Sony Vaio Ultrabook by Christmas

Sony makes their cursor keys dropped on the SA/SB/SC, but still manages to make them teeny, lol

 

Take this as coming from a Z partisan:

1) The Z is just plain fragile, compared to many, but definitely compared to the MBA
2) It doesn't smoke the current MBA except in certain cpu-heavy apps that few probably use, in graphics - but only with the, er, "controversial" (read: inconsistent) PMD; The MBA scores higher on PCMark Vantage and on 3dMark06 with both using Intel HD 300
3) No question the Z kills everything in sight on display quality, but the MBA makes it, if only barely, into the category of "good" displays, far below the "superb" of the Z, but at least not barfy to look at. 900p, very bright, decent contrast and, well, let's not talk color or sharpness...
4) You didn't mention ports: I consider the lack of a USB3 and/or ExpressCard on the MBA as a deal killer for anything I plan to use as a main lappy. "Thunderboomerkillerdestroyerexplosive" port is useless until there are $100 portable drives that use it. Score one big advantage for the Z over the MBA, not so vs. the newer ubooks, but the latter miss in many other ways.

So, that's my answer to your query...

 

Even the Dell 15z has removed that extra row. No excuse for that at all on a 15" laptop. A design/style thing, as you said.

 

VPC-Z1 is plain fragile, even when compared to VGN-Z. VPC-Z2 is super solid and can give MBA and X220 a run for their money.

 

Thinking about the lack of dedicated keys, I found that between using the space bar to page down in FireFox/IE (I didn't know about this until recently) and setting the touch pad to use a two finger swipe to scroll quickly to the top or bottom of a page that I don't miss the keys as much as I thought.

Also, the Z2 has a function key right next to the arrow/pg keys so it's possible to use these keys with one hand. It's a simple but useful extra key.

 

I really wasn't just comparing to MBA. But performance is more than just cpu. The storage system smokes all others. The graphics (when using PMD) smokes all others. Better wifi than most. USB 3.0 which many are missing, available WWAN, better display performance, etc. My only REAL gripe vs. the ultrabooks is sound. Z2 speakers are disgusting.

 

I did not know that. Thanks. Almost enough to make me want a Z2. Not quite.

 

I think the Z is so far ahead of the rest of the VAIO range, it actually makes every other VAIO notebook look like cheap tacky knock-offs. But the current Z is not perfect. And I won't get started on just how awful those speakers are again...

 

Lamented???

 

I really like my VAIO SE... and I've been searching for a long time. Other than the numpad (I don't really like the off-center main keyboard) and not-super battery life, it's almost perfect for me.

That's why I would be interested in what kind of ultrabook Sony could do... I just think they might have a hard time with the $1000 limit (heh).

 

Does the MBA score higher than Z2?

MBA scores:
PCMarkVantage 9484 / 11230
3DMark06 4223 / 4236

Sources:
MacBook Air review (mid 2011) -- Engadget
Apple MacBook Air (13-inch, 2011) Review

Sony Z2 (intel GPU only):
PCMarkVantage 11991
3DMark06 4979

Source:
My own Z2 (version with SATA II disk and using the new 8.15.10.2476 drivers), test screenshots attached.

 

What is this $1000 limit everyone is referencing? There is no price limit to be certified as an Ultrabook. Intel would sure like to see sub $1000 though.

 

Maybe not a requirement for the specification but it was suggested:

Re-inventing the PC with Ultrabook? — The Intel Retail Advantage Blog

Plus, as a consumer, I would like them to be less than $1000... heck... $500 would be great so I can get multiples.

But we already know based on the Lenovo and ASUS... it's not "required".

 

My $.02 on all of this - Sony used to innovate here. Look at the X505. Sony had the small, cool, different thing locked up for years. The T series, the U series ... even the SZ and Z series to some degree. Now? To me they seem more of a 'me too'. They've taken a *few* chances (P series), but the revised X from a year or two ago was a chance to do something good. They didn't - the Atom IMO crippled it.

Sony really needs something small, light, and portable - yet powerful(ish) like the T series used to be.

For my money, Panasonic has picked up that gauntlet with the J, and to some degree, the S and N series (only difference is really the lack of ODD in the N). I used to buy Sony stuff, and it's still fun to look what's coming, but the Panasonic J10 really is a great machine. Is it as sexy as some of the Sonys I've owned? No. But in a sub-3lb, 10.1" package, you won't find much competition with this much power (mine has 16GB, 512GB SSD, and an i7-2620, and great battery life).

I miss Sony - the Sony that made my U70P (which I still own), the X505, and the T series.

