[hldan]

I'm only looking for opinons on this subject in terms of the hardware. This is not an OSX vs. Windows post so I wanna leave the OS's out of this. Now that Apple has matched processors in what is on the PC side I want to understand why the price difference is still much greater on the Apple side.

So I'm looking at the Sony Vaio's because Sony is the only company that's on par with Apple that makes upscale computers. The model I am comparing with the MacBook Pro is the Vaio FE590PA. Now I have no interest in buying a PC but I'm just looking at what most consumers will see.

Both machines use the new Intel Core Duo chip and the Express card slot, 1GB of ram and built-in camera.

The problem is the MacBook for $2499 has the 1.83 Ghz processor.
The Vaio for $2199 has the 2.0 Ghz chip, a faster Dual Layer drive, a larger HD and a PC card slot.

At this point we can't really say that the Sony uses cheaper hardware so what are we getting on the MacBook that justifies the $300.00 price difference? Just looking for opinions. The iMac CD is priced incredibly agressive against the competition but the MacBook doesn't seem so. Any opinions?

Here's the link to the Sony machine.

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...me=specs&var2=

[harrisjamieh]

I see what you mean. Apple has always been known for being on the expensive side, though when i look at what i payed for my ibook and imac, i think of what grea value they both were! I think its just Apple are charging more because they know they can get away with it: they know that if people want OS X, they have to buy mac, and if that want that sort of power, portability and want OS X, then the macbook pro is the ONLY option on the market. (I know you said leave OS out of it, but I think thats the only reason the MBP is more expensive than the Vaio)

[mduell]

A few things pop out to make the Sony cheaper.

• Graphics
NVIDIA® GeForce™ Go 7400
256MB dynamically allocated (RAM/Video) memory

• Ethernet
10BASE-T/100BASE-TX Fast Ethernet with RJ-45 interface

• Other Interfaces
4pin i.LINK® connector(IEEE 1394) ... VGA out

• Weight
6.17 lbs. with standard battery (weight is approximate and may vary)

• Measurements
14.41” (W) x 1.02” -1.39” (H) x 10.81” (D)

Phrased as downsides for the Sony:
The GPU is significantly slower and it uses system memory instead of dedicated memory (reducing system memory from 1GB to 768MB or 896MB).
The ethernet port is only 100BT.
The Firewire port is unpowered.
The video output is VGA instead of dual link DVI.
It weighs a half pound more.
It's up to 0.4" thicker.

Phrased as upsides for the MacBook Pro:
The GPU is significantly faster and has dedicated VRAM.
The ethernet port supports GigE.
The Firewire port is powered.
Dual link DVI output, allowing for digital connection to LCDs up to and including the 30".
Half pound lighter and up to 0.4" thinner.

A lot of the cost difference comes from the graphics system and development to get a thinner/lighter product. The other items don't make the MBP cost much more, but they make it more desirable.
Also, the Mac includes value-added software (iLife), while the Sony probably includes cost-reducing software (i.e. software you may not want that they're paid to include).

[f1000]

Originally Posted by hldan

At this point we can't really say that the Sony uses cheaper hardware so what are we getting on the MacBook that justifies the $300.00 price difference?

OS X? Seriously, Apple has to spend extra money per machine to ensure a better user experience. It's unfair to expect Apple to match PC makers on spec alone. If you want PC prices, then get a PC.

Also, I noticed that the Sony uses a tray-loading drive. That alone is worth a $300 price cut.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by mduell

Also, the Mac includes value-added software (iLife), while the Sony probably includes cost-reducing software (i.e. software you may not want that they're paid to include).

Cost-reducing software...I've never heard it put that way before.

Hehe, live and learn.

[ibook_steve]

Yes, OS X more than makes up the difference along with the differences in hardware. But one more thing: I'm sure within the next 6 to 12 months, you'll be able to dual boot XP or emulate it quite well. With a contest going to get dual boot working, I have no doubt that it will happen. Then it's like getting two computers in one!

Steve

[Enigmaaron]

Putting OS and software aside as the poster asked here's all of the pro's for each system that I could decipher (please let me know if I missed any):

MacBook:
- Better screen resolution - 1440x900 vs. 1280x800
- Single 1GB RAM chip instead of 2 512MB chips using both slots.
- 667MHz RAM speed vs. 533MHz
- ATI x1600 graphics card with dedicated RAM (not "dynamically allocated") and dual link DVI support.
- Gigabit ethernet
- Bluetooth
- Optical digital input and output
- Lithium-polymer battery
- Smaller by: 0.31"(W) x 0.02"-0.39"(H) x 1.21"(D)
- Weighs 0.57lbs less.
- Includes remote.
- DVI output with VGA adapter.

