I forgot where I read it, but I heard that Linux Mint(a very nice Ubuntu variant) worked better/with out driver issues on a few of the current Sony models.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macbook Air vs. Sony Vaio Z - anyone?
- Thread starter soph
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ROTFL..... I love reading these posts.... .what truely posseses Mac users? The Sony Z has too much power for the average user? Next you'll be saying the Z's too small..... ROTFL!!!!! SWEET!
Mac...... now build for average users......
Sony......Z.... built for DemiGods....... I just got mine.
Mac...... now build for average users......
Sony......Z.... built for DemiGods....... I just got mine.
I rather like Windows 7 myself and run several Window apps in tandem with OS X apps, thanks to VMware Fusion in Unity mode. Further, I appreciate that the Z is light and has a lot of power. Tell us, though, how well the Z, or any Windows machine for that matter, runs OS X and Windows apps simultaneously.
I never wanted to admit to it, but apple has really become a cookie cutter company...I guess their marketing team got what they wanted.
I rather like Windows 7 myself and run several Window apps in tandem with OS X apps, thanks to VMware Fusion in Unity mode. Further, I appreciate that the Z is light and has a lot of power. Tell us, though, how well the Z, or any Windows machine for that matter, runs OS X and Windows apps simultaneously.
I run windows for finance microsoft dynamics and gaming...... I get the work done...... I run linux (ubntu server) on a couple machines because linux servers a purpose..... I use VMWare too....
But I don't run Mac...... I don't see a reason to either as I'm not really influenced by the branding, the hardware is ok but not impressive. I don't see many advantages but I do see some disadvantages... I have too much work to use a brand to fight the man..... if there is another reason please inform me. I'd like to know.
OS X's unique advantage is its ability to run both Windows and OS X apps from the OS X dock. When a Windows machine is introduced that can do that, too, without a hack and using commercial software, I will no doubt be very interested. That hasn't happened, though, so I am not interested and will stick with Macs, which can do that. Like Apple says, "It just works.!"
I should add that I didn't start buying Macs "to fight the man," or for any other political reason. I bought my first Mac, a 17 inch Powerbook G4, in 2003 because it was the only 17 inch laptop available at the time. I fell iin love with OS X because of its ease of use and relative immunity from malware. I stick with Macs because, for the moment at least, they are the only computers that will do everything I need out of the box.
I think the point is.. there are very few Mac apps for which there's no Windows equivalent.. while there are still a LOT of Windows apps for which there is no Mac equivalent. So if you have a Windows machine, there is very little need to run Mac OS side-by-side, while the reverse isn't true.
I love Mac as much as the next guy, but I still need Fusion with WinXP on my Mac.. because there are many things I need that cannot be done in a native MacOS environment. But if I switched to Windows 7 - I would have no need for MacOS.
I can't disagree that there are serviceable Windows equivalent programs that will serve the same purpose as their OS X equivalents. My fondness for Mac machines, though, in addition to their ability to run Windows and OS X apps simultaneously, is that there is no operating system as intuitive, reliable, and free of malware problems as OS X. Windows 7 is the best MS has been able to do yet and it's not bad. Still, compared to OS X it is about as intuitive as a Rubik's Cube and nearly daily updates are required to keep it more or less free of malware.
MacBook Air is outdated, Sony Z is fairly new. Let's wait for the next Air and then compare.
I really think if the MacBook Air loses the bezel and stays 13", similar to the 12" PowerBook G4, it would be a winner and I might actually consider it for next year when I go off to college. The only other ultraportable I am considering right now is the X201 because of it's insane battery life, good build quality, and the size to performance ratio.
I really think if the MacBook Air loses the bezel and stays 13", similar to the 12" PowerBook G4, it would be a winner and I might actually consider it for next year when I go off to college. The only other ultraportable I am considering right now is the X201 because of it's insane battery life, good build quality, and the size to performance ratio.
I don't agree that the only point in switching to Mac is if you have chronic problems with malware, but I certainly agree that the argument surrounding Windows and viruses is given too much weight. I, like you, have never in my life had an issue with Windows in terms of malware/viruses and so when I hear this used in a pro-Mac discourse I have to a smile a bit. It's not hard at all to keep your (Windows) computer safe and you simply have to learn about what's harmful out there to keep everything in order.
The reason why I am planning on switching to Mac is because I plan on learning and practising new audio recording skills. I've tried various combinations on Windows but I've been struck by the ease and user-friendliness of Mac based software.
Not to start another Mac vs Windows debate, but what you state is a highly subjective opinion.. not really based on any sort of fact. I find both Win7 and MacOS perfectly intuitive.. many people with years of working with Windows don't find MacOS all that intuitive.. and visa versa. Functionally, both OS's are pretty much equal these days - the whole argument about "intuitiveness" just comes down to personal preferences and what you're used to.
The whole "Windows malware" issue is GROSSLY blown out of proportion. Keeping Windows machine malware free requires very little effort and reasonable degree of common sense.
Although I do prefer OS X to Windows 7, I agree with you that Windows 7 is a good OS and MS does a lot better job these days of helping us keep it free of malware, thanks to its frequent updates of the definitions used by its antivirus utility. Still I hate the Windows desktop and find it far less intuitive than OS X. That's why having the ability to run both Windows and OS X apps from the OS X desktop has been such a good thing for me. Why should I limit myself to one OS's apps when I can have two and use them simultaneously, to boot? I assume that you have never run Windows in tandem with OS X. If I hadn't done so, either, I might agree with you. As it is, though, Mac remains the only game in town that will satisfy my requirements.
