Slashdot Mirror
iMac vs. VAIO Showdown
paradesign writes "Citing both Apple and Sony's intentions to become the hub of the digital lifestyle, Popular Science has pitted an $1,800 800MHz flat-panel iMac up against a $3,400 1.7GHz Sony Vaio PCV-MXS10 to see which really comes out on top. The bottom line is that the Sony PC -- almost twice as expensive as the iMac -- just narrowly edged out the iMac, with an overall score of 42 to 40."
Why would anyone buy a PC when you can get a mac, with better std equipment, for half the price?! I know all the arguments about TCO being better on pcs than macs, but still.. you're paying twice as much for a flashy OS and trendy case-design. For shame!
Not only does the PC cost twice as much in this case, but the iMac will be worth twice as much as the PC when the owners go to resell them for an upgrade.
Of course, I'm probably not in Apple's target market for the iMac. And I'm not in Apple's target financial range for a desktop, either, so I don't think I'll be getting OS X anytime soon... :-)
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
The reviewer in this case put a lot of emphasis on the bundled software than what I'm used to. It's nice that the Sony includes Photoshop Elements, there's no OS X equivalent for that out right now [yes, I know about Graphic Converter].
And if you're really into expandability, the base-model G4 is cheaper than the iMac. The iMac has never been and probably never will be for people who upgrade anything besides maybe the RAM. Keep in mind that over 90% of all PCs never have a single hardware upgrade in their lifetime.
From my experience with digital editing, I can say that it is quite unlikely that you would use input from anything other than analog or DV.
Moreover, some things about iMovie that weren't mentioned was how very easy it was to learn--even my sister could do it! I created my first movie in less than an hour knowing nothing. New plugins are available on the net for those feeling cramped with the original package, some of which are free (from Apple). iMovie also seamlessly integrates with Quicktime, iDVD, and even iTunes (for tracks). The few windows digital programs I've seen are all right, but not nearly as intuitive.
iMovie could use another star, though probably not the full five because there isn't yet a feature to automatically arrange tracks.
I'm also curious as to why they didn't equip the iMac with the same amount of ram (512mb) as this is an option Apple offers.
Last but not least, I couldn't find the Sony Vaio PCV-MXS10 on Sony's website. It appears to be discontinued in favour of the PCV-MXS20 which has a 2GHz Intel Pentium 4 and a 120Mb hard disk.
The big difference between these two machines is the OS. I chose to buy an Apple because I wanted to run OS X. With a VAIO, I would pretty much be stuck with Windows. Sure, you could install Linux but you would lose support for all the nifty features.
Overall, the article is a letdown. There isn't any point comparing Apples to oranges. (sorry, couldn't resist)
One of the Smalldog newsletters had some commentary on the comparison. The latest newsletter has not hit the archives yet, but it did bring up some good points:
1) He mentions that on the iMac "but sound quality and volume are limited." Of course, the Sony includes seperate speakers. For the price difference you could easily pick up a pair of aftermarket speakers.
2) He mentions how easy the iMac is to set up (and then complains about the set-up screens), then goes on to comment on the Sony "I think we're going to have some fun with this rig - a thought that helps get me through a 45-minute setup."
3) The author mentions "Windows XP is much more reliable, and somewhat easier to use, than its predecessors." Well, perhaps. How is it in comparison to Mac OS X, though? I have had my new Mac for over three weeks now and have not had a single crash or kernel panic.
4) He often comments about the poor included software on the Sony.
All in all, it is a good review, although I wish he would mention more than a couple of times the drastic price difference and the fact that most short-comings on the iMac could be more than made up by the price difference (i.e. He comments that the included photo manipulation software on the Sony is better than iPhoto for adjusting/cropping/etc. For the price difference, though, you could almost pick up Photoshop for Mac OS X).
Also, I know that GraphicConverter is included on new G4 machines. It is included on the new iMac?
[Boycotting the Boycott.]
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
I don't think the $1,800 Sony system would have done any better than the more expensive one tested; I seem to remember the same software bundle and the same features. The only thing you lose is the admittedly attractive casing and the stereo-style features.
A PowerMac wouldn't have done much better than the iMac, either, since they weren't doing benchmark tests, and they were content with the resolution of the screen.
I do wonder how they wound up with three stars for the Mac's video editing and four for the VAIO's. I'm not going to accept those results without at least some sort of description in the article, which they didn't provide. Maybe they simply gave Sony extra credit for the larger range of (mediocre) options it provides.
I'd certainly rather have the iMac, even considering that it's so much cheaper than the Sony. It's a lot more elegant and definitely features superior design.
D
Fortunately this is not entirely true. True, when turning on your new Apple Computer for the first time you will be presented with a registration screen, but luckly by pressing Command + q, you can simply skip the registration process and finish the initial setup without entering any personal information.
Perhaps my pictures of the new Cinema HD Display will change your mind :-).
D
Oh yea? Well you're a OSS Communist! So There! Pffffffffft :-p
Is your ID Latin?
~~~
I can build a pretty badass system for a lot less than that VAIO. But anyway, they really tested out software features and not hardcore system specs. The G4 really isn't much faster than its counterpart at the same clock speed unless you count floating point math. I like Macs but I think that this is a unfair bench considering the magazine that published it. Refer to this Slashdot story for more. Why I'm not buying a Mac
Of course, what the article fails to consider is that I can order an iPod, an additional 256MB RAM, and a top of the line Palm for my new iMac, and still stay $400 under the Sony. For someone actually looking to use one of these machines alongside digital toys, that makes a difference.