VAIO:
- Dual layer 8x DVD burner vs. single layer 4x.
- 2.0 GHz chip vs. 1.83GHz
- 20GB more HD space.
- PC Card slot.
- Modem


You decide which has the better value for you. Personally I think the MacBook has much better value and can't wait to get mine.

[piot]

Mac.
Higher screen res. (+25%)
Bluetooth
Smaller
Lighter
Slot load drive
Better graphics (as mentioned above)
MagSafe (?)
Backlit keyboard (?)
iLife
OS X
Dual boot Windows (Maybe!)
It's got a nice little apple on the top
Which lights up.

[hldan]

Whew, I didn't even look at all the perks the MacBook has to offer. This is great feedback from everyone. The small things make the difference. I guess what alarmed me about the MacBook is that the most notable things seem to be behind the Sony Vaio. I got caught up in the mainstream of things such as the processor, HD and the Superdrive offering less than the Sony then the price is higher so immediately I couldn't see the smaller stuff missing on the Sony.
Still that's great marketing on Sony's part because what's important to a lot of people is getting a large HD and the fastest chip.
Now that I see a bigger picture it's still true that Apple did some cost cutting on the MacBook Pro and maintained the high profit. From what I read and it's not confirmed, the DL Superdrive couldn't fit into the MacBook Pro so Apple used a cheaper and older drive that would. Well this cuts cost but not for the consumer.
I was also alarmed that Sony gives both the PC card slot and the new Express slot. Still the 20" iMac offers a lot for $1699.00 so I expected a little more or a little less price on the MacBook. I'll be getting one anyway.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hldan

Now that I see a bigger picture it's still true that Apple did some cost cutting on the MacBook Pro and maintained the high profit. From what I read and it's not confirmed, the DL Superdrive couldn't fit into the MacBook Pro so Apple used a cheaper and older drive that would. Well this cuts cost but not for the consumer.

The "old" DL drive is 12.5mm thick. The slot for the optical drive in the MBP is 9.5mm tall. I doubt the thinner drive is cheaper, despite being less capable.

[cambro]

Originally Posted by hldan

Still that's great marketing on Sony's part because what's important to a lot of people is getting a large HD and the fastest chip.

Yes, and if that's someone's measure of a good computing experience, then personally I'd prefer they get a windows machine and keep us Mac users in the minority!

While I appreciate your effort to compare like-with-like price-wise, hldan, this is an old rag that always comes down to about ±15% the cost of the machine.

Throw in everything people have mentioned and it almost always comes to down zero price difference and personal preference.

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by hldan

Whew, I didn't even look at all the perks the MacBook has to offer.

That is the usual problem with these types of comparisons. Nothing personal. Just happens over and over and over again. Good luck. Study this with as much energy as you probably would for any other purchase of significance like a car, and you will find a few surprises. Seems you already have.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by kcmac

That is the usual problem with these types of comparisons. Nothing personal. Just happens over and over and over again. Good luck. Study this with as much energy as you probably would for any other purchase of significance like a car, and you will find a few surprises. Seems you already have.

Will do. Each time before a major Mac purchase for me this issue comes up about Apple not offering as much in the hardware specs as in the PC world and even though Apple gives very usuable features that so far have never been found in the PC world we still live in an era where the HD, chip speed and the optical drive specs judge the machine first. I will get a MacBook Pro but Rev B although there really hasn't been any issues with the iMac so far, maybe it's not a bad idea to get Rev A.

[Timetheus]

One more thing about that Vaio - it's battery life is listed as 2 (yes that's 2 ) to 4 hours. That's what Sony lists. God only knows what it actually does. I realize We don't have an offical number on the MBP but I've read Jobs quoted as saying "Equal to or More than the current Powerbooks (which have a 5ish hour lifespan)." The Vaio only uses a Li-on battery - the MBP introduces us to the brave new (and hopefully better) world of Lithium-Polymer .

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Timetheus

One more thing about that Vaio - it's battery life is listed as 2 (yes that's 2 ) to 4 hours. That's what Sony lists. God only knows what it actually does. I realize We don't have an offical number on the MBP but I've read Jobs quoted as saying "Equal to or More than the current Powerbooks (which have a 5ish hour lifespan)." The Vaio only uses a Li-on battery - the MBP introduces us to the brave new (and hopefully better) world of Lithium-Polymer .

