Comments on: Desktop design: Apple vs. Sony

Crave takes a look at recent desktop designs from Apple and Sony.

[XMattingly]

I think Apple wins on design AND price

The new Sony LT does have some very nice design aesthetics: it's the first
"slim design" PC that's really grabbed my attention in the past few years,
other than the iMac. The clear plastic frame and wide screen definitely look
classy -- almost like it's floating above a desk... until you peek around the
side and see the computer's boxy frame and that tacky-looking peg leg that's
supporting it. Granted that people don't buy computers to stare at the back,
but that's what separates Apple from Sony. Apple's attention to design goes
360 degrees.

It's a given that the LT was intended as a convergence device, but I think it
falls short in a few areas. For one, I think most people who would truly want
to merge a computer w/ a TV would want a larger screen. LCD prices have
plummeted in the past 2 years; I'd take a bigger screen over a Blu-Ray drive
any day. #2: I have to question how easy it is to attach peripherals if you have
an LT wall-mounted, since ports are located directly on the back. #3: I haven't
seen it mentioned anywhere, but unless the keyboard + mouse are both
bluetooth, they're worthless. The LT seems like it'd be a decent system to
have for a college dorm or studio apartment, but I don't see the mass appeal,
considering price vs. features here.

As for TP vs. Mac Mini: Why would anyone pay twice as much for a computer
that has roughly the same specs, and comes in butt-ugly box?

[compex11]

sony and apple

i really dont care about the glitz a good working reliable machine is far more important. let the cryers of iphone worry about glitz some of us have to work for a living

[hlee]

love sony but "service?" yikes

when i look at new sony products (cameras, computers, monitors) i remember my sony vaio laptop that lasted only 2 years... that they agreed to fix for almost the price of a new unit .. turns out, it was a design problem that caused capacitors to overheat. even after they fixed it, it would fail again in 2 years .. it took internets collective skills to find the real problem and a "proper" fix that sony didnt have ... next sony LCD monitors that failed very early in life .. sony service would ship these to japan for repair. they came back with the same intermitant problem .. again it took the internet gurus to discover yet another design flaw that sony never did figure out, nor own up to .. then i remember the absolutely unforgivable "sony root kit" fiasco ..
my mouth waters when i see the new sony cameras, computers & TVs but how can i trust them again? customer service has been a real low point for sony .. integrity has always been a high point for apple (product service and attitude) . for me thats become the most important attribute for my future purchases.

[blaggard2007]

Old iMac...

Perhaps this page should contain a picture of the new iMac it refers to and not the old !??

[keithwwalker]

Sony is my preference

I have an older generation of the Sony all in one design and it is a robust workhorse. Most importantly for me it has a TV built in with Tivo like functionality.

I would concede that the iMac is cheaper, larger screen, just as slick; and that the Sony PC should have a dual analog/digital tuner. But in the end it is not enough for me to convert over to the Apple OS.

[jb16ostos]

Macs are computers. Vista great at media center.

You know, there are those that can't be told enough times that Mac OS is superior to Windows. I could say it a million times and still some won't believe it. I know why too, it's because it doesn't make any sense. It makes no sense for Mac OS to be superior to Windows in so many ways (not every way, but many ways). Windows is by far the most popular OS, how can this little underdog be better?

But this is not a common sense issue. Common sense would say that Microsoft Instant Messenger works under Vista 64-bit... but it does not. Common sense would dictate that Microsoft One-Care, that has a box shaped exactly like Vista, would be Vista 64-bit compatible... but it is not. (It's not on the label either, as it's a point of embarrassment to Microsoft).

Why do I bring this up here? Because I'm trying to get at the fact that while you may not expect quirky-looking Macs to have the very best operating system, they do (UNIX based, not UNIX-like either). It is truly night and day in terms of ease of use and ease of content creation (graphic design, CS3). They empower you beyond wherever you're at on the technology spectrum. If you're really amazing on a Windows computer, you'll be even more amazing on a Mac. If you can't even check e-mail on a PC, you'll be able to check your e-mail AND see the attachments.

Macs' arguably good looks block some people from seeing the true value. They seem bogus, "too many bells and whistles", how could they deliver value? Well, that's where these slick Sony's are at. Macs are a different story.

Requirements to compare a PC with a Mac:
* Workstation grade.
* Real copy of Windows XP PRO, Vista Business or Ultimate
* Absolutely zero adware.
* A Sun Workstation is also quite directly comparable... check those prices why don't you?

