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

The MacBook Pro 17 inch isn't coming back is it?

V

venom600

macrumors 65816
Mar 23, 2003
1,296
1,099
Los Angeles, CA
sunnyj said:
which usb3 expresscard are you using?
Click to expand...

The only one that works out of the box with no hacked drivers is one that has the FL1100 chipset, and the only one that has that particular chipset is this:

http://www.amazon.com/ExpressCard-E...TF8&qid=1401397167&sr=8-4&keywords=fl1100+usb

I wanted something flush, so I went with the MonoPrice single jack card. It has drawbacks though. The hacked driver means the card only works if you have it installed on boot up and devices don't show up as super speed, though benchmarks say they are.

uiop. said:
All the 17"s we get in that are running Mavericks aren't too speedy. Old HD technology, maybe. I do IT for my university.

From a pure display standpoint, I'm not sure which I'd prefer. Retina or the huge size of the 17". :)
Click to expand...

The HD that came stock in my recently purchased 17" (early 2011) MBP is a dog. It's a 5400RPM SATAII drive (even though it has a SATA3 bus). It was slower running off the internal bus than the new 2GB Seagate USB 3 drive (under 90mbps read/write vs 120+ for the external seagate using BlackMagic's benchmark). I replaced mine with a 750GB Samsung 840 Evo and it is scary fast now. With 16GB of memory and the SSD, I'd put it up against any retina MBP.

I chose the 17" over the Air and 13" rMBP I had intended to buy because of the screen. There was no comparison.

----------
The Mercurian said:
Where did you get that 5% figure from ? High end 2013 15"rMBP has a 64bit geekbench score of 14436 vs 2011 high end 17" score of 11050.
Click to expand...

That's not accurate. The Late 2011 17" machines routinely rank over 12300, right in line with last year's top of the line 15" rMBP and significantly faster than the 13. The difference between the two is less than 15%, and given the price differential between a high end rMBP and a refurb or used 17" today, that's more than acceptable.
 
B

BJNY

macrumors regular
Jul 21, 2002
191
7
New York City
My opinion as well:

http://9to5mac.com/2014/05/30/opinion-its-time-to-bring-back-the-mobile-professionals-workhorse-the-macbook-pro-17/
 
Intelligent

Intelligent

macrumors 6502a
Aug 7, 2013
922
2
pcwood said:
Not going to settle. Have had macs since my first 128.
If there isn't a 17" by the time I'm ready to retire my current, I'll get a crappy WinTel notebook. Alienware makes some very nice models.
Click to expand...


So you have used macs since the 80s (?) And you are just willing to change to a windows computer just like that?
The reason i assumed 80s was because 128ks we're old in 90s,2000s and 2010s. :D
 
V

venom600

macrumors 65816
Mar 23, 2003
1,296
1,099
Los Angeles, CA
Intelligent said:
So you have used macs since the 80s (?) And you are just willing to change to a windows computer just like that?
Click to expand...

The difference between Windows and OS X isn't all that great anymore. I switched to Windows 7 a few years ago because Apple didn't make a computer I wanted to own (I used a 13" full HD VAIO laptop with BluRay that weighed 3lbs, had full speed processors and a discrete graphics card). I only came back because iTunes in Windows is so damn terrible.The only problem is that there is no 17" Windows notebook that is as slim and light as the MBP. The only one that comes close is the Razer Blade Pro gaming laptop.
 
Intelligent

Intelligent

macrumors 6502a
Aug 7, 2013
922
2
venom600 said:
The difference between Windows and OS X isn't all that great anymore. I switched to Windows 7 a few years ago because Apple didn't make a computer I wanted to own (I used a 13" full HD VAIO laptop with BluRay that weighed 3lbs, had full speed processors and a discrete graphics card). I only came back because iTunes in Windows is so damn terrible.The only problem is that there is no 17" Windows notebook that is as slim and light as the MBP. The only one that comes close is the Razer Blade Pro gaming laptop.
Click to expand...


I think theres a big difference, i have like 1,5k .apps. I like my dock and finder settings and everything and switching to windows would just be to big of a change, learning all the new shortcuts etc. Some people are different i guess.
 
0

08380728

Cancelled
Aug 20, 2007
422
165
Still using a 17" 2010 with Snow Leopard. Although I'd like to see the 17" re-introduced, it would need to be very similar to the last model in terms of hardware config (though current revisions), 3 x USB ports, ExpressCard, 2 x SATA ports for 2.5" SSD's or HD's, 1920x1200 matte display (no glass) and a real power button. Personally not interested in small form factor PCIe storage devices until there's at least 1TB capacities (i'd rather sacrifice throughput for higher capacity). The problem is for me, the new machines would be stuck running the latest and skankiest OS that Apple have been putting out. Not happy at all with the direction they've taken the OS since 10.6.

Owned and used 15" and 17" models, would never go back to a 15", it's just too small, and it's especially more relevant now to have a 17" as I carry an iPad around as well for light, smaller duties. For me 1920x1200 @ 17" is about at 129DPI is perfect for Mac OS X GUI.
 
Last edited:
W

whitedragon101

macrumors 65816
Sep 11, 2008
1,336
334
drayon said:
matte display (no glass)
Click to expand...

Hopefully both like before. Or if we are dreaming a glass display that uses inference pattens to cancel out reflections like they use on expensive watches. Best of both worlds no reflections without the blur of the matte screen.
 
AttilaTheHun

AttilaTheHun

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2010
1,229
201
USA
Quu said:
I hope someone at Apple takes note of that post and the more than 100 replies it received with almost unanimous support for a new 17"

I would buy one in a second if it were available.
Click to expand...