Hmm, I'm inclined to disagree regardless what Steve Jobs says. The Sony uses the same efficient processor as the MacBook but the main reason for the sorry battery life is because of Sony's Xbrite screen. I have used it, it's way too bright, it's so bright that it makes the screen look washed out but to Sony this looks good but it sucks the hell out of the battery.
The MacBook Pro has the brightness of the Cinema Displays so until we get some real life numbers I'm inclined to feel that the MacBook will have similar battery performance as the Sony. Steve Jobs is known to blow up reality.

[phoenix78]

imo the MB would be better since you are already a mac user and no doubt already have mac software that you paid for...

the true cost of a computer is the hardware+software... so if you buy a sony you wil need to buy windows software which will add to your expense. so yoou cant entirely leave the OS out of it.

1.86 vs 2.0?? there wont be much difference at all in response times between them and the clock cycle wont probably get to the max unless you are a gamer.

I have the 17" PB 1.67 and i do love it... it is ALOT more silent that the windows based laptops... ALL the ones ive seen have noisy fans/HD ... ugh. and the PB has a very nice keyboard too and scrolling trackpads etc...

its also OSX which i enjoy using much more than winxp (have dell dimension DT)

lol...

If you are really curious why not go to a store and see each model in real life... seeig the PB will be almost the sme as seeing the macbook since they are so similar. if you think sony is nice then have you seen the acer TM8200??? now that is one nice piece of work make no mistake!

cheers,
robM

[Timetheus]

Hmm, I'm inclined to disagree regardless what Steve Jobs says. The Sony uses the same efficient processor as the MacBook but the main reason for the sorry battery life is because of Sony's Xbrite screen. I have used it, it's way too bright, it's so bright that it makes the screen look washed out but to Sony this looks good but it sucks the hell out of the battery.
The MacBook Pro has the brightness of the Cinema Displays so until we get some real life numbers I'm inclined to feel that the MacBook will have similar battery performance as the Sony. Steve Jobs is known to blow up reality.

I'll admit Steve's trying to sell computers and is likely inflating the numbers a bit - But Sony may well do the same if I'm not mistaken. I've heard from people in non-computing hobbies (like model aircraft) that li-poly batteries are superior to li-ons (not to mention the battery under the MBP is HUGE if you seen the pictures) so even though the power consumption should be similar - the battery could (I don't know this, obviously) be better.

This partially just me holding out hope, seeing as how I just dropped $2100 for one.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by phoenix78

imo the MB would be better since you are already a mac user and no doubt already have mac software that you paid for...

the true cost of a computer is the hardware+software... so if you buy a sony you wil need to buy windows software which will add to your expense. so yoou cant entirely leave the OS out of it.

1.86 vs 2.0?? there wont be much difference at all in response times between them and the clock cycle wont probably get to the max unless you are a gamer.

I have the 17" PB 1.67 and i do love it... it is ALOT more silent that the windows based laptops... ALL the ones ive seen have noisy fans/HD ... ugh. and the PB has a very nice keyboard too and scrolling trackpads etc...

its also OSX which i enjoy using much more than winxp (have dell dimension DT)

lol...

If you are really curious why not go to a store and see each model in real life... seeig the PB will be almost the sme as seeing the macbook since they are so similar. if you think sony is nice then have you seen the acer TM8200??? now that is one nice piece of work make no mistake!

cheers,
robM

Hi Pheonix, I'm not sure if you read my initial post but I have no interest in buying a PC. I am a true Mac User for life. It's just that in the past we have tried to justify the price increase on Macs vs. what's on the windows side because the processors and the motherboards were completely different. Now that the Macs are using DDR2 memory and PCI express and the same Intel chips I was just curious what was justifying the price difference still. I am interested in getting a MacBook Pro but a true computer user will always look at both sides of computing platforms.
Still there's some things that a user may expect from the MacBook such as the DL superdrive since it's in the older PowerPC models but that's Apple's decision.

[phoenix78]

hldan i read your original post again and my apologies for straying from th point are in order

as far as pricing is concerned, i read an article that apple isa tough negotiator with hardware suppliers and usualy gets them cheaper than most other companies. so that is kinda surprising to see since the complete apple systems are more expensive.

but i also had a chat to an acer repair tech and he said that apple usually have their components manufactured to a higher standard than other companies hence the increaed cost. wether this is true im not sure but my PB does seem to be much more quiet and just better built than any other portable i have ever seen.

if you checkout what you get in a top of the line acer it is about the same price as apple.... but you get more in the acer.

but im pretty sure the pricing has to do with superiority levels of the components.


robM

[Gee4orce]

In 2 or 3 years time, the Mac will still command somewhere around 30%-50% of it's current value; the Sony wont. Over a long term period, I'm pretty sure you'll actually find that the Mac will work out the cheaper of the two; and that doesn't even take into account the IMO greater productivity and fewer maintenance headaches of using Mac OS X.

People are amazed when I tell them how much I manage to sell my old Macs for ! Generally, after 3 years I'm able to cover 1/2 the cost of a new machine...

If you were able to lease computers in the same way you can lease cars, Macs would actually cost you less, because the 'depreciation' is less than PCs.

[moodymonster]

I think the Macbook Pro will use an LED backlight, therefore requiring less power while being brighter.

[clbell]

I think the Macbook Pro will use an LED backlight, therefore requiring less power while being brighter.

I think if this was the case it would be mentioned in the marketing info for the MacBook Pro. Since it's not then I think it's safe to say that it does not use LED backlighting.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

I think the Macbook Pro will use an LED backlight, therefore requiring less power while being brighter.

I think that's baseless speculation.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by mduell

I think that's baseless speculation.

Yeah, I don't think that's true but I will mention that when I was at Macworld the MacBook's screen is as bright as the Cinema displays just as Apple claims. It looked incredible and Macworld is already a very brightly lit exhibit hall.

[olePigeon]

I'm willing to bet the Sony AC adapter is a big brick that doesn't coil up nicely. Dell has the worst power bricks. Big ass black things with TWO cords, you have to wrap them around the brick and use some big rubber band that goes around it. I wonder if Sony's is any better.

I like Apple's with the fold out arms and the wrap around. So much nicer.

And as someone pointed out, the lit up apple logo and the backlit keyboard are worth the $300 alone.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I'm willing to bet the Sony AC adapter is a big brick that doesn't coil up nicely. Dell has the worst power bricks. Big ass black things with TWO cords, you have to wrap them around the brick and use some big rubber band that goes around it. I wonder if Sony's is any better.

I like Apple's with the fold out arms and the wrap around. So much nicer.

And as someone pointed out, the lit up apple logo and the backlit keyboard are worth the $300 alone.

True, asthetics make a big difference as with that ugly Dell 24" LCD people are convincing themselves to buy based on low price but still it would be nice if the MacBook had the DL Superdrive. I have that on my G5 Dualie and I had to make a dual layer DVD yesterday because the files that I was backing up were well over 7GB and that DL Superdrive came in handy. The price of the blank discs weren't that bad. I got a 3 pack of memorex for $7.99 U.S. Even without the DL Superdrive it sucks that Apple had to install a slower burning drive, that was one of the things that was irking me about the Sony, it's a pretty thin machine to have a full speed DL DVD burner.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hldan

Yeah, I don't think that's true but I will mention that when I was at Macworld the MacBook's screen is as bright as the Cinema displays just as Apple claims. It looked incredible and Macworld is already a very brightly lit exhibit hall.

So they're using a better CCFL... they've been using pretty weak ones in the PowerBooks.

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I'm willing to bet the Sony AC adapter is a big brick that doesn't coil up nicely. Dell has the worst power bricks. Big ass black things with TWO cords, you have to wrap them around the brick and use some big rubber band that goes around it. I wonder if Sony's is any better.

I like the two cord system... no giant wall worts blocking other plugs and falling out of power strips (I've seen that a lot where the power strip is on the floor and the Apple white adapter falls over/out).

[Simon]

Apple's gives you that as well. But they give you a) the option to do both and b) the warp around arms. They clearly offer the superior brick. I don't think that's really debatable.

[jheath]

Sony VAIO Notebooks have nice reflective screens. Somewhat too reflective in some cases. But I would still go for the MacBook Pro. As Sony runs windows. And windows is bad..... sooo very bad.

[urrl78]

I'm happy with my 17" Powerbook. I can't see not having dual layer in a new Powerbook.

"MacBook:
- Better screen resolution - 1440x900 vs. 1280x800
- Single 1GB RAM chip instead of 2 512MB chips using both slots.
- 667MHz RAM speed vs. 533MHz
- ATI x1600 graphics card with dedicated RAM (not "dynamically allocated") and dual link DVI support."

I'm seeing 667 Mhz for the Vaio also, yes? I am thinking on selling my little Sony T250 for a dual core, however I would prefer the Sony SZ model with "Turbocache" GPU. Smaller footprint for mobility.

