backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by grenableu.. on Jan 14 at 9:30 AM

The 8" VAIO P Series weighs just 1.4 pounds

Sony is redefining "small" with the latest edition to its VAIO series of notebooks. Although pictures of the device have been leaked by the FCC, the VAIO P Series Lifestyle PC was officially unveiled today at CES.

The VAIO P Series weighs in at an astonishing 1.4 pounds and makes use of an LED-backlit 8" display (1600x768). While the resolution is sure to raise more than a few eyebrows, you may actually end up squinting to read text on the tiny device.

The tiny notebook comes standard with a 1.33GHz Intel Atom processor. This is likely to make the "adequate" performance of today's netbooks "barely acceptable" for Sony's new VAIO P Series – especially considering that the device comes preloaded with Windows Vista. A 1.6GHz Atom will be available as an option. That being said, Sony aims to impress with built-in 3G networking, 802.11n wireless, and Bluetooth. The standard hard drive is a 60GB unit and a 128GB SSD is available as an option.

The VAIO P Series is also available to match your own personal style with such colors as garnet red, emerald green, onyx black, crystal white and classic black.

"The VAIO P Series Lifestyle PC is your portal to the world, delivering entertainment and computing in a head-turning device that's small enough to put in your pocket," said Mike Abary of Sony's VAIO division. "Designed for the fashionista in all of us, it's the ideal companion."

The VAIO P Series will come equipped with Windows Vista and can operate up to 4 hours with its standard battery. Springing for the extended battery will boost the run time to 8 hours.

The VAIO P Series will retail for around $900 when it launches later this month.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

High Res FTW
By amd64 on 1/7/2009 10:04:40 PM , Rating: 5
Why are high-res displays so hard to come by on laptops? Does anybody really not want to be able to display more information on their laptop? Are they really so expensive to produce? That resolution may be a bit small on that display but you can always adjust your DPI/fonts, etc..




RE: High Res FTW
By Mikescool on 1/7/2009 10:16:34 PM , Rating: 5
i think sony have taken it to the extreme with this resolution and a 8inch screen.


RE: High Res FTW
By 9nails on 1/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: High Res FTW
By quiksilvr on 1/7/2009 11:28:16 PM , Rating: 5
This is a good laptop, however there are some fundamental flaws that keep it from being great:

1) Vista. Granted it has 2 GB of ram but the low powered processor and low powered GPU hinder its Vista capability. Windows XP would be a much safer bet, especially when it comes to battery life.

2) Given the illusion of being able to pocket but is far from it. It is 4.7" deep and 9.6" long. Most netbooks are around 6.5" deep and 10.3" long. So in other words, it's pointless for it to be this small because chances are if you can fit it, its more than likely a netbook can fit in that spot as well.

3) Resolution. Pointlessly high and only hinders the laptop with its price point. A 1200x600 would have been more realistic. Which leads me to my final point:

4) Price. $900 dollars? Thanks but no thanks. Yes it's stylish, yes its handy but at 1/2 that price I can get a much more feature robust netbook that's only 1 lb heavier and a couple inches larger in depth. Now if it was $400 they would sell insanely well, but that $900 price point is the final nail in the coffin for this product.


RE: High Res FTW
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/8/2009 7:49:28 AM , Rating: 4
All you said plus:

A 25:12 aspect ratio??? WTF???

With an aspect ratio like that, forget about watching ANY kind of video there and expect it to look good or fill the screen at the same time...

Which is a shame because, with an 8" screen, a 4:3 video would occupy just 60% of the width, and a 16:9 video will only use 77% of the width, that is, almost 400 pixels wide will be left unused...

For me, this machine is an expensive joke with over the top features trying to compensate for its high price and the lack of more rational features (like, for example, using the 1.6ghz atom, which is already no cheetah at all).

Maybe sony is feeling like trying to catch some of the most irrational buyers among Mac's marketshare? :D


RE: High Res FTW
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/8/2009 8:03:48 AM , Rating: 5
Oh yes, obviously, because the only *possible* use for a laptop is for playing videos, not getting a decent amount of data on the screen in a format that'll fit in your pocket.