Me too still using my mid 2010 MBP 17"
 
A

Alanl1

macrumors newbie
Jul 28, 2014
3
0
Bobby Corwen said:
I guess I'm getting used to 15 inch, but I don't know I just thought that maybe there is a chance that one day will come back in return gloriously in some other form but now I'm kind of just realizing that 15 inches isn't really that much smaller is it?

I guess I just have to settle I realize that this is now the de facto standard of what the laptop as it should be.
Click to expand...

If they have their heads screwed on straight they will bring it back someday, because for a great many professional users there is nothing that substitutes for the combination of mobility and screen real state that the 17 inch MacBook pro has provided. Of course, for those who prefer something lighter, there's plenty of that on the market. But to my mind, that is like preferring a toy car to a real one because the toy car weighs less. Mission-critical work on the road in film, photography, and editing is uniquely enabled by the 17 inch screen. It is great to have everything that one needs whether on the go or at home and one gets used to that luxury. But for those who don't need it, I can understand that they would prefer an iPhone.
 
L

leftyMac

macrumors regular
Feb 20, 2011
140
26
I went from 13" MBP to 15" rMBP, and totally see the awesomeness in larger screen real-estate. I would definitely upgrade to a 17" rMBP. 17"rMBP might seem too big, but it will still be a laptop, way more portable than a desktop.
 
nocturnum

nocturnum

macrumors regular
Feb 8, 2014
176
244
Europe
I bought little used 2011 MBP17 in mint condition this year. Before, I had newly purchased and maxed 2008 MBP17.

I upgraded everything I could, the last thing being ordered today (USB 3.0 2-port flush ExpressCard). The specs, when I install this last bit should be:

Intel Core i7 2.3Ghz
16MB DDR3 1600Mhz
480GB Plextor M6Pro SSD
1TB HGST TravelStar 7.200RPM HDD

Ports:
1x Gigabit Ethernet
1x FireWire 800
1x Thunderbolt
3x USB 2.0
2x USB 3.0 / 1x eSATA
1x Line Out
1x Line In

I put the optical drive in the non-OEM SuperDrive enclosure and connected it to my 27" Cinema Display. I am also using vintage HP LaserJet 5L from 1995 and Canon Pixma Pro 9500 Mk2 printers, connected to the same display (both working flawlessly). Then, there is my secondary external 23" Cinema HD Display (early 2000s) connected to the same MBP17, when needed. My internet access is sorted over Personal Hotspot on iPhone 5s via LTE, reaching speeds roughly around 45-50Mbps/10Mbps (50$ per month). When I need to go out and about, I take a lot of these specs with me and have no reason to complain about the "bulk and weight".

All this cost me a little over hi-end rMBP15 and the ROI was almost immediate. Now, go figure.

In near future, I intend to top it all up with a portable Dual Thunderbolt 2.5" DAS and perhaps a Mac Mini (if Apple doesn't ditch this one as well). That would be pretty much all I need to work efficiently.

As for the Apple, I hope they fall on their noses and wake up from this Lady Gaga featuring Justin Bieber style of company management.
 
AlienSexGod

AlienSexGod

macrumors member
Mar 18, 2008
98
3
uiop. said:
All the 17"s we get in that are running Mavericks aren't too speedy. Old HD technology, maybe. I do IT for my university.

From a pure display standpoint, I'm not sure which I'd prefer. Retina or the huge size of the 17". :)
Click to expand...

Um I run a Samsung 1Tb SSD with a 1.5Tb HD in the DVD slut, 16Gb ram it canes! :p
 
AlienSexGod

AlienSexGod

macrumors member
Mar 18, 2008
98
3
Lachhh said:
Combine that typo with that username and, well, the coke in my mouth almost went on my screen.

DVD slut is fitting, it'll take whatever DVD you throw at it after all.
Click to expand...

I thought it may have ben the coke in your nose that was the issue?

As for the "typo" same difference imo

Edit: About time Tim Cooked up a rMBP17 with Dual quad core processors and dual drive bays standard. You could switch the other cores off when on battery but really most mobile power users find a way to hook up to AC anyway....
 
D

davidhunternyc

macrumors regular
Dec 26, 2011
118
61
With a 5K iMac, is a 17" Retina display MacBook Pro feasible?

Apple has recently released a 5K iMac. Many of the doubters here said that Apple couldn't make a 17" MacBook Pro because Apple did not have the technical feasibility to make a 17" Retina display. Do you still believe this to be true?
 
V

venom600

macrumors 65816
Mar 23, 2003
1,296
1,099
Los Angeles, CA
davidhunternyc said:
Apple has recently released a 5K iMac. Many of the doubters here said that Apple couldn't make a 17" MacBook Pro because Apple did not have the technical feasibility to make a 17" Retina display. Do you still believe this to be true?
Click to expand...

The 5k display is an off the shelf part (it's used by Dell and other OEMs in upcoming stand alone monitors)]. Show me a higher than 1080p (or 1200p if 16:10) display that is 17" and we can talk. I can't think of a single 17" or 18" notebook on the market with higher than 1080p resolution.

Of course, they commissioned custom panels for the 13 and 15 rMBP models, so who knows... but it's still highly unlikely. The market has moved away from 17" notebooks in general.
 
Hildegerd

Hildegerd

macrumors regular
May 12, 2013
208
26
Norway
The Macbook returned too so it is hope for the 17" to be a bird phoenix as well. :apple:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom