Advice on this laptop please - Sony Vaio ...

[NewNameNeeded]

Sony Vaio VGN FZ 21Z
http://vaio.sony.co.uk/view/ShowProduct.action?product=VGN-FZ21Z&site=voe_en_GB_cons&category=VN+FZ+Series 

Main specs:
Intel Core2 Duo processor T7500 (2.20 GHz and 800 MHz FSB)
2 GB DDR2-667 SDRAM (max 4GB)
300 GB HDD (4200 rpm)
15.4" WXGA (1280 x 800) screen
NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GS graphics processing unit with Total Available Graphics Memory of 1023 MB and dedicated Video Memory of 256 MB
HDMI out
Blu-ray Disc™ Drive
Plus all the usual - wifi, etc,etc.

Above seems a great spec for £1000. So what am I missing? Is the graphics card (which looks pretty good on the surface) severely limited by the amount of dedicated memory?

I'd want to use it for the usual stuff, plus some games - FPS, etc. But the games side of things is a nice to have in addition to using it hooked up to TV, etc. And I'm not massively bothered about being unable to run games with every single graphics option turned on.

[NewNameNeeded]

bump ... anyone? Is it only me that thinks this looks well specced for a grand? It doesn't seem to carry the usual large Sony premium I'd be expecting

[JulianHJ]

Can be had for less

Can't comment on how good a deal it is though!

[Jinx]

Aside from the relatively slow speed of the HD (should be at least 5400 for a laptop) and the 1280x800 screen seems a little on the low definition side for a 15.4 screen (I get 1400x1050 out of my 4 year old 15.1 laptop screen) looks like a fairly nice bit of kit.

[sjg]

Slow disk, low-res screen. Otherwise competent.

Good though if outright disk capacity is more important to you (there's nothing bigger available) and your eyesight is failing.

[RLK500]

It's a Sony. I have two, I would never buy another (bought the first, the second was an insurance replacement). Heavy, poor battery life, crappy support from Sony, poor compatability (Graphics v Apps.). Very poncy, look nice, don't really perform. Form over function. IMHO I would look at Toshiba's, Samsung, Fujitsu as alternatives, but workign in IT, other more obscure brands wouldn't really worry me. Often they have to be a lot better to try and gain any market share so you end up with a better deal.

[NewNameNeeded]

RLK500 said:

It's a Sony. I have two, I would never buy another (bought the first, the second was an insurance replacement). Heavy, poor battery life, crappy support from Sony, poor compatability (Graphics v Apps.). Very poncy, look nice, don't really perform. Form over function. IMHO I would look at Toshiba's, Samsung, Fujitsu as alternatives, but workign in IT, other more obscure brands wouldn't really worry me. Often they have to be a lot better to try and gain any market share so you end up with a better deal.

Agree with what you have mentioned, but for the money ~£900 I couldn't find anything from the other major manufacturers you mention with the same kind of kit - huge HDD (albeit slow), HDMI output, decent graphics card, etc, etc.

Weight and battery life are not important as it never leaves the house.

Can you suggest something you'd rather spend £900 on with similar processor/graphics performance, decent HDD size, HDMI out, etc ? I'm not interested in it being a poncy name - just a good spec and reliable.


Only thing this laptop seems to have that I am not keen to pay a premium for is the blue ray drive.

[markduffy]

as already said the screen and HDD really let the laptop down, i wouldnt buy it, the resolution on the screen is something that you would ideally see on a 13" widescreen

[RLK500]

How about this http://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk/Toshiba_Satellite_P...

[NewNameNeeded]

Thanks guys. I hadn't actually noticed the HDD speed initially (I actually had in my mind it was 7200rpm). Appreciate it is slow.

However I can't believe that resolution is an issue (having never run a laptop or PC any higher) but will take that comment on board. What resolution ought I to be looking for ????

As for the Toshiba recommendation - to me that is no better than the Sony one, and similar money? The screen resolution remains the same at 1280 x 800, whilst the HDD is 200GB with no mention of speed. Thanks for the recommendation though.

[Jinx]

If you can find a similar spec laptop to the sony but has a HD running at (at least) 5400 rpm and a screen with vertical pixals greater than 1024, then you should be fine. 1280x800 sounds more like a normal 1280x1024 monitor that has been chopped down to 800 to make it widescreen.....

[NewNameNeeded]

Thanks all - especially to those who spotted the HDD speed, as I'd totally misread that.

I'm still not convinced about the screen resolution as most of the laptops I looked at online today had a vertical resolution of 800 (same as the Sony) but I'll maybe check a couple out in a store and see if the difference is that important.

[Phugoid]

been looking for laptops in this range myself and found this unbeatable at the price: http://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk/Acer_Aspire_5920H_Gemstone_Laptop_LX.AN60X.001/version.asp 

this laptop can be had for £630 on the laskys website.

[NewNameNeeded]

Phugoid said:

been looking for laptops in this range myself and found this unbeatable at the price: http://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk/Acer_Aspire_5920H_Gemstone_Laptop_LX.AN60X.001/version.asp 

this laptop can be had for £630 on the laskys website.

At £630 that sounds amazing value! The only downside for this and a couple of other I looked at was ideally I don't want to pay for a HD drive (would rather stick to DVD for now) but if I were to choose I think I'd go with Blu Ray at the moment, especially with a few big players pulling out of HD DVD. Could be wrong though. And at £630 ....

[off_again]

Sony laptops tend to be pretty good and reliable. My wife has one at the moment and my BiL had one for years too. Nothing going wrong other than Windows and its general problems. Works well and the integrated components are of a pretty high quality. However, you do pay for the 'style' over more run-of-the-mill brands. I know of no company who uses Sony as their standard, so it says something about where they are pitched.

Personally the screen does not bother me. I specified my Dell with the lower resolution screen for battery life and readability. I used to have a Dell with one of those 1600x1200 screens which was good, but I tended to find that I was squinting at it a lot - not good. Dropping to the 1400xwhatever means its a bit more usable for me, but then I do a lot of on-site work and need the laptop to be usable.

Whats the battery life like? My wifes PCG-7Y1M is good on on the standard battery (much better than my Dell with dual batteries!) but then again she has Vista which is better for general power management. Only other thing I would say is LOTS of memory - its cheap as chips these days so stack it full as it will go....