 

^The fact is that netbooks scared Sony (rightfully) out of the premium <12" space. With the exception of a few power users, the concept of paying a "premium" for a tiny laptop was wiped out. We, here, are a pretty unique group of power users, and unfortunately it doesn't seem as though there are enough of us to make these ultra small (and expensive) laptops profitable for them.

 

Not quite clear why the Z2 doesn't fit that description.

 

It doesn't for many reasons.

1. It's too big - it's not a 10/11/12 inch screen. Sony used to be a leader in the smaller form factor. 13.1 is NOT a small laptop.
2. The Panasonic can go up to 16GB of memory. I don't see anywhere that the newer Z2 does, even in Japan. I may be wrong here (on the US SonyStyle site I only saw an 8GB [4GB x 2] option; same on the Japan site).

We're talking very different things here. Oh, and every single one of those other computers had an interchangeable battery (much like the Panasonic J/N/S).

But the U/T/X (the original ones) were not performance powerhouses, but more useful than netbooks. I always was able to run, say, VMware Workstation on them.

I'm pulling for Sony to come back, but I think they lost me for good.

I really used to love Sony - their ultraportables and even more full size computers (I owned the VGN-SZ90 and VGN-Z90, too) were really second to none. Now? Meh. They don't compete in the ultraportable space. They have conceeded it to everyone else.

 

That's exactly what ultrabooks aimed at to improve this situation. Strange if Sony will miss the target.

 

^Here we go back to ultrabooks again. Barring price, what is the issue with the Z when compared to ultrabooks? It's thinner, lighter, and faster. Do you want them to take the Z and make it thicker, heavier, and slower - and then call it an ultrabook????

 

See it in a different way: make it cheaper and yet (more) durable in terms battery life by withdrawing it from business sector of Z2. Why not? Ultrabooks, as I understand, are designed exactly for mass consumption sector... In 2010-2011, we saw expansion of this segment within Vaio line, didn't we?

With Ivy Bridge (w/ULV), we can even imagine the better: thicker, more durable, more powerful to cover the needs of both segmtnts: mass and business alike.

 

^Sounds fluffy. Z battery life is similar to ultrabook battery life - plus you get the option to double the battery life with the slice, unlike any ultrabook.

"Mass consumers" don't buy $1000+ laptops - and when they do, they buy Apple (sadly). The new Ultrabook "category" is an attempt to get those few consumers back to Windows machines.

 

Perhaps, you misundestood a bit. My point is that ultrabook concept can make this very feature (and some other belonging to business) cheaper, let's say, dawnward from 1000-1100 USD in perspective of 2012, with some sacrifice of power and materials (let's say M-alloy instead of Z's carbon fiber). We got Z split in 2011 resulted in SA/SB and Z, plus got a move of 11" to simple consumers in VPC-Y. See no reason why Sony must say "no" to profiting from split of Z2 into two: powerful and thick Z and cheaper X2 (U2 or whatever it will). This is just a guess, of course.

Yeah, this is a part of Intel's libretto...

 

^Fair enough. Issue is cost. ULV CPU's cost significantly more than FV. SSD's are expensive. Exotic materials (even m-alloy) are expensive. I just scratch my head about Intel's push into Ultrabooks. I think they feel that since the MBA is a success, that consumers want expensive thin and light notebooks. My opinion is the reason the MBA is a success is that it's the cheapest apple laptop available. Now the Ultrabook concept in the Windows world is MORE expensive that other Windows machines and significantly more expensive than other Windows machines with similar specs.

I would expect Sony lovers and Z owners to thumb there nose at Ultrabooks since the Z shreds everything in the Ultrabook space and pipeline by a significant margin on nearly every metric.

 

But what about people who want something like the Z giving up performance for a better price?

 

Wow, that is a great point. The least expensive MB is setting the standard for the higher end Windows machines. Apple has to love that.

I have to wonder how many people (excluding Z owners of course) buy a laptop based on size and coolness of the case? Americans certainly are well known for shopping strictly on price.

Every time I get a sales flyer for electronics stores (in Houston, TX) I can't help but notice that the only laptop priced greater than $1000 are the Apple products. It's very common to find full sized laptops that are cheaper than an iPad during those sales events.

The Z2 is the best computer I've ever owned -- and certainly the most expensive. However, I do still cringe a bit when I see a windows machine for 1/10 the price.

 

I scratch in the same manner, as Intel wants ultrabooks to occupy the share of 40% of all the mobile PCs to be sold in just 2-3 years. And this shift could NOT be attached to business sector only (as we know what is ultrabook: no discrete video, no powerful functionality of I/O etc. - all that barely fits into classic business standards as they are known to us now). I strongly believe Sony will join the game. Of course we can only contemplate about the real purpose behind it: to change our view of what is business mobile PC or to expand boundaries inbetween mass and business devices, or just standardize SSD systems.