Excuse me while I go off and do some *work* on my laptop. *Seethe*.

(Sorry, but the reason that those of us who actually like enough pixels to work with struggle is that journalists with bad eyesight keep panning any display that dares to have a decent pixel count. This is one laptop, not a suggestion that the entire industry replace their pixels-the-size-of-keys devices. Vive la difference.)


RE: High Res FTW
By strikeback03 on 1/8/2009 9:19:39 AM , Rating: 2
Better be one huge pocket.


RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/8/2009 10:12:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Better be one huge pocket.


:-) It's a fair cop. Possibly the pocket in my rucksack, or a camera jacket. While it would technically fit (partly) in my jeans pocket, I'll admit that sitting down would be a bit tricky. Which is why what I'd *really* like is something like this in the form factor of a Psion 5.

Still, going on top of all the stuff in my bag is better than having to go down the side. Like a Libretto, you could carry this around just in case you need it. I can't do that with a 17" WUXGA laptop.


RE: High Res FTW
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/8/2009 10:04:57 AM , Rating: 1
Bring me a survey stating that most people use netbooks to get some kind of job done besides editing office documents with that little computing power and limited battery life and I'll believe you right away.

All the people I know with netbooks give it the same use I do: office, browsing, video, and really old games.

For running visual studio or CPU intensive tasks I have my all mighty, all desktop burrying ultra chunky desktop machine which at least has a truly comfortable keyboard and mouse and a big enough screen and isn't limited by battery power.

Or are you just trying to say that you need an uber high resolution with an awkward aspect ratio just to write word documents?

What kind of work do you think that can be done with a device like this?


RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/8/2009 11:14:57 AM , Rating: 3
I'm confused here.

1) I'm quite prepared to believe that most people do tasks on a netbook that can be performed reasonably with a low screen resolution. Those who would like to perform tasks which benefit significantly from a high resolution are hardly likely to use an unsuitable device to do it - "doctor, it hurts when I..." My mini-note has above-average (for a netbook) resolution, and I still tend to do sofware development on a larger screen when I can. If I owned an original Eee, I probably wouldn't do too much hacking on it. That doesn't mean that if a device were suddenly made more suitable for another task, such as increasing the resolution, everybody would continue to use it in the same way. Just because an Eee can't do a decent job with F.E.A.R. doesn't mean that nobody would try to play F.E.A.R. on it if it gained the oomph.

2) Even if the majority of people don't need a high resolution netbook (and never do anything on one which would benefit from more pixels), some of us would. Just because Sony couldn't sell this to everyone doesn't mean the device doesn't have a place on the market.

I don't need a high resolution for Word (spit) documents. I need one to get multiple windows of C++ on the screen, so that I can compare and copy bits of code around efficiently (from this point of view, wider is better than taller). Virtual desktops don't cut it (I use those too), and my usual configuration (a quad head linux box at work, a T221 at home) aren't portable - and neither is Lenovo's recent DS laptop. This really would make a significant difference to my productivity - and, having used an old Libretto for so long - I have absolutely no problem with the keyboard. I may struggle to run Visual Studio on this set-up, but for XEmacs and a bit of light gcc, I'm sure it's got plenty of oomph - compared with the P120MMX that I've been using for most of the last few years.

FWIW, most of the friends I have who have netbooks use them for hacking and a bit of web surfing. Getting more code and web page on the screen is a win.

Maybe it's not for everyone, but it's certainly justifiable to some of the market.


RE: High Res FTW
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/8/2009 12:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point...

But wouldn't you be better off with a full fledged laptop costing the same 900 bucks and having significantly better features (including larger screen and better keyboard, for starters, and a much better processor) instead of this?

I still can't conceive ultra high portability with "serious work" like developing. Not even talk about photoshopping, or the kind of tasks that benefit the most from a high resolution: autocad, 3dstudio and the likes, which are totally incompatible with such a low powered machine.


RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/8/2009 12:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But wouldn't you be better off with a full fledged laptop costing the same 900 bucks and having significantly better features (including larger screen and better keyboard, for starters, and a much better processor) instead of this?


It depends - it wouldn't be as good as a Lenovo DS or any of my desktop rigs for hacking, but in the trade-off between usefulness and likelihood of being carried with me when I have some spare time, it feels like a good compromise. I hack on the train, when queueing at the hairdresser's, in the pub, on the loo. Yes, I'm a geek. On the rare occasions when I don't feel too brain-dead to do work, having a machine with me makes a difference. I use a laptop in my living room more than I use my workstation. A laptop is only useful if you've actully got it with you.

I'll admit that it would struggle for much photo editing (the mini-note is painfully slow even at slideshows, although it's been a useful place to dump flash card contents when on holiday), and it's certainly no CAD machine, but for a bit of surf-and-code I'd expect it to be fine. For the stuff I work on, I don't need Visual Studio (I remember when Emacs was considered big, and struggling to run it on an 8MB machine) and the specs seem more than adequate. I'd not, admittedly, want it as my only machine, but that's true for most netbooks; it's the difference between enough functionality to be useful and the functionality you really want to live with all day. For me, the cut-off for acceptable resolution is certainly above 1024x600. Developers who spend all their time elbow deep in multi-terabyte database back ends might have a different view of whether a portable machine is useful - but there's always telnet/remote desktop to something with oomph.


RE: High Res FTW
By grenableu on 1/14/2009 9:30:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
With an aspect ratio like that, forget about watching ANY kind of video there and expect it to look good or fill the screen at the same time...
Omg, so any video will have bars on the side. That obviously means this machine is useless, because 100% of people who buy Netbooks use them to do nothing but watch video.


RE: High Res FTW
By TomZ on 1/8/2009 8:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is a good laptop, however there are some fundamental flaws that keep it from being great:
Funny, the reasons you dislike it are the same as the reasons I like it (except the price - cheaper is always better!). I wouldn't consider a new computer that couldn't run Vista or Windows 7, and I like the size and screen resolution.


RE: High Res FTW
By BZDTemp on 1/8/2009 3:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
1) Dont like Vista. Install something else.
2) It will not fit shirt pockets but it will fit fine in many coats.
3)Wrong. High res is good as it makes for more choice. You can have really small print or larger print which is very clear. Do you prefer a 300dpi printer to a 1200dpi?
4) It may not be for you. The Sony laptops are like Macs. You pay for more than just Mhz and MBytes. Calling it a flaw is like saying anything in the world not made for you is flawed - get over yourself.


RE: High Res FTW
By quiksilvr on 1/9/2009 2:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
1) Its purely for resource reasons and battery life issues that I said Vista shouldn't be used. If it was Vista BASIC then it would work but Premium on this hardware is pushing it.
2) So I have to wear a coat every time I have to pocket this thing?
3) 1600x768 is overkill on an 8" screen. That's like making a 17" monitor with 2560x1600 resolution. And last time I checked, 1200x600 is still pretty damn good. 300 dpi vs 1200 dpi is and unrealistic comparison. It's really more like 1200 dpi vs 1600 dpi.
4) Get over myself? What the hell is your problem? Its flawed because its RIDICULOUSLY OVERPRICED FOR WHAT ITS OFFERING WHEN COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE MARKET.

And that goes for Macs too. Apple is fully justified for pricing their products higher than everyone else because its hardware is superior, is energy efficient and environmentally friendly. But there's a boiling point. This Sony laptop is more along the lines of $500-$600, not frigging $900. The new Macbook 15" is more along the lines of $1500 not TWO GRAND. And $2700 a Macbook 17"? There's no justification for this insane overpricing, but there is justification for pricing higher in general.


RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/12/2009 7:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
1) I'm inclined to agree that I have my doubts about running Vista, but fingers crossed Linux *can* be made to run. If Sony dare let an OS without DRM pollution run on their machines, of course.