Good point gwsat. I would choose OSX over Windows 7 hands down, simply because one could run both on a Mac, however Apple still does not have the updated MBA, so I am using a MBP as a desktop replacement and a Sony Z as my mobile laptop. I'm still happy I made this decision about 6 months ago because I still have both operating systems at my disposal. I am wondering why it is still taking so long to update the MBA, or if it will be cut from the Apple laptop line eventually. I don't need either for work, being retired, so there is less stress to base my buying decisions professionally; I rather base my buying on enjoyment. In short I am having much fun with the speed and light weight of the Z for now. With free Microsoft Essentials as my anti virus software and free Malwarebytes as my malware software I have been having no problems.
So does Mac have some hardware capability, software package or OS advantage that makes "audio recording" better on a Mac? Cause this is the first time I've heard someone say something intelligent regarding the preference.
Cool good point... I was unaware that they were the first to introduce a 17inch laptop.
Yes, the 17 inch Powerbook G4 was a real Gee Whiz! laptop when it was introduced in 2003. Not only did it offer the only 17 inch laptop display available at the time, it was also lighter, thinner than most of its smaller PC competitors, and had more power, too. I had to laugh recently when I was reading The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, by Stieg Larsson. In it, the title character, who is a gifted hacker buys one, also in 2003, and talks about what a powerhouse it is.
I really don't understand why people get so defensive about Apple.
"It OK the hardware is rubbish, you must be crazy to want anything better!"
"It perfectly fine they haven't updated the hardware in years, we got OS X, so shut up!"
Seriously dudes, what kind of consumers are you? Do you have no balls do demand both latest gen performance and good operating system? If I say that I'd like to see an option for higher resolution screen in 13" MBP, there will be 20 dudes jumping on me saying how crazy I am and that the text will be to small and other stupid stuff. And yet, iPhone has resolution comparable to MBP. Think about that for a second.
Who cares if Vaio Z can run OS X or not. It is a better machine, hardware wise; Period. What does it mean? It means that I can use it as an example in a discussion to demonstrate that if Apple bothered just a tiny, tiny little bit, they could've made MBP so much better. And better. And even better. If Sony could put so much stuff into package so tiny (with 4xSSD, 1600x900 or 1080p screen), why can't Apple? Oh, because they don't care; bunch of fools will buy anything with Apple logo on it. C2D is probably getting cheaper and cheaper every day and hence Apple's margins are growing. They can buy old stuff from Intel, put it in a shiny package and sell it with (almost) the same price it was a year ago. Its simply to squeeze more money out of people (not that Apple's margins were ever small; it is overpriced stuff after all and there is no denying that*).
* You dude that undoubtedly are going to jump on this saying that the price is fine, because its Apple or because it has OS X or because its a hardware that Steeve himself hath giveth, just shut up! Can't stand to listen to silly excuses.
I've been using Mac for a number of years now because I like the build quality and the operating system; Why, for once can't I have a Mac that I want, not the one that I don't not want. Sigh...
I will demand progress and you Neanderthals should shut up!
"It OK the hardware is rubbish, you must be crazy to want anything better!"
"It perfectly fine they haven't updated the hardware in years, we got OS X, so shut up!"
Seriously dudes, what kind of consumers are you? Do you have no balls do demand both latest gen performance and good operating system? If I say that I'd like to see an option for higher resolution screen in 13" MBP, there will be 20 dudes jumping on me saying how crazy I am and that the text will be to small and other stupid stuff. And yet, iPhone has resolution comparable to MBP. Think about that for a second.
Who cares if Vaio Z can run OS X or not. It is a better machine, hardware wise; Period. What does it mean? It means that I can use it as an example in a discussion to demonstrate that if Apple bothered just a tiny, tiny little bit, they could've made MBP so much better. And better. And even better. If Sony could put so much stuff into package so tiny (with 4xSSD, 1600x900 or 1080p screen), why can't Apple? Oh, because they don't care; bunch of fools will buy anything with Apple logo on it. C2D is probably getting cheaper and cheaper every day and hence Apple's margins are growing. They can buy old stuff from Intel, put it in a shiny package and sell it with (almost) the same price it was a year ago. Its simply to squeeze more money out of people (not that Apple's margins were ever small; it is overpriced stuff after all and there is no denying that*).
* You dude that undoubtedly are going to jump on this saying that the price is fine, because its Apple or because it has OS X or because its a hardware that Steeve himself hath giveth, just shut up! Can't stand to listen to silly excuses.
I've been using Mac for a number of years now because I like the build quality and the operating system; Why, for once can't I have a Mac that I want, not the one that I don't not want. Sigh...
I will demand progress and you Neanderthals should shut up!
I don't have an alternative to a Mac because I require a computer that can run both OS X and Windows. So far, only Macs can do that. That said, I agree that the apologists for Apple's now long term failure to significantly improve the hardware in the MBA aren't credible. I, for one, wouldn't touch the current MBA and would strongly recommend that others avoid it, too. Maybe Steve and the boys will surprise us with a new and wonderful MBA but given their track record, I don't think that its likely.
I have an original MBA 64GB SSD.
My iTunes is nearly 120GB, but I have created different libraries for my travel that lets me take 15-20GB of music and it so far has never caused issues with my normal numbers, pages, safari and mail usage, even while using iTunes while working on those other applications, and often they are all open simultaneously.
Like Scottsdale says, it all depends on how you use what you've got-specs are only specs-one's actual usage experience is what counts.
My iTunes is nearly 120GB, but I have created different libraries for my travel that lets me take 15-20GB of music and it so far has never caused issues with my normal numbers, pages, safari and mail usage, even while using iTunes while working on those other applications, and often they are all open simultaneously.
Like Scottsdale says, it all depends on how you use what you've got-specs are only specs-one's actual usage experience is what counts.