 

^Intel's motive is simple, in my opinion. Sell more ULV parts. Remember they cost significantly more than their FV brothers.

 

^ Well, well, money isn't everything as the example of their white-styled competitor says .

 

I think people tried to use netwbooks and found them lacking, so we needed a new word for an ultraportable attached to a style (thin, relatively light form factor) that has been around for awhile. When netbooks gained popularity, the ultraportable segment took a big hit. So I wouldn't doubt to some degree it's wanting to sell ULV (i3 or i5) chips. But I think they're trying to also find that "good enough" for most that netbooks or tablets don't cover without breaking the bank, giving some style, and you don't need a desktop replacement.

 

Buy a used/clearance Z212 next year? Microsoft Store is selling them at $1500 already.

 

Or a YB, or an SA.

 

The Z isn't an ultrabook, it's the anti-ultrabook. Instead of a $1,000 notebook that would place it at the top-end of mass-market notebooks, the Z starts are twice the price and mid-range configurations can be close to triple the Z's price. It's just not in the same market segment as an "ultrabook." Nor will ultrabooks be competitors to the Z, they are not going to have the Z's screen, power, SSD array and other high-end features.

It makes no more sense to think of the Z as an ultrabook because it's small and lightweight than to consider an SL500 to be a competitor to a smartcar because they are both small and have two seats.

My guess is that this is the reason why Intel is making a substantial strategic move into ultrabooks. Apple's success with the MBA wouldn't push Intel in a new direction. The possibility of Apple replacing Intel in its most successful machine does. Intel (and MS) can't risk letting Apple and Apple-imitators take the ultralight market away from them.

 

(referring to my quote: "lamented Z2") Well, lamented by me for its many shortcomings and, IMO, for its failure to be an unequivocal improvement over the Z1. The reason I generalized the term is that, after reading so many frustrating posts from Z2 owners, and so many posts by Z1 owners deciding to sit out the Z2 entirely and stick with their Z1s...that's why I called it "lamented." Perhaps "flawed" would be more accurate. (And I totally get what is awesome about it too, so don't go there!)

I misspoke. I said the MBA13's benchmark scores exceed the Z2. Given the marginal differences (you only cited your own Z2 benchmarks, but some published ones for the Z2 had them about like the lower end MBA numbers you quote), let me amend that and say: on benchmarks that measure the speed and capability that most users notice, the MBA and Z2 play to a draw.

The point: doing the things a large majority of buyers of sleek, expensive notebooks do, the MBA can pretty much stand toe-to-toe with the Z2 for a lot less money. That's not saying the two machines are equals; but I doubt the majority of Z2 buyers (wealthy executives and professionals) would notice a difference if you put MBA hardware inside.

You have every right to your opinion, but mine is that the MBA is a success because it is an awesomely fast, awesomely thin and light computer, whether the bare bones entry level (which has less storage than some tablets) or the $1,200-$1,500 MBA13, to which no other ultrportable in its price range can hold a candle. You gotta know, I hate having to compliment Apple, but they just got that one smack-on, and their sales are showing it. The MBA 13 is on its way to being the #1 highest selling (in units) notebook computers in the land. That's why I think Intel and all the manufacturers want to make copies: because they will sell a ton of them! imo

 

^Couple points.

#1 The Z feels WAY faster than the MBA for most every normal task. Booting, loading apps, surfing the web, etc. Trust me, I use them both regularly, there is ZERO comparison (and yes I have the new S/B air).

#2 Let me just say I have a very intimate knowledge of all the sales #'s out there. I've seen the history of thin and lights and sellthrough, marketshare, etc. I also know for a fact that the MBP with the exact same specs (obviously adding FV cpu and ODD) as the MBA outsells the MBA significantly (read: an order of magnitude) when priced only slightly lower than the MBA. This tells me (and should tell you) it's all about the price of entry into Apple notebookland.

How many times have we seen a push around thin and light notebooks that failed? The ONLY success I've seen since I've been paying attention (20 years) is the MBA...and in my opinion it isn't coincidental that it happens to be the cheapest Apple laptop on the market.

 

Look at the pricepoint of the MBA vs 13" MBP. Who in their right mind would buy the MBP unless their job depended on having ODD? Relative to the MBA, I feel the MBP is $300 or so overpriced.

Now look at Windows machines. The 13" MBP equivelent sells for about $600-700. Now if you want thin and light (ultrabook) you must pay $200-600 MORE. It's a very different situation from Apple.