2) I'd prefer something in the Psion 5 form factor that would be more pocketable, but "smaller and more portable" is a sliding scale. If you were wearing a coat anyway, you could take it. If you have a bag full of stuff (as I often do), it's more likely to fit than a bigger laptop. My mini-note *just* coped in the front pocket of my camera bag, and this would fit much more comfortably. It's more portable than most laptops with anything like this resolution; that's a good thing for some of us, and it might be a the dividing line where some people (not me) start to find the keyboard hard to use. It's no worse a trade-off than any other.

3) I'd pay a significant premium for a 17" monitor with 2560x1600 resolution. I'd not recommend one to elderly relatives, but some of the market like more screen real estate in a small physical space - clearly, if you don't, this laptop is not for you, but I have to commend Sony (for once) for meeting my needs. There are a lot of portable devices out there with similar resolution (mostly phones); it's not so exceptional.

4) "Get over yourself" may have been unjustified, but overpriced? Really? Netbooks are exceptionally cheap for what they are, and you lose out with low end components - the screen being the one that most puts me off. Subnotebooks in general have always had a premium. This Sony falls between the two - it's nothing like the price of Librettos, back in the day, but it's more than an Eee. Whether you think it's worth the premium is up to you; Sony clearly feel there's a portion of the market for which it is. I don't need a fast laptop, a big screen, optical drives, a big keyboard - but I do need resolution. This isn't a perfect device, but it fits me reasonably well; if you want something in a netbook form factor with a high end processor or graphics, there'd be a similar premium. It would be overpriced if it offered nothing over netbooks; it clearly *does* offer something, although whether it's of particular interest to you is another matter.

There's only one business justification for pricing something high: you expect to sell enough units that this maximises the total profit. If Sony or Apple dropped their prices, they may sell more units, but not enough to make up for the loss in profit. If they upped the prices, they'd sell fewer, and this would more than make up for the extra per unit price. Businesses don't set a premium to spite their customers: they do it because they want to make as much money as possible. If customers stop buying expensive kit (as the current economic climate may force them to do), prices will change - but you can't blame the companies for a consumer-driven decision.


RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/8/2009 8:18:29 AM , Rating: 3
No. YOU don't want high pixel count on small screens. I bought a Mini Note too, for the screen - but I still struggle to fit work on it. I wouldn't buy a 1280x600 device, and deliberately avoided all the 1024x600 devices; I might well be tempted by this Sony if I can afford it - extra pixels would make a big difference to my productivity.

221ppi is high, although less of an issue on a laptop than a desktop (it's easier to get your head closer). It's only slightly higher than the 204ppi of the T221, which is extremely legible so long as you don't try to read it from three feet away. It's substantially lower than the screen that everyone loves on the HTC Touch HD (800x480 at 3.8" is 245ppi), or on the Xperia X1/Toshiba G900 (800x480 at 3" is 310ppi). Epson showed off a 7.2" full HD display once, and I remain disappointed it's never turned up in a laptop.

If you don't want 1600x768 in a decently portable form factor, buy a different laptop, and accept that different people want different things. Panning a company that's prepared to be different means that those of us who actually want something nonstandard end up with nothing to buy.


RE: High Res FTW
By BZDTemp on 1/8/2009 3:31:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Screens this small plus of such high pixel count are hard to read!


It seems to be ca common misunderstanding that a high pixel count makes for unreadable text but that is not so because you can adjust font size to your need. In fact a high pixel density means text is easier to read if you set the text to be the same physical size as a screen with a lower dpi!

It's the same as with a printer. A 300dpi laser and a 1200dpi can print text the same size but the later has a sharper and more readable output.

Font size on Windows is just clicks away. Right click the desktop, choose "Apperance"-pan and there it is. If so desired you can even adjust different elements individually. Want to do it on a webpage, including videos and all, in Firefox simply hold control and scroll the mouse wheel.