"I like to wear big boy pants."
Why did slashdot post a consumer-ended computer review? This is meant to be viewed by people who are relatively ignorant of computers (software package?! I dont need no stinking software package!), and I would think most people on slashdot are WELL beyond the level of knowledge presented in that article. Next time post something about REAL computing issues such as stability, performance, long term investment, etc.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
This is of no use to me, as I never consider buying a computer unless it is at least 45 points.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
For the amount of money they spent on the Vaio, they could have bought themselves quite a nice piece of G4 Tower goodness. The Vaio wouldn't stand a chance in that showdown :)
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
I use such formula to decide my decision. $3400 is too much.
if it is, its misspelled:
Praetoris is the correct spelling.
Method one: Find the F key, the Apple Command Key will be exactly two keys to the left and two rows down from that.
Method two: Find the U key, the Apple Command Key will be exactly four keys to the left and three rows down from that (hint: not the spacebar but the one exactly to the left of it).
Now next time you buy a Mac, you wont need to shit yourself during the setup process.
I do admit that the VIAOs are nice, it is not the computer it is the OS for the most part. I give them credit for the memory stick. but comparing a high end PC to a medium-low end macintosh, one thing is, 0WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!!! iMac is nowhere near the best of the best. Lets see a duel gig g4 stand to the BEST PC out there. I say, if the iMac came that close to their 'high end' model, then thats pretty sad, on their part. I feel sorry for the people who actualy believe that, there is one hope though, install unix-based os ;) as for the rest of us bullhorn hard headed monkeys, we prefer our macintoshes thank you very much. They are just better!!!
I think ultimately the Sony came out on top in this comparison because there was not a price category in the awarding of stars. Had there been, the Sony would have gotten one or no stars and the Apple would have gotten three or four (depending on your tastes...i probably would have given it four given the features included). In either case, this would have resulted in a tie at worst and a win for Apple at best. The bottom line is that the apple seems the better buy when price is considered. I currently use Windows 2000, but have used Mac OS X extensively and Win XP Pro some. It seemed that Mac OS X was configured nearly optimally configured out of the box. Win XP on the other hand was very annoying to use with too much to read in order to accomplish anything nontrivial. Turning off all the hand-holding makes it more manageable, although this takes time and one can never be sure when a dialogue with a paragraph of text is going to show up. This is article is the first I have seen to favor Win xp over Mac OS X, especially for ease of use. The difference between these operating systems alone would be reason enough for me to use a Mac over a Win box. The comparison is also a litlte unfair, because for th price of the Viao, one could afford one of those sweet dual G4s with a flat panel display or a powerbook (minus the dvd burner, which could be added as a firewire external for the price difference). Essentially, I would never by 3500 for a wintel box, while the Mac offerings at that price point are quite enticing, although i will never be able to afford that kind of hardware. Ironically, when I bought my computer, it was price that motivated me to get a Dell over an Apple since at the time, the only cheap Apples were the old iMacs with the tiny CRT displays and I wanted a bigger monitor. Hopefully Apple will maintain good offerings for the price and keep improving OS X.
Augmn! Classic!
If cost was not that important you'd think they'd target a price and beef the competitors to be right in that range and then compare.
Anyone know or willing to guess how the ibook would fare against the vaio notebooks? There's no way in hell I can afford a TiBook right now, and most x86-based notebooks seem to be more in line price-wise with the iBook.
putfwd.com - 1GB Free file storage with a twist
I just purchased a new 550 TiBook for the same price as a 14" iBook. Check the web, never buy new from Apple if you can get the same warranty from a reseller. The 400 TiBook is going for about the same price as the lowend iBook now. If you can afford an iBook you can afford a TiBook and trust me, the differences are amazing!
What kind of review doesn't get into support issues? Sony is very well know for having abysmal support. I've seen many people with Sony laptops have problems and they say there literally is noone at Sony to call for help.
I remember back when apple was doing very badly in 1996 there were rumours of an Apple Sony tie up. They are both competeing in the same niche - fancy comsumer high tech goods. Both are very good at what they do. Both are, in an industry that almost completely lack innovation (despite the claims of another certain large company), actually innovative. I sometimes wish that Apple could sometime do a deal with Sony to collaborate in product design and OS. Sadly, of course, this is never going to happen.
comapring a $1900 machine with something that costs only $1600 more! it appears that the reviewer is a mac fan from the system 7 days, hence the comment about WinXP being more stable/usable than its predecessor (my gf has a brand new dell with WinXP and Office XP, and it is crap [of course, her mom has the same setup and it works fine...]), and not liking OSX. the weaknesses that the reviewer points out, namely iPhoto, has already been pointed out. my opinion is, if you want all the frills, that is what Photoshop is for. on the side, if iPhoto is too good, Photoshop will lose interest in supporting OSXI or whatever comes next.
IMO, YMMV.
Everyone knows Sonys are overpriced. And these tests are highly subjective.
With the money that an iMac costs, anyone with a minimum of hardware knowledge can build a PC that leaves the Mac eating dust. Problem is, most Mac users are completely illeterate when it comes to technical stuff (and Macs can't be upgraded anyway).
It's like a bunch of guys driving Yugos and pretending they're superior to the guys driving Ferraris. No, wait, bad metaphor, Yugos at least are cheaper than Ferraris, not more expensive.
Pick any program that runs on both Mac and PC and compare their speed on optimized systems. The PC wins every time, and if you know which models to buy, it's also cheaper.