 

I'm going to assume:

700g
i5-2557M
Intel 3000
11" 1366 x 768 display
~8 hour runtime
128Gb SSD with options
Built-in 3G

~$1500 and up

I might be interested. I have a favourite, special-use sleeve that the Z doesn't fit into (but the 11" Crapbook does). And with the way the Z Intel 3000 driver is going, I might actually have better luck being able to use the full features of a 3000 with something like this which doesn't have switchable graphics.

 

I would 100% agree. I think the T series is a great example where you sometimes would pay more for portability. When the T and Z co-existed in the lineup, a T config could be more than a Z. As someone who prefers those form factors (hence currently owning a Panasonic J10), I know I will be paying more. In this case, I'm not paying for less in specs finally, but for getting it all in a 10.1" sub-3lb package.

 

I would like to discuss this a bit more.

There is a Windows machine equivalent of a 13" MBP prior to the the last few months that sold for $600-700?

Which ones? I thought the only MBP equivalent was the Envy and even that couldn't match the battery life of the MBP.

 

^You are taking my point literally, my fault. My point is if you want a basic windows machine with core i5, no graphics, 4.5lbs you won't have to look very far. Relatively speaking the ultrabooks are priced at quite a PREMIUM.

 

on #1 - I don't have a Z2 to compare, but I am rather certain that the boot time of the 2011 MBA 13 is faster than the Z2 by around 20 seconds (about 38 vs 18) in every review I have read. Also, and I must say this has baffled me, if you look at every review that tested disk transfer speed (each publication having their own type of test, the MBA 13 routinely scores a faster speed than the Z2; we're not talking huge file 600 mb/s sequential reads, but some "everyday" task each tester cooks up. I would cite the reviews, but am lazy and pressed for time; I'm quite confident that laptopmag.com, notebookcheck.net and pcmag.com would support this. So, I do believe you, Beaups, that the Z2 "feels" faster, but the test results must be reckoned with too, I think.

on #2 - I would have to say that the relevant comparison will be 4Q11, 1Q12 and beyond. EDIT: The MBA accounts for 1/3 of all Apple laptop sales http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...third-of-apple-notebooks-sales-and-rising.ars The ascendancy of the MBA is a very recent phenomenon.P eople are buying up MBAs (13 more than 11) in numbers heretofore unheard of at this price point and I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that it's success, as well as the onslaught of "copy cats" (aka "ultrabooks") has much to do with the fact that it is (though not for me) one of the finest notebooks ever made. (I can't believe I'm saying this about an Apple product, but, well, I'm a hater for reasons other than the merits of the products themselves. )

#3, and by far most important: where's my cable????

 

^#1 - my Z2 doesn't even take 20 seconds to boot, so it's physically impossible for my MBA to win by 20 seconds

#2 - again the MBA is the cheapest Macbook. If the 13" MBP was $600 like a Windows machine, how many people do you think would pay double for the MBA? This is the scenario Ultrabooks will be faced with.

#3 - I'll ship it this week, sorry!

 

And to add for #1, I use outlook on both platforms, excel on both etc. The Z2 is crazy faster for everything I use. Just loading the apps, big spreadsheets, etc. The MBA is no slouch, it's just no match for the Z2.

 

But doesn't size, screen, touchpad, design and battery life also factor into this? Just having the same specs isn't enough, at least to me, when it comes to a mobile computer.

While I agree with that, the "premium" is the thinness, weight and battery life. You are paying for the engineering that goes into making that possible. Whether or not the amount of that premium is worth it is subjective... but I imagine that as more vendors make them, the costs go down... just like all notebooks in general. I regularly see standard notebooks at $250... that was unheard of a few years ago... so this ultrabook category can only help with pricing across all categories.

 

If Apple labeled it as the Steve Jobs Limited Edition MBA and glued a facsimile of his signature to it, plenty.

 

I agree with you on most every point here. The point I'm trying to (unsuccessfully) make is that many are drawing a conclusion that the success of the MBA is somehow indicative of what the success of Ultrabooks should/will look like. I'm simply stating you cannot draw a parallel between the two, due to how apple stacked the deck with MBA vs. MBP pricing. Follow?

 

Ahh... I guess there was double confusion here... I understood your point about the MBA v MBP thing... I was just wondering what PC equivalents there were to the MBP that cost only $600-$700.

I understand you are saying that it's not really the form factor that drives MBA sales... if there were MacBooks that were $999 those would sell just as much (which I believe the white one did)... but I do think the form factor is significant.