High dpi is an advantage not a problem. Printing on paper can go 2400 dpi and higher and our screens should follow and maybe if more people saw the light instead of being all "high res = small print" they went "high res = sharper print = GOOD!"


RE: High Res FTW
By dflynchimp on 1/7/2009 11:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
you know, at the pixel pitch sizes they are able to use in these small screens I do wonder why there hasn't been a move to scale beyond 2560X1600 for the desktop market. Drive those 30" prices down, get my drift?


RE: High Res FTW
By B3an on 1/8/2009 7:30:02 AM , Rating: 2
Because dual-link DVI does not have the bandwidth for higher than 2560x1600 res. So thats why.

Although with the new DisplayPort connections higher bandwidth (some new monitors have this), screens with a higher res are now a possibility. But the GFX card would also need a DP output connector.


RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/8/2009 7:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
DisplayPort has almost the same bandwidth as dual-link DVI (effectively 360MHz at 24bpp vs 330MHz - usually - for DVI and 340MHz for HDMI 1.3). It's not enough to drive the next resolutions higher than 2560x1600 - particularly, not 3840x2400, which thus far has needed more than one connector. One of the reasons I keep ranting about DisplayPort being a waste of time is that it doesn't gain anything significant. The DisplayPort multiple display support is limited for the same reason - if you barely have the bandwidth for one display, why try to drive two down the same cable?

(Not to open that rant again, just intercepting misinformation.)


RE: High Res FTW
By theapparition on 1/8/2009 9:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the reasons I keep ranting about DisplayPort being a waste of time is that it doesn't gain anything significant.

It does gain something signifigant, just not for you. DisplayPort was designed as an HDMI alternative with signifigantly lower royalties. So any manufacturer offering DispalyPort, can save several pennies per monitor.

Now don't you feel good that they just saved money?


RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/8/2009 9:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the cost argument is one that keeps being pushed. HDMI costs a few cents per connector, with a discount if you pay for HDCP as well, plus a few thousand dollars as a one-off company fee. DisplayPort has, I understand, no guarantees about licensing (it's *currently* free). However, adding HDCP costs money, adding HDMI backward-compatibility costs money, and Molex ended up in a law suit over the connector recently. Meanwhile, a vast number of displays and graphics cards end up with DVI/HDMI and DisplayPort, or we all end up with adaptor units - so at least for a transition period stuff gets more expensive, not less.

Last I heard, DisplayPort was continuing solely because Dell management wanted to push a bit of new technology and Vesa needed to justify their existence. Once they'd pushed graphics card manufacturers to produce it, other companies were obliged to jump on the bandwagon. It's of dubious technical advantage, and significant inconvenience to those consumers who want a number of homogeneous connectors on their devices.

However, it looks like we're stuck with it - and I actually don't dislike the standard, I just don't see a real world benefit that outweighs the overhead of producing it. I just hope DisplayPort 2.0 appears with enough bandwidth to be beneficial at some point.


RE: High Res FTW
By FITCamaro on 1/8/2009 10:01:04 AM , Rating: 3
The market for people who need more than 2560x1600 in a single display is pretty low.


RE: High Res FTW
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/8/2009 10:07:40 AM , Rating: 3
As is the market for people who can afford those screens :D


RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/8/2009 11:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly, agreed. (Thank goodness for eBay, not that it helps all that much.) I wonder whether the market would be bigger if the price was lower - lots of people are blown away by a T221 when they see one. If I could afford it, I'd have a second one to use at work...

Sadly, the market is full of low resolution screens, and it's hard to get your hands on anything unusual. I suspect there's be a lot more 2560x1600 screens out there if they were cheaper, too (especially if they were a bit smaller).


RE: High Res FTW
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/8/2009 11:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think 27" screens could boast 2560 wide resolutions.

Not for 24 inchers and smaller, though. A 24" with 1920x1200 puts enough strain with the standard fonts on my eyes already, though.

The problem with high resolutions and text reading ability is not as much a problem of the screen as is with the nonexistent "dpi awareness" of windows, which, by win7, I'd expect to be "dpi aware" and scale fonts and objects accordingly, taking advantage of the extra resolution to make things better detailed, not just smaller.