[Enigmaaron]

Originally Posted by urrl78

I'm seeing 667 Mhz for the Vaio also, yes?

The Vaio has the same 667MHz bus speed, but the RAM they put in it is 533MHz. Seems silly to cut that one small corner and not give the machine it's full potential, but it is Sony...

[ajprice]

What would you rather say you had, an Apple MacBook Pro, or a Sony Vaio VGN-FE590PA. Yeah that Sony model name slips right off the tongue!!

Looking through this thread, I'd say the MBP was the better system and worth the extra. Its best to get features built in and standard, especially on a laptop, as its hard to add stuff later on, and theres no way at all of upgrading stuff like the gigabit ethernet, powered firewire, better screen resolution and graphics etc to the Sony.

[ASIMO]

Originally Posted by Simon

Apple's gives you that as well. But they give you a) the option to do both and b) the warp around arms. They clearly offer the superior brick. I don't think that's really debatable.

Apple's adapters are indeed the best in the business in terms of design and function; however, they really need to make the hinges of those popup tabs much stronger.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by urrl78

I'm seeing 667 Mhz for the Vaio also, yes? I am thinking on selling my little Sony T250 for a dual core, however I would prefer the Sony SZ model with "Turbocache" GPU. Smaller footprint for mobility.

You do realize that turbocache is a bad thing for performance-wise? It means you're using system RAM for video RAM instead of having all dedicated VRAM.

[urrl78]

Where are you getting your info? Here's where I got mine:

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1766/

Although I would not say it is better than a dedicated GPU, the results seemed impressive.

I would be interested to see different info to what I've read, thanks.

[hldan]

I'm sorry but this is a bit off topic but I'm concerned. I am the original poster and I noticed that hyperlinks were added to select words in my original posting. "MacBook" "PC" and a couple of others. I did not put them there so how is possible for someone to add them without my pasword? Anyone with help please?

[Tesseract]

Originally Posted by hldan

I'm sorry but this is a bit off topic but I'm concerned. I am the original poster and I noticed that hyperlinks were added to select words in my original posting. "MacBook" "PC" and a couple of others. I did not put them there so how is possible for someone to add them without my pasword? Anyone with help please?

It's a new advertising scheme called intelliTXT. I agree that it's annoying and the forum admins are working on getting rid of it.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

It's a new advertising scheme called intelliTXT. I agree that it's annoying and the forum admins are working on getting rid of it.

So is this something that automatically happens? Seems like someone is hacking the forum.

[Macola]

Originally Posted by hldan

So is this something that automatically happens? Seems like someone is hacking the forum.

Not hacking, but an extremely misguided and moronic attempt at advertising.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hldan

I'm sorry but this is a bit off topic but I'm concerned. I am the original poster and I noticed that hyperlinks were added to select words in my original posting. "MacBook" "PC" and a couple of others. I did not put them there so how is possible for someone to add them without my pasword? Anyone with help please?

Originally Posted by hldan

So is this something that automatically happens? Seems like someone is hacking the forum.

Neither your account nor the forums at large have been hacked. MacNN gets paid by the advertisers for running the script that adds those links. Since the script runs on the client end instead of the server end, they're easilky disabled; just use Adbloc and Filterset.G on Firefox.

Originally Posted by urrl78

Where are you getting your info? Here's where I got mine:

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1766/

Although I would not say it is better than a dedicated GPU, the results seemed impressive.

I would be interested to see different info to what I've read, thanks.

I should have been more clear; using TurboCache allows OEMs to inflate their VRAM figures without actually including more VRAM on the board. For a "256MB" card, instead of having 256MB VRAM, they can have 64MB VRAM and 192MB taken from system RAM. Not only does this reduce the amount of system RAM available for other uses, it also doesn't match the performance of having 256MB VRAM.
64MB VRAM + 192MB TurboCache is better than 64MB VRAM, but not as good as actually having 256MB VRAM. Before you ask if 64MB VRAM + 128MB TurboCache is better than 128MB VRAM, I don't know and you'd have to benchmark it yourself.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ASIMO

Apple's adapters are indeed the best in the business in terms of design and function; however, they really need to make the hinges of those popup tabs much stronger.

Agreed. I once broke one side of the tab off just because I dropped the brick. Of course it was my fault and I should have been more careful, but dropping from maybe two feet onto a rug shouldn't be that big of a problem. They should reinforce the tab hinge.