Does Apple make the same or higher margins on the MBA vs the MBP? You would think that it cost more to make the MBAs due to form factor/SSD so by having lower prices than the MBPs doesn't make sense. With a rumored 15" MBA coming out... would people even pay more for the 15" MBP?

But back to what I was getting at... if PC makers can make PCs less than Apple (which everyone claims because "Apple is overpriced")... why can't they? Why weren't there MBP true equivalents that were cheaper? Why are these ultrabooks at $1000 or more (although the Tosh z835 at $799 )? I was looking at an MBP 15/17" for the longest time, tried out the Dell XPS 15z and then when they came out with the Sony SE, I sent back the Dell. Finally a fairly thin/light FHD PC notebook for ~$1000... still doesn't have the same battery life as an MBP... but with the slice it's close enough.

I assume Sony can do a ubook for < $1000 and could probably sell them... so why shouldn't they?

 

Oops. 10char

 

1 - Man, you've done some intensive tweaking, de-contenting and otherwise got the fastest, meanest cpu/SSD combo available, cuz no tester has come remotely close to that boot time with a Z2. (But then, I would expect only the best from you The MBA consistently boots in 16-19 secs and, of course, no one tweaks them - probably voids the warranty, lol.

2 - It's the MBA 13 that's selling the most (outselling the "cheapest" 11 3/1) and see my edit below: the MBA accounts for 1/3 of all Apple laptops - and that's in the past quarter. It will be up to 50% before long. (Willing to put my $ where my mouth is, you?)

3 - I hope you know that jibe was not in anger. Waiting 6 months seems pretty patient to me, though

So, I think this is discussion is getting a little silly. Like it or not, the MBA is as solid a home run product as we've seen in personal computers (and no, tablets don't count!) in a very long time. First successful new form factor since, well, the notebook itself! Not for me personally, but for legions and legions of notebook buyers with $1,200 or more to spend (and there are plenty), this product is both a work of art, a personal statement and the most powerful, durable and portable computer they have ever dreamed of. Whatever it's shortcomings, these buyers either don't care - or even know what they are - and workarounds do exist. Rumors that Apple will soon release an MBA15 (likely with at least 1680X1050 resolution) will make the MBA line the very definition of leading edge notebook design, and everyone else will rightfully be trying to copy their designs and undercut them on price - as well they should!

Where I don't agree with you, Beaups, is that I don't think this "ultrabook thing" is a flash in the pan. The increasing miniaturization of components - especially SSDs and elimination of optical drives means that computers can have incredibly thin bodies as long as they don't have to dissipate a great deal of heat. Both very thin and very light are extremely appealing virtues in a notebook computer and, like when you first experience an SSD, you just can't go back once you know how good it can be - and I think that goes for ultra thin and ultra light as well as ultra fast. The MBA has this pretty much perfected, but "Ultrabooks" are a work in progress; Asus has come so close, give it 6-9 months and they'll be at parity and prices will start to fall. Value buyers today will not give these $1,000+ marvels a second look - who really "needs" to have a computer so fast that it has already executed your command before you've taken your finger off the Enter key? Check out the Black Friday sales and you will be blown away at the power and features $400-$600 will get you! But 2011 has been the first year that the sub-$1,000 notebook is considered the norm. For years, you had to spend $1,000 - $1,500 to get a quality, latest tech notebook and, frankly, I think all the manufacturers are looking to get at least some of the market back towards those price points, where profits are higher too. Voila! The solution to everyone's problems, including some we didn't know we had!

I have spoken, far too long - sigh, again! - but I welcome continuing dissent. Cool thing is, we won't have to wait long to find out which way the market "votes!"

 

It doesn't matter that the current trend is toward smaller/lighter, it will change because all trends do. It wasn't that long ago the hot trend in cell phones was to small/light. The smallest phones were the coolest and commanded a premium (remember the $1000 StarTac?). Now small phones are the bottom of the heap and the move is to large smart phones. When the StarTac was the hottest phone, few would imagine that the market would demand much larger, heavier phones.

If ultrabooks are the hot category now, expect something else to overtake it, whether tablets, more powerful notebooks or something else.

 

I don't agree.

The only reason phones went bigger was because of the multimedia/apps/web and the combining of PDAs with wireless phones.

Even though screens are bigger... phone makers are still trying to make them thinner than everyone else's.

I think ultrabooks will become the mainstream category as people's perception of what a "mobile" computer to be is naturally a thin, light machine... just like tablets. I don't think that there are many people out there who wouldn't want all the power of their gaming/desktop machines in a light thin notebook that can stay cool and has the battery to last all day. It's progress and evolution... or else we would still be using vacuum tubes.