Will Sony make a notebook to compete with the Macbook Air?

It just seems odd that the industry as a whole hasn't come up with a true competitor to the Air. With Sony being one if not the top high-end PC laptop maker...is there any word of an ultrathin in the works?

 

The thing is, the Air is a fad and this whole ultra-thin laptop craze is a gimmick. If you want an ultra-portable (different from ultra-thin) laptop, Sony has plenty of options including the TT and Z series.

 

Hear, hear! I think my VAIO Z is thin enough for everyone.
What really got it going for me is that the Z is only slightly heavier than the Air, but still has an optical drive.

If you can't fit a Z in your bag, I can hardly imagine the Air will.

 

The Z destroys the air in every way except its only ounces heavier and a little thicker all around, but that tradeoff will get you one hell of a machine. I am incredibly impressed with my new Z690, and glad that I made the switch from Apple to Sony.

 

Well I find the Z too expensive for what's really an SR with better guts

I don't see how the Air is a "gimmick". That's just fanboy speak. The Air is a real marvel, if it werent for OSX....and being from Apple

 

I wouldn't be surprised if sony made a competing notebook. I mean sony already resurrected the p-series who is to say they won't resurrect the x-series. The macbook air is a marvel in "a way". I feel like the Air is more of a publicity stunt than anything really usable...sort of like the p-series I guess.

 

how can you say the air isn't useable? 1.8-2.2ghz dual core intel....good graphics, good LCD, good hdd size.....it's just as good as anything else in the non-professional 13" market

this isn't a freakin netbook running XP here...

 

No but it being 13" kind of defeats the purpose of the slimness. If it were like 11", I'd understand but at 13", I really think it is a gimmick.

 

You mean like the Lenovo U110 right? Same specs as the first gen MBA but in an 11in model a little thinner more ports and an external dvd included.

 

I actually dont get what you are on about, Levono X300, Sony VAIO Z and TT and Dell adamo. There was also the TZ before the TT.

The P series was not just because of netbooks, it was a replacement for the UX in the market place.

 

The MBA overheats and has low battery life. There are 2 ports on the computer 1 USB and 1 Display out. For me personally, this computer is unusable.

The MBA might be "usable" for you but I definitely isn't usable for me. The MBA would be fine (not discussing the overheating issues and the short battery life) for someone who just wants to use a computer and nothing else. But for me, the expansion is just way too limited...I would go as far as to say that the MBA has probably the worst expansion capabilities of any computer available. I keep a logitech nano receiver in one of my USB ports at all times so I can't even begin to imagine the annoyance of having a to remove it anytime I wanted to plug in my camera, memory card, external HD, CD drive, etc. I mean the MBA doesn't even use a standard VGA out...ugh.

So I guess to make a long story short, to me the MBA is NOT as good as anything else on the professional market.

 

11" is too small, if anything THATS the gimmick, 13 is an optimal screen size for on the go work

 

Well of course the Air is not as good as anything else on the professional market for one simple reason: it's not on the professional market

I too keep a logi nano receiver in my SR all the time, but if I got an Air, I'd go with that new bluetooth mouse they just came out with


the perfect computer for me would be an SR with the optical drive taken out, slimmed down, and a stronger constructed chasis

Why do you claim the air has crap battery life though? tests peg it at 4.3 hours on 50% LCD brightness, wireless on...that's about the same as Sony....

 

Maybe for you. But, some of us may find a 13in device to be a little on the larger side, or find 11in adequate.

 

Yeah exactly. I mean, I could understand he MBA's thinness at that screen size since it's also small and it has proportional sizes but for me, a laptop at 13" as thin as the MBA feels disproportionate. I'm not saying companies should make the laptops thick on purpose. They should be as thin as possible, while not sacrificing too many features and to be honest, the MBA is sacrificing waaay too much.

 

Sony did the X505 before Apple did the MBA. It had a decent amount of attention, but ultimately the form factor didn't catch on -- too expensive for too little. Of course the MBA has better specs now that there are mobile processors that are better suited for "thin" laptops. But just like the X505, too much has been sacrificed for the sake of being as absolutely thin as possible, and yet the price point is still very high meaning you're paying more to get less.

While I think there are many people who would like to have a thin-and-light laptop, very few are willing to pay a high premium when so much is sacrificed. Sony learned this with the X505, and so I have a hard time seeing them trying again (especially since the P is arguably more successful than the X505), unless the market changes and demand for thin-and-lights increases.

But in my opinion, that demand will probably come out of the netbook market, where the low-cost components will better match the performance ortability ratio. We're already seeing signs of that with the ASUS eeePC 1008HA and MSI X-slim line; and with Ion just around the corner, the MBA should have plenty of competitors soon. Just probably not from Sony.

 

The TT is over 2 grand for less performance and more size (with smaller screen) than the MBA...