If these PCs didn't exist, I wouldn't mention it, but they do... people just don't talk about professional equipment when they discuss PCs. A Mac is a professional piece of hardware, it's like comparing a Digital SLR with a point and shoot... you just don't. (I could explain, but text will never show you why).

I'm all about "biodiversity" but I can attest from my experience and the experiences that I keep seeing around me that Mac OS is a stunning system day in and day out.

Those that purchase a Mac based on looks are in for a wonderful surprise.

Macs are workstations, some of them are underpowered to the point where they may be a workstation that is two years old (in terms of hardware capability) but they are still workstations.

If I had to make a recommendation:

Get a Mac if:
* You think they're prettier than Sonys (they are half the price so why not).
* Computer is for kids,for people that don't play video games. Kids on a Mac will just fly with making cool things, which is a great alternative to video games and watching TV.
* You don't specifically love PCs.
* You don't mind paying a couple of hundred dollars for a more unique, more stable, more user friendly system.

Get the Sony if:
* You love the looks, and don't care about money or value.
* I'm sorry, I just can't see why you'd get the Sony... surely you could get an awesome HDTV, Blu-Ray player and Media Center PC for the same money couldn't you?

Get a regular PC if:
* You are into video games.
* You are a Windows Zealot (there are far more of these than there are on Mac, but there are SO MANY more that Mac users are the ones that get called names)
* You'd be running Windows most of the time due to compatiblity/ work constraints.
* You are a .NET developer, or any sort of developer on Visual Studio. (Though you could probably get by between Boot Camp, or VMware's Fusion. But I wouldn't want to not acknowledge that a lot of amazing and serious work gets done under Visual Studio.

If you are truly wondering between a Mac and a Sony of this sort, then there's a good chance that you don't know what your needs are as these couldn't be more different. On looks per dollar, I think Apple wins. On looks alone, I preferred the white iMacs, but Sony looks just fine.

[ogodefacto]

You wear white socks, no doubt

EVERY company has their embarrasments. I seem to remember a time not long ago (2006 cough) when CS2 (and almost every other adobe app) ran like absolute crap on the new Intel (cough again) iMacs. Is Vista good? I'm not a fan as I want not all those visual bells and whistles. I only want those when I'm gaming, which Macs suck at. When you buy a Mac you buy the MOST (aside from Sun) uncustomizable system there is. Windows has "stability" issues, yes, but this is in large part an artifact of an OS that's primary objective is to run software from scores of vendors. Of course problems arise, but Windows runs easily 10x the software of OSX. "Apple's" hardware is not any better/more stable than PC vendors, it is only more expensive. Running Linux on a PC is free. Ubuntu is so easy to use, and while a little difficult to install, does tons right out of the box. Ummmmmm, CS3 runs better/differnt on OSX? You lost me there, bro. Can't view email attachments? YOu are talking about Hotmail only which sux so don't be making such umbrella statements. Graphic design on Mac Vs. PC? High end video production is better on Mac no doubt by virtue of "ex-adobe's" Final Cut, but to suggest ANYTHING else is just retarded. In fact, there are SO MANY cool graphic design apps that only run on Windows (Again, because Windows is so easy to develop for. I know because I am both a Java and C#/VB developer, and thing become even more diffinative when we talk about low level programming like a C language). ONe thing that always makes me laugh is this: ******** ALWAYS compare native Mac apps with native Windows apps, but to do so is to really miss the point. Windows software sucks. What Windows is great at though is running 3rd party software that kills both Windows AND OSX. Anyway, the most hilarious thing here is that an "all-in-one" is absolutely the most idiotic idea that breaks THE single most fundamental principle of computer programming: clear separation of logic from display. This is true for so many reasons that if you don't know why, I won't tell you. At the end of the day, true computer enthusiasts/professionals do not prefer Mac, only the white-sock art crowd does and they don't even know why because they don't know the facts. OSX's "out-of-the-box" desktop is more user friendly/functional to the "average" user, yes, but once you start scratching under the surface you find that iMac is a closed, propietary system.

[cdelune]

Desktop Design

Can I cheat? This is really about Apple vs Sony Laptops.

I've had a Sony, looked nice. But fellow students had those little ibooks/Macbooks and I would stare, mesmerized, by that little white light that seemed to "breathe" on the front! Unbelievably soothing to watch! So simple, and so absolutely fascinating: made me want the whole computer!

A bunch of fancy, brightly colored, flashing lights would have turned me off.

[jb16ostos]

One more thing...

Just as Mac OS is best for content creation. Windows is best in media consumption.

