Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,196
Reminds me of when the 12” PowerBook went away. Those who loved it REALLY loved it!

Totally makes sense from a sales perspective, but sucks for the pros who used the 17" MBP as a primary workhorse.

I never had a 17” and never would... portability is worth too much to me. But I did like to dream!

I guess my new dream will have to be either an 11” Air or a 15” retina MBP + a portable projector :) Finally the 48-inch laptop I’ve been waiting for!

I take it back....I'll just us the newest iPad as a secondary high-rez monitor!

voila...

Actually I do that with my iPad 2 and a small folding stand: there are several apps for this, but when I’m somewhere with weak WiFi, DisplayPad seems to hold up the best (mouse tracks pretty fast). This is NOT a full monitor alternative because it’s slow; good for reference docs, email, extra palettes, but not for video, drag-and-dropping, etc. However, it’s super cheap and super portable! And depending on your WiFi network congestion, it can be pretty good for direct drawing in Photoshop. Try that with a 17” MBP! The iPad can be a poor man’s Cintiq.
 

johnny5k

macrumors member
Feb 18, 2009
32
4
Oakland, CA
I'm that 1%

I've been holding out for a thin/fast optical-less 17" MBP. I'm a front-end developer, and I like having a full-size browser on the left side of my screen, and the code editor on the right so I don't have to constantly switch back-and-forth - all while sitting on the sofa or lazy boy (in other words, no external monitor). The 17" MBP's 1920x1200 screen let me do that. Yes, the new 15" MBP has a higher resolution, but it's made to just doubling the 1440x900 resolution, while keeping all the elements the same size. (It will only has an effective width of 1440, it will just make everything more crisp.

My only hope is that the new display's screen can be scaled to 1920x1200 without it looking blurry, the way every other laptop display (including MBP's) looks when set as a non-optimal resolution. Of course, that will make everything incredibly tiny, but hopefully not too small. Either that, or I'll have to order a discontinued 17" and make it last the rest of my life!

At least compared to the 17" MBP, the new Retina MBP is reasonably priced!
 
Last edited:

InuNacho

macrumors 68000
Apr 24, 2008
1,998
1,248
In that one place
Hopefully MacMall will have a bunch in stock for a while. The lack of a new Pro isn't going to effect the used Pro price so I might as well get a 17 inch.
 

bobbleheadbob

macrumors 6502a
Feb 6, 2007
653
0
Massachusetts
Bummed out

This is a bummer. I splurged and got a top of the line 17" MBP 4 years ago. Awesome machine. I think it's just a pricing issue. :apple: never could sell them inexpensively enough to gain significant market share.
 

Radiomarko

macrumors member
May 6, 2008
83
27
UK & Russia
No no no

There have been four previous occasions when I have said no no noooooo to Apple since 1979.

Today heralds the fifth.

No No nooo.

Forget the "resolution" those fonts and keyframe audio handles will be too small, I need those square centimetres.... better make sure my 17" survives until I retire, for the second time.
 

Monkeydude

macrumors member
May 12, 2011
83
81
Hamburg, Germany
And when I am traveling and want to watch a movie in the hotel, it almost always provides better picture and lower cost (DVDs brought with or Netflix streaming) than any pay per view at the hotel.

A great unit-it will be missed, at least by me :)

Who is bringing DVDs nowadays? Did you hear about ripping and HD?:apple:
 

kayloh20

macrumors regular
Apr 8, 2010
134
23
Chicago, IL
That space is based on the resolution of the display, not on the size of the screen. The new 15" will give MORE screen real estate than the old 17".

I thought with retina displays, it's the same real estate but sharper image...judging based on the iPhone and iPad retina devices...same real estate as the non-retina versions.

The main thing about the 17" for me, personally, was the ExpressCard slot, because I use an ExpressCard SSD. I also liked that it matched my Apple LED Cinema Display native resolution, so my windows/icons don't get messed up when plugging in and out. Lastly, the three USB ports are really helpful.

I know ThunderBolt and USB 3.0 can cover a lot of things, but I like not having to carry around too many accessories.
 

