I've had a WXGA Asus M6 for a while and like it a lot. But I've seen the new enhanced screen lappies in shops and always wanted to try one. So when a cheap 17" WUXGA Sony A190 ($1400 minus battery!) came up on eBay I jumped on it.
It finally arrived in Australia a couple of days ago and I have been setting it up and comparing it to the Asus ever since.
First impressions were that it was not as big and heavy as I thought it was going to be. I used to have a Toshiba P25, and that was just too fat-assed for my liking. I can still lie in bed with the Sony and rest it on my gut without being sliced in half.
The build quality and design are very good. It is solid and creak-free, about on a par with the Asus and certainly better than previous Sonys I've owned. The curves make it seem smaller than it is. The keyboard is nice and quiet, and the extra size of the keys is quite nifty too. Heat isn't an issue, and I especially like the funky little button which ejects the CDs with a chirpy little beep.
On the downside, I can't believe the amount of rubbish Sony fling onto the hard drive. When I first fired it up there were over 60 processes buzzing away. I ended up doing a clean install of XP Pro and have it down to 36, including my stuff. That done, the big fella is surprisingly nippy. The 64Mb ATI 9700 is clocked slightly higher than the Asus (392:223 v 392:209) and the stock 3D2001 benches reflect that. The Sony scored 11033 and the Asus 10846. So it is at least as good as the Asus for gaming. I did try overclocking but got very bad artifacts at 450:223 and so chickened out, so I suspect the Sony drivers don't match the new Asus ones.
The 4200RPM drive lets it down though, compared to my 7200 and apparently it is a real hassle to swap it out.
But the point of getting it was to try out that big glossy screen. So how was it next to the Asus?
Firstly, I should say that the WSXGA Asus has a very good screen of its own, better than the other lappies I've had through here lately. What I was hoping for was deeper blacks and a higher contrast ratio - more vibrancy if you like.
The Sony Xbrite screen was, as the name suggests, brighter. The first attachment below shows the two side by side at maximum brightness. The difference is slightly less than the photos indicate, but still very evident. Incident, they are both showing the same Word document at the same magnification so you'll get an idea of extra screen real estate. The DPI of the Asus is about the same as the Sony.
What I found surprising though, was that the black levels of the two screens were a lot closer than I thought. I don't run my lappies at maximum brightness anyway, but even with the whites at appropriate levels, there wasn't the big difference I was hoping for. As an experiment I placed the protective screen plastic that came with the Asus back on (a cheap Nushield) and much of the time it was hard to see any real difference in screen quality, brightness aside.
In the second attachment, I tried to get a shot with high contrast, although it hasn't come out as well as the other shot. Both look better than the photo shows.
The Sony looked better (in comparison) the brighter the room was, which you'd expect. Light is still the enemy of LCDs. Reflections weren't a problem (unlike the plastic thingy) and if you hold it directly up to the light you can see that there is some kind of polarizing effect there.
So if you want a big bright screen that continues to look good in well-lit places then the Sony is definately the go. It's a very nice machine.
However, the Asus is very good too, and I don't really need the extra brightness cos my place is usually quite dingy and I work a lot at night. So that, and the extra portability, battery life and upgradeability are leaning me towards keeping the M6 and flogging the Sony on Aussie eBay.
I still think my perfect machine would be M6 with an enhanced WSXGA screen, but there isn't such a beast. I may try out proper NuShield though.
If you have any questions, fire away.
Steve
EDIT:
The shots have been attached in the wrong order - 190a is the brightness screen shot, 190b is the contrast.
It finally arrived in Australia a couple of days ago and I have been setting it up and comparing it to the Asus ever since.
First impressions were that it was not as big and heavy as I thought it was going to be. I used to have a Toshiba P25, and that was just too fat-assed for my liking. I can still lie in bed with the Sony and rest it on my gut without being sliced in half.
The build quality and design are very good. It is solid and creak-free, about on a par with the Asus and certainly better than previous Sonys I've owned. The curves make it seem smaller than it is. The keyboard is nice and quiet, and the extra size of the keys is quite nifty too. Heat isn't an issue, and I especially like the funky little button which ejects the CDs with a chirpy little beep.
On the downside, I can't believe the amount of rubbish Sony fling onto the hard drive. When I first fired it up there were over 60 processes buzzing away. I ended up doing a clean install of XP Pro and have it down to 36, including my stuff. That done, the big fella is surprisingly nippy. The 64Mb ATI 9700 is clocked slightly higher than the Asus (392:223 v 392:209) and the stock 3D2001 benches reflect that. The Sony scored 11033 and the Asus 10846. So it is at least as good as the Asus for gaming. I did try overclocking but got very bad artifacts at 450:223 and so chickened out, so I suspect the Sony drivers don't match the new Asus ones.
The 4200RPM drive lets it down though, compared to my 7200 and apparently it is a real hassle to swap it out.
But the point of getting it was to try out that big glossy screen. So how was it next to the Asus?
Firstly, I should say that the WSXGA Asus has a very good screen of its own, better than the other lappies I've had through here lately. What I was hoping for was deeper blacks and a higher contrast ratio - more vibrancy if you like.
The Sony Xbrite screen was, as the name suggests, brighter. The first attachment below shows the two side by side at maximum brightness. The difference is slightly less than the photos indicate, but still very evident. Incident, they are both showing the same Word document at the same magnification so you'll get an idea of extra screen real estate. The DPI of the Asus is about the same as the Sony.
What I found surprising though, was that the black levels of the two screens were a lot closer than I thought. I don't run my lappies at maximum brightness anyway, but even with the whites at appropriate levels, there wasn't the big difference I was hoping for. As an experiment I placed the protective screen plastic that came with the Asus back on (a cheap Nushield) and much of the time it was hard to see any real difference in screen quality, brightness aside.
In the second attachment, I tried to get a shot with high contrast, although it hasn't come out as well as the other shot. Both look better than the photo shows.
The Sony looked better (in comparison) the brighter the room was, which you'd expect. Light is still the enemy of LCDs. Reflections weren't a problem (unlike the plastic thingy) and if you hold it directly up to the light you can see that there is some kind of polarizing effect there.
So if you want a big bright screen that continues to look good in well-lit places then the Sony is definately the go. It's a very nice machine.
However, the Asus is very good too, and I don't really need the extra brightness cos my place is usually quite dingy and I work a lot at night. So that, and the extra portability, battery life and upgradeability are leaning me towards keeping the M6 and flogging the Sony on Aussie eBay.
I still think my perfect machine would be M6 with an enhanced WSXGA screen, but there isn't such a beast. I may try out proper NuShield though.
If you have any questions, fire away.
Steve
EDIT:
The shots have been attached in the wrong order - 190a is the brightness screen shot, 190b is the contrast.