When it comes to a Media Center functionality, I would recommend Vista Home Premium. Also, video games on a PC are second to none (with the right hardware of course). But if Media Center is what you wanted to do, I'd go for a Lian-Li case, 500GB+ of hard drive space, a quad-core processor, 4 GB of RAM and 3 TV tuners (so you can record several shows at a time, b/c prime time often has the best shows). You'd still have money left over for a nice HDTV.

I agree with many that looks don't matter ALL that much. Outside of Media Center, I recommend a Mac for most computer tasks. Especially if you are always bugging people like me about how to work your Windows computer.

[genotypewriter]

Useless discussion

Like a computer needs to look fancy to do fancy things... wishing that people will become computer literate is as hopeless as wishing for world peace... I wouldn't be surprised if the two are correlated.

[davidamerland]

Give me a Sony anyday

While Apple may sometimes have the edge in the cool-factor minimalist stakes I like technology that has functionality and comes attitude-free. Buy an Apple product and you immediately purchase a pseudo-intellectual paternalistic approach about what is good for me as a user, promoted by a company that in th computer stakes holds less than 10% of the market and can only squawk because of a music player than made it, by fluke, a contender. Sony on the other hand thinks 'cool' and 'work' and me as a user ready to vote with my feet the moment I dislike their products. It's my hard-earned loot and I would never give it to Apple!

[liammal]

Apple v Sony

I thought the comments were meant to be about desing and form factor??!! SO
why the "macs better for content", "Windows better for media" type comments?

In my eyes no competition Sony produces pretty ugly looking stuff. When it tries
to do nice design it goes over the top. Apple wins hands down. For some reason
Apple's seem to have the look of beng designed by one person with a really
good eye, whereas Sonys look like they have been designed by a committee.

[Bronzit]

Apple has no direct competition...

... because there is NO other computer company that is vertically integrated.
Neither Sony nor any other company makes both the OS, a lot of apps., AND
the mainframe (and a lot of the peripherals). And yes, I do understand that
Apple sub-contracts out memory, hard drives, and the actual CPU chip from
Intel.

[Castanet]

Almost every design talk misses the point

I'll try to be as unprejudiced as I can. Design is an emotive issue only if you isolate it from its base purpose. A design HAS to be functional. Otherwise the designer fails. You can have a design that looks good in ad materials because its surfaces reflect well in certain lighting conditions that are captured photographically. But even as they look swell, functionality rules in the end and no amount of diatribe will hide that in the end. Apple is Apple. I like my iPod but I hate the company's arrogance but enough of that. Sony is Sony. I love the company for its innovativeness but those days are clearly gone and honestly, I can see them trying.
But guys, are you all looking with eyes wide open or have you narrowed yourself this badly? If you look deep into design, do a bit of furrowing and UNDERSTAND the element of it all, you cannot possibly ignore IBM. The iconic ThinkPad? How can you not even talk about this? Or is the debate strictly confined to only these two companies and even if so, why??? Is that an admission that we totally disbelieve that IBM can be a design icon? Ask the NY Museum of Modern Art what they think of this issue.
IBM's Italianesque design is intentional. An old 1992 ThinkPad still looks beautiful because its design pervades time, the single biggest threat to the trend of design. The purpose-driven reason to go black is intentional. It's not as if people at IBM hasn't a clue about colours.
Anyway it's just my two cents' worth.

[ogodefacto]

WTF&OMG&GETALIFE

This article is hilarious. Only PC fools buy SONY in the first place as SONY is so ridiculously priced that they enter Apple territory. There is all too often NO correlation between price and functionality. Anyway, Sony had multi-colored computers (albeit laptops) years ago (yes I know the G3 did too) but Sony has PINK, and once iMac comes in pink everyone will go crazy and say how innovative Apple is (barf). ALL IN ONES ARE ABSOLUTELY RETARDED. What kind of fool buys an all in one? You are just asking for trouble. These two units are virtually identical in physical appearance so this article is rather unnecessary and besides, CNET is staffed by some of the most ludicrously mainstream/ignorant people who give only the most superficial reviews.

[seadog75]

Wow! - Try decaf there buddy.... ;)

[hhiser]

Some people just like to talk trash about Macs

So you said "Apple will sacrifice function for form every time". Based upon you previous statements, I believe you meant to say that Apple will sacrifice function for form. As far as everything else I agree with your other detractors. Ignore the advances Apple has made in the computer industry is by far your most egregious sin, do you remember having to use DOS commands? I don't think so. Denying that Apple has had an extremely positive influence on the computer industry is pure idiocy.