D216

macrumors newbie
Jun 11, 2012
2
0
Wait, on the Apple store there is a "new" tag next to the Mac Pro, but what's the difference btw this and what was there before? Looks like the same processors?
 

BornAgainMac

macrumors 604
Feb 4, 2004
7,275
5,212
Florida Resident
Wait, on the Apple store there is a "new" tag next to the Mac Pro, but what's the difference btw this and what was there before? Looks like the same processors?

It is Apple just joking around. I think the hard drive is a larger capacity. They also got rid of the $4999 model.
 

nikhsub1

macrumors 68030
Jun 19, 2007
2,587
2,535
mmmm... jessica.'s beer...
Perhaps Apple will bring the 17" MBP's back once 3840x2400 screens become available :) I have always loved the 17" machines as it is my ONLY machine that sits on my desk most of the time - it really is the perfect size for me and I can only hope that it will be back someday soon. I am glad I got the last gen 17" though.
 

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,193
1,442
Not surprising. And I don't think too many people will miss it now with the new 15" Retina MBP.

You must all have microscopes for eyes or something. 15" monitors reminds me of the days of the C64 and early Amiga. They're TINY (vertical space is even less than the days of old since that's 15" in widescreen, not 4:3). What good is all that resolution if you have to stick your nose to the freaking display to see it??? The value of a 17" MBP is that the screen is large enough to work with yet it's still portable. I'd imagine they were invaluable to certain professionals. But I guess Apple has decided they don't want to be a professional computer company anymore. They want to be TOY, GADGET, and PHONE company instead.

Ethernet, Optical, Firewire...all gone. Two Thunderbolt ports that virtually NO ONE supports (and what little there is costs a fortune, but then so does the new MBP; it's at nearly base Mac Pro prices!) I'm shocked they'd include an HDMI port (thought that was a HUGE NO-NO for Apple except on AppleTV). That's about the only positive thing I can say. Two lousy USB ports. You're going to have to carry an entire BAG of accessories for this thing.

It just doesn't make logical sense. You leave out everything but the kitchen sink to make it smaller and thinner, but then you HAVE to carry an entire bag of dongles and hubs around to use current gear which defeats the entire point of making it more portable! I think these people at Apple have a few screws missing in addition to USB and Ethernet ports. :rolleyes:
 

Nuvi

macrumors 65816
Feb 7, 2008
1,099
810
Retina display is nothing more then ultimate eye candy. The effective workspace is only 1440x900. What you get is crisp GUI elements but that's it. If you work with audio or video you won't be seeing any more audio or video tracks that you did with the old plain vanilla 15" MBP. Seriously, those who are used to working with 17" on road will be seriously missing that workspace. Working with 15" is total PITA at least for many video and audio guys.

If you can use Retina MBP without pixel doubling then you will just get tiny GUI elements without the Retina eye candy effect. Not really a solution I want to be working with.

Edit: For those guys who have difficulty crasping the concept of pixel doubling and how it effects the actual workspace I suggest you compare the iPad 2 (or 1) and the new iPad (gen three). Has the workspace changed so that you can see more on the new iPad? No it hasn't. Exactly the same applies to retina MBP. You will only get crisp GUI elements and nothing more.
 
Last edited:

hd1080ts

macrumors member
Aug 31, 2004
41
0
For film/TV pros the 17inch was not screen res, it was about the screen size to work collaboratively sitting next to someone (director/cinematographer) on a laptop.
 

Glenny2lappies

macrumors 6502a
Sep 29, 2006
574
365
Brighton, UK
What a pain. I have two 17" MBPs and really like them.

The reason is simple; my eyes aren't as good as they used to be and the larger screen makes high resolution possible. The new 15" machine seems like a toy; the retina display is just a doubled up medium resolution screen which isn't much use to me as I need to see lots of text.

The ditching of ethernet and DVD: HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY WANT TO GOUGE OUT OF US?? Similarly where they force you to use their *expensive* RAM -- pity the person who doesn't buy enough in the first place.

This is like Apple are turning their backs on professional developers.

Not impressed bordering on very disappointed.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.