VAIO vs eMac

tad44

I'm considering buying a new computer. And I need DVD-R/RW drive.

eMac was my first choice because of the limited budget.

But I found BestBuy is selling VAIO RX753 (with DVD-RW) at $1,199 (after mail-in rebate)

with 17' Trinitron Display and Canon printer.



The spec is:

2GHz P4

512MB DDR-SDRAM

60GB HD

DVD-R/RW and CD-ROM drives

SiS650 Integrated video (AGP slot available)



I like MacOS X. And I know WinXP sucks.



But with VAIO, I'll get better display, more memory and faster CPU (2GHz P4 vs 800MHz G4).

And it's $300 cheaper...



Which would you buy with low budget?



[ 08-21-2002: Message edited by: tad44 ]</p>

pscates

Well, considering where you're posting this, chances are you're going to get pretty biased answers and suggestions.







Like the one I'm about to give you:



I don't use Macs because of the hardware and specs. Never have. Hell, they used to be just as blocky, ugly and beige as everything else. They only got physically attractive 3-4 years ago.



It's always been about the OS to me. And now, with OS X really hitting its stride and coming into its own, it's even MORE so about the OS to me than sheer speed, specs, numbers, etc.



But that's just me. Some people just want speed and power and don't really care, one way or the other, about the OS.



If you stuck motherboard and the OS inside an empty, rusty Folgers coffee can, I'd STILL use a Mac.







You gotta figure on the whole, overall experience. You say yourself in your post that you dig OS X and that Windows sucks. Well, which do you think you are going to notice more on a true, honest gut level in day-to-day interaction?



The OS or the numbers?



To me, personally, the OS (and the ease, simplicity and overall snazziness of the Mac OS, OS X in particular) trumps all else.



To me, it's worth the extra $300. But again, that's just me.



I'm COMPLETELY (and unapologetically) biased.



I'd use (and totally enjoy) a 400MHz G3 iMac running OS X (and I have) before I would use a 2.2GHz Gateway or Dell with Windows.



Again, that's just me.

bradbower

Just buy whatever you want. And you know what you want... you also know what you'd regret cheaping out on. So, just go do it.

voxman

A friend of mine has that exact Vaio. And after using it, all I can say is avoid it like the plague. I always thought Sony made some nice PCs, but after using it I realize they only look good compared to the majority of Fugly PCs on the market. I dont care if it's a 2ghz P4, that machine is sluggish as hell. I'm not sure if it's the OS or what, but it locks up more than my 400mhz iMacDV. And the included DVD software blows. DVDIt I think. It's just awful. Personally I think the eMac is the best value Apple makes, and will be my next machine. The screen is nice, and personally I perfer its all-in-one design over the flat panel iMac. Plus with OSX and Apple's continuing software innovation, you can't really go wrong. In the end you will just regret purchasing Sony.

mcq

I'm guessing you're using the DVD-R for home videos, so the integrated Sis chipset is kind of strange for that machine, I can't imagine it'd be better than a Geforce 2 MX (even though that's not the best video card either). Anyways, it's $300 more, but you're getting a better OS, better software to work with the DVD-R. I think the free Epson promotion is still going on, so you can take advantage of that as well.



Memory's pretty cheap, so I'd just upgrade it later down the road if necessary (also, some of the online resellers will give 256MB free with $40 install fee). I think the eMac screen is very good, the Trinitron might be a little better but not by much. The speed disparity will be there, but if you've played with the eMac you can figure out if it feels speedy enough for you.



$300 more for a better overall experience, it's a little tough to swallow on a tough budget, but if it makes you more efficient and happy, isn't it worth it?

kecksy

Also, MPEG-2 encoding screams on a G4, even at 700MHz. If you are interested in digital editing, iMoive and iDVD are much easier to use than their Sony conterparts.

majormatt

800Mhz G4 vs 2 GHz Pentium?



Dont be fooled by large numbers, the G4 is a very effiecent chip and will suit most applications, unless you're going to be doing high end 3D modelling. I have a 400Mhz G4 under OS 10.1.5 and it's plenty fast. Most applications launh in 2-5 seconds, the speed in applications is basically instaneous...

tad44

Thanks for the suggestions.



Yes, I'll use it for video editing.

And it was my concern how good is the bundled software.



It seems eMac with iMovie and iDVD is better choice.

murbot

Hmm, it seems when pscates posts in a thread like this... I don't need to.







Seriously, instead of regurgitating the same type of thing, I'll just tell you to go read that post again.



You'll deal with the OS every day... make sure you choose the right one.

eman

Hmmm... dealing with Windows or Mac OS X daily? Seriously, how could you pick a PC over a Mac? Just because the Sony has a 2GHz P4 compared to the 800MHz G4 doesn't mean anything. I'm absolutely positive the eMac is faster. The ease of uuse and simplicity of OS X is worth the $300 extra.

torifile

The thing about getting a bargain basement PC versus getting a cheap mac is that the software on the cheap mac is as good as any software that comes with any mac. You don't get ripped off on the software bundle. And if you got that PC it would be so loaded up with crap you don't need or want that it would be a nightmare to get it cleaned up. OS X is nice and straightforward and the best there is. iDVD is obviously better than anything on the other side (for free, that is). It's really an easy choice.

progmac

You won't remember $300 in two months even if you are somewhat poor (you couldn't be really poor or you wouldn't be buying new! You'll be using the computer a lot longer than you'll remember the investment, so I see no reason to get the PC, especially since you said you don't care for Windows XP.

agent302

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:

[QB]The thing about getting a bargain basement PC versus getting a cheap mac is that the software on the cheap mac is as good as any software that comes with any mac. You don't get ripped off on the software bundle. [QB]<hr></blockquote>



Actually, the software bundle that comes with a cheap Mac is often much better than the one that comes with the pro Macs.