[ogodefacto]

Get A grip

To suggest that just because Apple developed a decent GUI long before Microsoft did means that Microsoft wouldn't have done so is even more idiotic. It was just a matter of timing. Having a GUI that emulates the "real world" was the most painfully obvious advancement that could have been made. Apple stole the GUI and mouse from Xerox who did it first, anyway. Did Apple help the computer industry? Absolutely, but put it into perspective. And no, I don't want a free iPod.

[theanimaster]

Nothing new, really

UGH! I read the article thinking Sony had something NEW out... turns out this
was the same, boring thing I saw 2 weeks ago at a Sony Store (I bought them
SONY MDR-EX85s though). It just didn't get my attention at all when I passed
it by on display. It looks niftier than other PCs, sure, but it still doesn't
compare with the elegance and sleekness of the iMac. It just wastes extra
deskspace trying to look good at the sides. The new iMac doesn't waste
deskspace at all. And out of all this I was constantly reminded of the fact that
it's what's underneath (the OS) that really makes it look good. Despite that, I
wouldn't imagine Apple trying to imitate this look... it's just... cheap-ish.

[SaMuRa1ReM1X]

both are okay...

I gotta say.... this was a tough choice... In my opinion... I think both are the best... design wise. I mean, both of them look pretty cool looking and durable (in my experience). like the Sony FS Series I had, and the Apple ibook. both of them had nice designs, and even when I (accidently) dropped both of them, they still were fine. So both Sony and Apple laptops are pretty durable and sleek, if you ask me...

[NicolasZiegelasch]

Never again

I would never buy another Sony desktop after buying one a couple of years ago. It was terrible, the motherboard should not have been used with the processor as it was not at the bus speed that the processor was designed for. So Sony ended up overclocking the processor so that it actually ran slightly above its design speed. The result was that the memory and bus were slower than I had expected when buyingt he computer, and under any high processing demand (such as video editing), the computer would overheat. Also it was sold with all the memory slots full, so I had to replace all the memory to add additional RAM. All my complaints to Sony came to nothing. So addition to the shocking Sony camera I bought 2 years ago, I now avoid Sony products.

[Martin Pilkington]

All In Ones

Ogodefacto: "ALL IN ONES ARE ABSOLUTELY RETARDED. What kind of fool
buys an all in one? You are just asking for trouble."

Yes, what kind of retard buys an all in one, like a laptop, people who buy
laptops are retards. There are big advantages to all in ones. I'm a student and
I've just moved into a house with other students, all who have PC towers. All
of them were having trouble finding where to put their towers, one had to
rearrange his room just so he could put his tower somewhere near his desk.
Me with my iMac? Just plonked it on the desk, took up about as much room
as a monitor.

"But," I hear you say, "what about upgradability?". What about it? Do you
actually realise how many people upgrade their computers? Quite a few
upgrade RAM and a few upgrade the hard disk but beyond that the vast
majority of people just buy a computer, use it for a few years and then buy
another one. The amount of people who upgrade computers is relatively
small compared to the amount of people who don't. I'd be willing to bet that a
higher percentage of Mac users upgrade the RAM in their machine than PC
users, simply because it's so easy to do on a Mac. If you want upgradability
get a PC or a Mac Pro, if you don't care too much about it and just buy a
decent computer that will last you a few years then buy whatever you want,
but an all in one will likely save you on cables and desk space

[ogodefacto]

and the obligatory reply

K, first off the laptop refute is just a little of point. Little doubt I am discussing desktops as a component laptop would counter portability, the unquestionable primary goal of a laptop.
So what about desktops? Like you say, an all-in-one is a space saver. If "space saving" is YOUR primary goal, then sure, buy an all-in-one. Although (cough) why didn't you just buy a laptop? That's just wierd.
What's wrong with an all in one desktop? Aside from ram (which is SO much easier to replace in a Mac?), people upgrade monitors on a regular basis. I just bought myself a new 20" LCD monitor that would have been unaffordable last year. No need to upgrade my 3-4 year old comp which runs JUST FINE. NOPE, just a new 20" $200 LCD monitor. Thing is, my old monitor went a little off too. No need to replace the computer. NOPE, just a new 20" $200 LCD monitor. Where is my tower? Nice and stable (and quiet) under my desk. I loved the monitor so much, I went and bought another MATCHING one so now I run with dual MATCHING monitors. I hope the screen to your all-in-one doesn't go a little off, else you will have to do WITHOUT YOUR ENTIRE COMPUTER and you just might fail all your classes. Oh wait, you can borrow your friends' space consuming tower computers (cough).