 

Is anyone really sure that Sony actually _isn't_ making the Air for Mac? A tech repair friend at one of my campuses told me that a couple of years back, when Macbooks came in for repair and he took them apart, lo and behold Sony's name was on a multitude of parts!

 

That maybe so, but wit the TT you get an express card slot, sd card slot, more usb ports, firewire mini, HDMI, better resolution support, a built in dvd drive or blu-ray, and 3G internet from an CDMA carrier or GSM(in Europe and Asia). You could also say the TT has the option of more HD/SSD space and battery. For many these are key features. Plus if you look well enough you can get the TT for well under 2k.

 

Er, Sony beat Apple to the punch. See the old X series (i.e. X505).

I think the Z is a good compromise since you sometimes do need an optical drive, and whoever said the Z is just about the same as the SR is mistaken. The Z is more portable, and for slightly heavier than the Air, you get a MUCH more capable computer with a CHANGEABLE battery and good battery life.

 

Exactly. Think of this way, the Z is the same size or just barely larger than many 12in laptops.

 

Yeah, I remember the Z but that thing was truly unusable and totally underpowered, even by the day's standards.

I still don't see the difference between the Z and SR other than screen ratio and horsepower...

Honestly, I would gladly drop all the ports & optical out of my SR if it meant a cm or two off the body and a radical reduction in weight

 

Yeah, the Z is so underpowered that it has an option for P9700 CPU plus a discrete graphic card. Of course the Air has a stronger CPU and stronger integrated graphic card.
Seriously, I'm beginning to think that you're trolling.
And as somebody said, the Z is a lighter, more powerful version of the SR. How's that for no difference?
Since you seem to love the Air so much with its non-replaceable battery and shortage of ports, plus the lack of DVD drive, why don't you go for it?

 

Yea, if you would also include better build quality, lighter weight due to the superior material used (carbon fiber, aluminum, and carbon reinforced plastic), better panel used on the screen (better color reproduction when compared with the SR), better coating on the screen (less glare), switchable graphics card, better battery life... They DO add up. Over all, they make it worth the price for people who are willing to pay for it. Of course, I admit that Sony does charge a small premium on their flagship model.

IMHO, The Z is like a 15 in Macbook pro packed in a 13 in package with half the weight, obviously weaker graphics power, but longer battery life (changeable too) and greater portability. With the ability to dual boot Windows 7 RC and 64bit Vista, it the just perfect for my usage. It can last 5,6 hours when I'm at school just doing word processing on Stamina, and it can also handle some Unreal tournament when I'm back at my apartment.

When compared to Macbook air? When I tried it, the old ones are slow, the SSD versions are only bearable. The new ones are sure faster, but certainly not faster than the Z. Also, I just can't live without a disc drive and a docking station.

Why don't you just get the Air if you don't care about the ports (which I do). OSX is not bad you know... I hate the Vista sticker on my Z so much, I give it the death stare every time I turn on the Z...

I think he meant the OLD Sony Z1 released back in 04. Not the current Z series.

 

This is kind of fanboy talk, or at best superficialist talk.

The Crapbook Air is a deeply compromised machine for the looks. Battery life is inadequate, there's no WWAN, the WLAN sucks, the screen is worse than the TT or the Z (squinting aside for the higher pixel density), the keyboard less ergonomic than even the small-pitch TT or the Z, it's more fragile despite appearing stronger with the all-alloy body... and it's non-replaceable battery might bite you on the faster than you think.

The TT/Z are, despite their flaws, far more of a marvel to me than the Air. I appreciate the design of the Apple, but not with the severe functional compromises it comes with in comparison to either of the Sony's.

Why do I have unibody 13-inch Crapbooks? Simple - it's the only anywhere near all-day portable Apple that offers utility nearing a Sony. The Airs dismally failed in the role of 'ultraportable'. I have structural issues with the TT which means I'm going elsewhere, but with the pretty piles of **** from Apple I don't get a choice.

 

I was replying about the Z, my bad, got my XYZs mixed up

But OSX is that bad

I have an Air....well, we bought my mom one (she travels a lot so it made the most sense). I've been using it a lot these past days and it's what prompted the thread. I have no desire to get one for myself for my day to day use. But if Sony launched a comparable 13" product...

 

How do you figure the battery life is 'inadequate'? Keyboard unergonomic?

Ahem...

 

How? By owning the Crapbooks and Sony's at the same time. How do you figure?

 

My apologies go out to you and your family for having to put up with one.

For travel, the Macbook Air makes the least sense. In every category, nonetheless, the Macbook Air makes no sense. You sacrifice performance and battery life (>>especially battery life<<) for a slim look and a huge $$ sign -- that's it. The reason you would want to buy it is if you want to show off its 'slim look,' whether in class, in a business room, or on TV (well not on TV due to legal reasons such as what Nickolodeon does), if you feel people will be impressed by it.