RE: High Res FTW
By Fluppeteer on 1/8/2009 12:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone's different (which is why I'd rather see more high-resolution short-throw projectors that people could position on their desks to give an arbitrary monitor size). WUXGA 27" screens shock me, since I still think of 24" as large for WUXGA (Lenovo's claims for the L220x aside, there have been WUXGA 22" screens for a while). In the past, 1600x1200 was a 19" CRT (or 17" for a decent one), and I run my 19" CRT at home at 2048x1536; 24" CRTs were 2304x1440. A 19" SXGA screen is just different from a 17" one, not inherently better (and whether you want to see individual pixels depends on what you're looking at). It's a shame that 2560x1600 only comes in a size that's too big for convenient use on a desk (for me).

I generally want real-estate over detail, but fortunately - although the automated scaling in Windows is very limited - a lot of apps do better dynamic scaling; most web browsers, DTP packages (including Acrobat), etc. support ctrl-mouse wheel for resizing depending on what you're doing. Some apps don't, and that's when I have to resort to leaning forward. Maybe some day all computers will do a better job of this. For now, I accept that for some people the 90 ppi monitor has its place - so long as I'm allowed to like my 200ppi.


RE: High Res FTW
By DeepBlue1975 on 1/12/2009 7:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
What you say is true.

I understand there are higher resolution displays for very specifical uses, but they are as expensive as hell and mostly end up as part of medical equipment.

I like better resolutions, but I wouldn't like to pay a lot more for it, and certainly I wouldn't wanna come back to dealing with a higher probability of dead pixels and a return policy stating that "more than xxx dead pixels blah blah".

That's the reason I keep coming back to dell for monitors, they are usually very good and when you want to change them because of some flaw, they do it right away and even come to your home to take the old one and give you the new one.


What the hell, laptop manufacturers?
By spread on 1/7/2009 10:17:20 PM , Rating: 5
I don't understand why these manufacturers can't design a netbook screen that doesn't have an ugly thick plastic border around it.

Nobody wants useless plastic bits attached to their laptop.




By 9nails on 1/7/2009 10:37:49 PM , Rating: 3
That's built-in space for post-it notes! You can put reminders on the notes to remember to bring that 17" monitor with you next time.


By drunkenmastermind on 1/8/2009 6:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with you. I was surprised to see the big fat boarder on the new mac book pro. The less bezel around the monitor the better in my opinion.


RE: What the hell, laptop manufacturers?
By TomZ on 1/8/2009 9:02:10 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nobody wants useless plastic bits attached to their laptop.
I could be wrong, but doesn't the display backlighting live in the borders around the display?

Also, I think the borders are necessary to give the lid mechanicanal strenght - rigidity - in order to prevent damage to the display.


RE: What the hell, laptop manufacturers?
By strikeback03 on 1/8/2009 9:18:52 AM , Rating: 2
Plus, it is already a narrow keyboard, and looks like it would be over an inch more narrow without those borders.


By diego10arg on 1/8/2009 11:45:46 AM , Rating: 2
Or you could always have a bigger screen and keep the outside size the same ;)


By Sazar on 1/8/2009 5:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
LED backlit should not have that kind of thick border.


Meh
By MonkeyPaw on 1/7/2009 10:36:39 PM , Rating: 5
So it costs way more than other netbooks, ships with a slower Atom and a smaller HDD, even though it has Vista? And while that full-size keyboard looks fancy, where's the trackpad? Does it have the dreaded pointer nipple? Why must Sony continue to make things that are almost cool, have some strange design issues, and cost too much? It's like they don't study the market at all.




RE: Meh
By ShaolinSoccer on 1/8/2009 2:45:30 AM , Rating: 1
They must've hired someone who talks good but is really trying to run the company into the ground lol... Oh well, I still love my PSP. Only thing the PSP really needs is faster internet speed and maybe to be able to use it as a cell phone. Would be nice to be playing a game and get a phone call and be able to pause and answer it right there on the PSP. Oh wait, that's an iPhone...

c'mon Sony! get with with program!!!


