prettier, you can easily wrap a nice skin around any notebook if a manufacturer wanted.

Personally, I don't think the Macbook is the pinnacle of styling some make it out to be.

 

Agreed.
My notebooks get tens of thousands of miles on them each year, they take a beating.

 

I don't really think there's any "pinnacle of industrial design" laptop out there. The Apple machines are nice, aesthetically but horribly designed in many aspects.

Eg,

* Poor Wifi reception
* very sharp edges on the palm rest (particularly around the depression you use to open the screen)
* Poor quality control (haha, yes) - I've yet to see a MacBook Pro (or PowerBook G4) where the hinges were properly centered and the screen rested flat when closed.
* Their power bricks
* Loose/gaps in the panels even despite the unibody

It happens. Granted, my Sony has far more design issues than anything I've ever purchased from Apple, but it runs a lot cooler than any Mac laptop I've owned too.

 

Then please name a unibody notebook that doesn't have cooling issues. Honestly, if I had to decide between unibody and other design, I would choose the one that can best keep the components cool (which is most likely a non unibody). The reason you CANT put vents/holes at the bottom or sides of unibodys is because they will break or bend easily, which is why any unibody would have cooling issues (due to the limitations discussed). Sure, it could be solved by increasing the amount of fans or fan power, but the consequences would be energy drainage and more noise. And another disadvantage of unibodys is if you want to upgrade your ram, you have to remove a bunch of screws and the entire bottom, which is inconvenient.

 

Well now you guys are all just piling on and arguing against the one guy willing to take a stand. So in the interest of fairness I will join his side.

Unibody is better simply because it's cool (although not necessarily in the thermal sense of the word ). Also because it's uncommon.

[Apparently] just about anybody can make a traditionally designed laptop. But unibody takes a little more care and perhaps requires a discerning buyer to recognize and to truly appreciate its true advantages.

 

It's different.
I wouldn't say it takes any more or any less effort to design or make.

Apple uses it as a selling point, Anyone could also say multi-layered framework is a design feature. Design features are anything you can put a marketing spin on. It doesn't necessarily mean it is better.

 

Yes, it's true that the, so called multi-layered approach could be marketed as a design feature. But the whole point is that those are a dime a dozen whereas there aren't that many of the other type (making it special ).

On a separate note, it seems to me that the Z11 could be considered to be unibody. Given that everything is bolted onto the aluminum plate (including the back).