The Vaio VGN-Z is the competition for the Macbook Air, and it's the competition for every 13" laptop as well. You don't sacrifice battery life, processing power, video graphics, and weight for a 'slim look.'

 

I'm in the same boat....good battery life on this thing....

 

Point remains, that processing power and video have nothing to do with portability/travel

 

You're missing the point. :\ Having a slim look has nothing to do with travel, and that's the only reason why you would waste money on an underperforming, low-battery life Macbook Air over any other computer.

 

If it's easier to carry around, then it has everything to do with travel.

And a laptop doesn't "underperform" if it performs 100% of the user's functions perfectly.

....and enough with the battery slams; the thing has good battery life.

 

You love the Crapbook Air, fine. We get it. I actually lived with it from Feb '08 to late '08, with one still kicking around from time to time - and I know the piece of **** in both Rev.A and B guises very well. However, try a Z some time before you ram the Air down our throats.

 

So in otherwords, you're a fanboy unwilling to have a civil discussion on laptops unless its "OMG Z IS TEH RULZ!!!!"? That's what I'm gathering...

"the cpu sucks, the size is too small, the lcd sucks, the battery sucks, the Z is the best and if you don't absolutely love it and every dollar it's worth then you obviously haven't tried it or are a self loathing Sony owner or apple fanboy"

Christ

 

It's a shame you didn't read my posts, I put down exactly what was wrong was it for starters. Beyond this, the tiny fan inside produces it's own set of problems - in terms of system instability in higher ambients (I spend a good deal of time in the south of France) that don't make the TT, TZ or the Z sweat, and the need to crank up the small fan to whiny annoyance levels to make it move enough air to remain somewhat stable in those ambients.

The problem is at the core of Apple's design-led approach to the machine, as opposed to Sony's engineering-led approach. I would have given the Air more of a chance if it was better engineered.

Especially in comparison to the near-equivalent Sony's, how much you love the Air directly correlates to how much you're swayed by how things look over how things work. How much the engineering inadequacy affects you directly correlates to how much you actually use your machine.

You like the way it looks? Well snap. I like the detail design touches, while I really hate how Sony cheapens up the package by those stupid little flaps covering the ports. But actually, I don't just look at my computers. I expect them to do useful stuff.

 

I don't see what makes the Air easier to carry around than lets say the normal Macbook or the 13" Macbook Pro. They are the exact dimensions, except the Air is slightly thinner (barely half a cm thinner than the 13" MBP) and about 600 grams lighter. I understand that it's for your mom, but damn, my mom can lug around an ancient Dell laptop that's almost 2 inches thick.

 

Well obviously it's about the weight. It looks ridiculously thin as well and you can't deny there's definitely a visual buzz about the Air.

The fact is that a lot of us don't want to carry a boat anchor and yet have it as a viable all-day machine. The Air fulfils the non-boat-anchor quotient and only the blind would deny it's a looker, but the fact is that it has too many functional flaws for those used to comparable Sony flagship ultraportables.

 

Please don't tell me you forgot the TZ recall due to massive overheating issues and possible burn hazards?

Would it be fair to say that I love the Air so much that I bought a Sony instead?

When comparing power, I think the Dell Adamo falls in line with looks way above substance. It's a 1.2ghz cpu with a $2000 price tag. The TT? Smaller LCD, equally as low power, same price tag. The Air starts at 1.86 and up to 2.13ghz. It's a step down from the Z/SR level, but still more than adequate for home consumer PC usage. Sure, you pay for looks and portability , but it's not at such a drastic fall in performance as it could be.

 

That was a manufacturing defect. Which happens more often on Apples - only they don't even bother to recall after large numbers of people start reporting issues. Magsafe anyone?

You have me confused as well. The SR is not something I'd have considered in the 13-inch stakes - it's a badly positioned machine, I think.

As you yourself said above, performance is not the total issue under discussion.

 

Wait is the point here the thinness of the MBA makes it portable? Because if that is the case, I would beg to differ and say in most cases weight would be more of a factor. Also, isn't the Z what .2 oz like heavier than the Air? Or what about a device like the Samsung X360, which is about the same size as the MBA(granted the cpu isn't as fast), but it weight a few oz less and you can option it up with a larger battery that could possibly net you 9 hours of usage. Just saying.

 

You're basically making an argument for a 12" netbook. The Air is the same thing as a 12" netbook. It "performs 100% of the user's functions perfectly," as does a netbook. I use my netbook for portability too. The difference is, I did not and would not ever pay $1500+ for a netbook, just as I would never pay $1500+ for an underwhelming Macbook Air. The Macbook Air being a terrible machine when compared to other 13", for the price you pay. It's a laptop that works your basic needs, websurfing, light e-mail, microsoft word, but then I wouldn't spend anything over $400 if that's all I wanted to do.

So to answer your question, no Sony will never make an "ultrathin laptop" that's extremely expensive while sacrificing specs, functionality, utility, and battery life. Nothing you say will change that, so get over it.

 

Mark if I may ask you, what do you think of the TT, which cost 1500-4000(depending on where you look and the specs)? Or do you think that has more purpose over the Air because it has a dvd drive or optionally the "bag of hurt" blu-ray drive, more usb, express slot, and firewire mini?

Also your 12in netbook generally has more usb ports, possible an express card slot, and a some sort of video output.

 

The Vaio TT has really great battery life, so there's a case to be made there. It really has to do with compromises. If it has great battery life, we can be more forgiving of its specs and utility (although it does come lightweight, small, and with a DVD drive as you've acknowledged). I don't know if it's worth 1500-4000.. sounds a little exaggerated, but you can get the TZ for 1000$.

If you're going to have poor specs and utility, atleast have a lot of battery life. Otherwise you get something like the Dell Adamo and Macbook Air.

 

1 - To compare the power of the MBA to that of a atom powered netbook running XP...is just crazy and reeks of fanboyism. I highly doubt the video playback

2 - Sony won't make a super expensive laptop that sacrifices specs? What do you call the TT then? What was the old Z? Do you work for Sony or have a crystal ball to make these statements definitively?


and what's up with these unfounded battery life comments? I tested it today and it keeps perfectly in line with my SR when all settings on full



Considering I don't think I've ever gotten over 4hrs out of my Sony, even with everything on low....that's pretty decent

 

Saying the Macbook Air sucks in no way implies fanboyism. If it sucks it sucks, I don't have to prefer any other laptop to say it sucks.

1. Videoplayback on an Atom is just what you would expect from the Macbook Air, no difference.

2. The TT has twice the battery life of the Macbook Air if not more.

A laptop with a good graphics card is getting the same battery life as an integrated graphics "ultraportable." And even more, the latter is more expensive than the former.


here's another link for you:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2008/02/macbook-air-review.ars/4
I'll cut to the chase here: the MacBook Air's battery life sucks. A lot. I found it to be a pretty big disappointment, holding it to my admittedly-high standards. I ran down the battery from full charge four times and came out with an average of two hours and 33 minutes.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/142314/macbook_air_tests_good_looks_poor_battery_life.html
In our tests, the Air's battery life averaged 2 hours, 31 minutes, which isn't even enough juice to cover the flight time from San Francisco to Dallas, let alone get a road warrior clear across the continent with a powered laptop.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/25/macbook-air-review/2
under medium usage (light browsing and watching a 1:20 h.264 movie) we got a mere 2 hours and 25 minutes. Under lighter usage (browsing, some audio playback, no movies) we got closer to 3 hours and 35 minutes.

 

Ahahaha, volgelbung, I usually can't stand to read what you write, but you hit the nail, right on with this post. The MBA sacrifices all the wrong things for thinness, and really stops at nothing to achieve its pretty looks. Mind you, pretty looks work in some circles in business, but the distance that Apple went and how they got there is pretty awful.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080220/147736/

Very good article detailing the teardown of a MBA that gives credit to Apple's pursuit of sexy but criticizes how they're doing it.

 

I always hit the nail right on - I'm not one to beat about the bush. It's just that some people with impaired objectivity can only stand to read my posts when they agree with the conclusions drawn.

 

Maybe we should be comparing the MBA or the Acer Timeline, or the Samsung X360? Both 13in device that come with the same C2D(optional in the Acer) as the TT and pretty much the same gfx card. They come with more usb ports, lower weight, lower price, longer battery life, and more features when compared to the Air the Air(and depending on where you get the X360 you get an external dvd included). So you loose a some extra power, most people who buy a device like this don't really need the extra power, and rather have a longer battery life, and MORE ports for usability. On the Air once you plug in your usb 3G card you can not use your small wired mouse as the only usb port is in use. The Timeline get like 7 hours on the standard battery. The X360 gets like 5-6(7 on very light usage) on the standard battery and close to 9-10 on the extended battery.

 

1.2 is a bit borderline for me on the X360 even with the Centrino2 C2D's going into 2010, although who knows, with W7 it won't be a big issue. Apart from that it is an excellent spec - you even get the external drive thrown in.

The R600 is the TT's real competition though, not the Air - and despite my reservations about the Tosh's styling and cheapish looks, I think I'll have to go with it as a TT alternative. I see nothing else that is remotely compelling. Plus if I buy now, I get Tosh's Reliability Refund Guarantee which is quite an extraordinary commitment - Apple would go bankrupt in the space of a year if they offered it.