And in regards to Vaio versus eMac, the difference in speed between the GeForce 2 and the Sis graphic chipset may be more pronounced and more noticeable than the difference between the P4 and the G4 (especially under 10.2 with Quartz Extreme)

pi radians

[quote]Originally posted by tad44:

<strong>But with VAIO, I'll get better display, more memory and faster CPU (2GHz P4 vs 800MHz G4).

And it's $300 cheaper...



Which would you buy with low budget?</strong><hr></blockquote>



The display is not better. Trinitron used to be king of CRT, then Diamondtron came along and everyone but Sony (for obvious reasons) switched. The eMac display is sweet.



You can always add more memory later. Sure it costs more money, but getting the eMac doesn't mean you're stuck at 256MB.



And the processor (and I'm assuming we're talking about doing video editing and MPEG2 compression) is great in the eMac.



Buy the eMac: Better OS, better Apps, better hardware, better karma.

klinux

Better hardware? I think not. I am using the iBook 700mhz and it is definitely slower than similarly clocked PIII and Duron. I do not own a G4 but in the few times that I have used it, it is definitely not as fast as a P4. (BTW, I am using P4 but the term as used here is synonymous with AMD's XP+ CPUs).)



And for display, Diamondtron and Trinitron use identical aperture grille (except Mitsubishi uses one gun and Sony uses three) technology. As a result, the picture quality is virtually identical. I challenge you to back up your statement that "everyone but Sony (for obvious reasons) switched".



Lastly, I have not seen a head on P4 vs G4 video encoding testing and would love to see one if it exists. P4 is fairly well-optimized for media encoding though.



Hey, I like my Mac as well as anyone but let's be fair...

kecksy

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />



Oh and did that 700MHz iBook happen to have more than 256MB of RAM. OS X needs RAM.

matsu

The OS matters but...



For whom does it really matter?



I'd say it matters more to consumers and general purpose users than it does to pros.



How much do you really have to look at the OS if your a pro app junkie who basically boots up one or two apps and uses them exclusively. An artist, designer or engineer doesn't really have to look at windows, just load photoshop/illustrator/Cinema4D or whatever you use most and start plugging away.



I think this is why Apple has been losing pro sales, as nice as the OS is, it doesn't really matter to people who just need their core apps. a few shortcuts on the desktop can make sure you never really have to look at windows.



Then again, Windows inroducs some other problems with multi-application compatibilities/integration and especially with privacy and digital content rights.



erm... If you're going to get a PC, why get a Sony at all? It's overpriced for a windows box and has little proprietary wierdnesses. Better to get a nice generic box with a better hardware spec. Visit your local white box maker, they'll set you up.

serrano

[quote]Originally posted by klinux:

<strong>Better hardware? I think not. I am using the iBook 700mhz and it is definitely slower than similarly clocked PIII and Duron. I do not own a G4 but in the few times that I have used it, it is definitely not as fast as a P4. (BTW, I am using P4 but the term as used here is synonymous with AMD's XP+ CPUs).)</strong><hr></blockquote>



Has this really been fair? Have you used these processors on linux w/similar kernels and distros? If you've been using XP vs OS X then you can't really speak about the quality or speed of the hardware per se, just how fast the software they run feel's.

klinux

Son of Pismo:

I am running with 384 megs of RAM. And thanks for the information but I hope your are not trying to convince your professor or boss to take action based on 1 picture???



Where is the original source of information? Who conducted the test? What is the methdology? What was the test material? What are the machines' configuration?



Morover, the test are comparing dualies against a single CPU PC. I have a feeling (not confirmed of course) that a dual Xeon (available for $2k), among other configs, is faster.



Serrano:

Yes and no. Redhat and Mandrake also runs (or "feels") faster based on my personal experience. Now to be fair, I have not tried Darwin for x86 nor have I tried other *nix kernels on Mac. If you have, I would be glad to hear what you have to say.



I have not mentioned quality at all so I do not why you are bring that up. Nevertheless, I will state for record that Apple does have higher standard of quality control than PC manufactureres. Then again, this is common industry knowledge.



As for the statement of "just how fast the software they run feel's" - isn't that what is already implied?? I could time it for you but somehow I do not think that will convince you.



And the idea of benchmarking, be it quantitative or qualitative, always imply a software test upon a specific hardware. Otherwise, there would not be an argument at all i.e. forget the software because on a purely hardware level, 2.5ghz beats 1.25 ghz period!

kecksy

Tests conducted by Apple.



<a href="http://www.apple.com/powermac/superdrive.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/powermac/superdrive.html</a>;



I assume the the tests are, fair, but there's no may to be certain.