RE: Meh
By strikeback03 on 1/8/2009 9:20:26 AM , Rating: 1
Trackpoints destroy trackpads.


RE: Meh
By noirsoft on 1/9/2009 1:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
Everytime someone uses a Trackpoint, a kitten dies.


Typo
By oab on 1/7/2009 10:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...you make actually end up squinting to read text...


I think you mean "...you MAY actually end up squinting to read text..."




RE: Typo
By dflynchimp on 1/7/2009 10:29:47 PM , Rating: 5
you know, if the author of the article is allowed to make grammatical edits to his post then shouldn't we be able to edit our comments as well?


I expected it to read this way
By ET on 1/8/2009 4:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
"The VAIO P Series will come equipped with Windows Vista and can operate up to 4 hours with its standard battery. Springing for Windows XP will boost the run time to 8 hours."




RE: I expected it to read this way
By ET on 1/8/2009 4:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Still, definitely attractive in my book. I like them small and light, and the high resolution screen is definitely a plus. The slow Atom is an unfortunate choice, but at least there's a choice for the standard 1.6GHz.


Not nearly enough horsepower for Vista
By kondor999 on 1/8/2009 8:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
After having struggled to run Vista x86 with "only" 2gb of RAM, it seems likely this thing will run with all the celerity of a sessile sea creature.

IMHO, for Vista you need x64 and 4gb (better yet, 8gb) along with a Core2.




By noirsoft on 1/9/2009 1:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
FUD FUD and more FUD.

I don't know what to say, except either you know nothing or are lying. I am posting this from an Acer netbook with 1.5GB RAM and Vista Home premium. It runs just as fast as it did with the stock XP installation. No problems whatsoever. Any problems you had are YOUR problems and not Vista's.


A weird netbook
By Captain828 on 1/8/2009 5:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
let's see... we have a full QWERTY keyboard, a weird AR screen (2,083), an underclocked Atom, Vista, an Intel integrated graphics chipset, 2GB of RAM and up to 128GB of capacity... very weird

why haven't they gone for a 1.6GHz Atom? or a 9400M GPU instead if they're aiming for a higher spec netbook?

also, why Vista?? it won't run well on this hardware... unless it's the useless Basic Edition

I have to say however that the keyboard looks sweet and a 128GB SSD even more




RE: A weird netbook
By TomZ on 1/8/2009 9:03:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
why haven't they gone for a 1.6GHz Atom? or a 9400M GPU instead if they're aiming for a higher spec netbook?
Longer battery life, of course.


By xNIBx on 1/8/2009 8:05:31 AM , Rating: 3
It's embarrassing that a tech site like dailytech assumes that if a screen has high resolution, the font/icons will be small. This isnt the case, especially with vista. You can increase font dpi/icon size so that the fonts/icons will have the same size on screen but will be rendered at higher resolution.




Trackpad?
By Marlonsm on 1/8/2009 8:42:38 AM , Rating: 2
I see no trackpad in those pics?
Will people need to use a mouse(ruining all the portability) or one of those trackballs?
Or am I missing something here on this 1.33Ghz Atom $900 netbook?




By IntelUser2000 on 1/8/2009 10:24:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The tiny notebook forgoes the 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor used in just about every netbook on the planet and instead uses a 1.33GHz version.


This is *NOT* your bread and butter Netbook CPU. This is the low power "Silverthorne" CPU. The chipset is a low power US15W "Poulsbo" chipset with TDP only 2.2W.




ROFL @ RESOLUTION
By Mikescool on 1/7/2009 10:14:08 PM , Rating: 1
why sony?




Not News
By aurareturn on 1/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not News
By amd64 on 1/7/2009 10:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's a new laptop that people may be interesting because it is fairly powerful in some ways. Productivity is all about being to see what you are doing so a new notebook with a high-res display is worth hearing about.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki