Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 12, 2012, 07:17 AM   #101
Lone Deranger
macrumors 65816
 
Lone Deranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by inscrewtable View Post
I predict that the next macbook pro will rise again as a 17" retina model.
I'm quite confident it will.
__________________
Lone Deranger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 08:07 AM   #102
Nuvi
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoKyu View Post
I think Phil showed pretty convincingly (and maybe intended to, in a subtle way) that the new retina MBP has more than enough resolution to handle video editing - remember when he showed Final Cut and said "See that video area? It's 100% pixel for pixel accurate 1080 resolution" (paraphrasing)

That's probably also why it costs more - most consumers will likely buy only the 15" regular MBP if they want a screen that size ($1800), but the pros who truly need that kind of resolution (video editors/graphic designers) will pay to go retina.
Some of you guys seem to have difficulty of grasping this Retina / HiDPI consept. Sure the video is native 1080p but see how little you can see the timeline and other GUI elements. This is because GUI elements are HiDPI and therefore double the size of normal elements. In real world on the road editing you really don't want this huge ass viewer since you want to minimise scrolling. So what you end up doing is setting the viewer to 50% and you still have those huge GUI elements. The workspace on Retina MB Pro is same as in normal MBP 15" (1440x900) when using HiDPI Retina elements on Retina MBP. If you choose not to use HiDPI then you'll lose the Retina effect and GUI elements are tiny. The hard cold fact is that if you want more working space then you need bigger screen with even higher resolution (if you want retina that is). Retina and HiDPI GUI elements have zero effect on adding more working space. It will only give you sharper image just like in iPhone or in 3rd gen iPad.
Nuvi is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 08:49 AM   #103
joe schmoe
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Well after the news of the discontinued MBP 17" I ran down to our local Apple store and bought one of the last in stock...While I was there, the store sold 3 others...Guess more people wanted a 17" MBP than Apple thought...Oh well I didn't get USB 3.0 but I still have a 17" MBP with Thunderbolt!
joe schmoe is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 09:17 AM   #104
NeferNefer
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe schmoe View Post
Well after the news of the discontinued MBP 17" I ran down to our local Apple store and bought one of the last in stock...While I was there, the store sold 3 others...Guess more people wanted a 17" MBP than Apple thought...Oh well I didn't get USB 3.0 but I still have a 17" MBP with Thunderbolt!
And as I just wrote, I saw the same thing here, but I was too late to get one.

But I guess it's too much to hope for, that Apple would think about that and reconsider discontinuing the 17".
NeferNefer is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 09:26 AM   #105
Rodimus Prime
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnerd93 View Post
its understandable, most people I know bought the 13'' and 15'' models, I don't think I knew anyone apart from my old college which actually owned a 17'' MBP. The retina MBP has more than enough resolution anyways

I used a 17'' of the old style (PowerBook looking) MBP's for a couple of days and although it was awesome on a desk it was rather clunky, heavy and awkward when moving around. I can imagine it being a pain to use as well on stuff like aircraft tray tables and what not lol.
Just going to point out resolution does not make up for a larger display and more screen space to put stuff.
Rodimus Prime is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 09:55 AM   #106
pb641
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
I suppose it is possible that a 17" could be resurrected in the new thinner profile, but I won't keep my hopes up.

My use is strictly internet research and word porcessing, (certainly not high end). In my previous career, I was a freelance programmer/analyst, and even then, I told people that Mac OS were superior. So, after becoming completely blown away by my first iphone three years ago, I took the plunge and went 17" MBP.

It is so nice to have that much screen. I can truly view and read 2 documents at once, (for example, a picture of some evidence on the left and my questions and thoughts on the right). It is truly ridiculous toargue the same can be done on a 15". I'm a trial lawyer, and in the courtroom, I cannot stress how important it is to appear relaxed and confident as opposed to leaning into a 15" and straining to view text.

The size and weight arguement is worthless. I know many others that use the 17" platform, and we all just accept the fact that it is big. Between the MBP, my Saddleback bag, a few files and other essentials like the mag safe, I am probably carrying around 20 lbs, gladly.

Sure, the 17" was only 1% of sales, (read correctly that means direct sales). It absolutely does not take into account all of the secondary sales that resulted from the initial 17". Also, they never said that the 17" actually lost money.

All things considered, I have come to the conclusion that the idiots trying to fill Jobs' shoes have convinced themselves that people will purchase the 15" AND a separate external monitor. They will have assumed that people will simply put up with a smaller screen away from thier main workspace. Pay $1k for a dumb external display? Nope.

IF the 17" is gone, it will prove to be a very poor decision that will impact far more than 1% of thier sales. Perhaps its time for Apple to receive a wake up call.
pb641 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 10:58 AM   #107
jsw
Moderator emeritus
 
jsw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Andover, MA
As an FYI, the 17" is still available and in stock on Amazon (for now).

I love my 17", even though it's four years old now, and I will miss the larger screen. The size never really got to me, and while I readily admit the 13" (and 11") laptops can be used places the 17" cannot, the 15" isn't really any more usable than the 17".

However, I see this progress as inevitable. My hope is that portable displays will become more common and usable (an iPad is great, but using an iPad as an external display via wifi or USB just isn't responsive enough in many cases). Assuming they will, carrying an auxiliary display won't be any big deal and might be more useful than the single large 17" one.
__________________
You'll be the one moaning for me to give you some. - THC(taken out of context)
jsw is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 10:58 AM   #108
duffmanth
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
I hardly see anyone with 17" laptops anymore, Apple or otherwise.
__________________
2011 15" MBP 2.2 GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 500GB HD, HR display
duffmanth is offline   -10 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 11:35 AM   #109
Amazing Iceman
macrumors 68030
 
Amazing Iceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida, U.S.A.
I was upset when I first read about it, but I came to think that I hardly ever take my MBP on the road now that I have my iPad, so I use it more like a desktop.
The reason why I preferred a 17" MacBook Pro was not just resolution but display size. It's true, the retina display has a very high resolution, but you don't really gain any real estate, as fonts will now use more pixels to remain within a standard readable size.
__________________
17" MacBook Pro (2007) iPad Air WiFi+Cell 128 GB iPhone 5s 64 GB T-Mobile AppleTV 2
Follow @AmazingIceman for useful tech info and more (mention MacRumors).
Amazing Iceman is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 12:44 PM   #110
Atlantico
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BCN
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuvi View Post
You won't get any additional screen space on Retina MBP. It's just like the old 1440x900 15" MBP but with more sharper graphics just like in the new iPad.
Exactly, it is amazing that people don't understand this -- and furthermore, if the UI elements were *not* doubled in size and one would use the full 2880x1800 resolution with the normal size UI elements, one would have "very good" screen real estate (sort of) but one would have to use a magnifying glass to use the computer!

Which makes it rather a pointless exercise.

The "retina" (220dpi is now "retina" apparently) display of the 15" MBAP (MacBookAirPro) gives exactly 0% more screen real estate, but one can indeed watch 1080p videos without any sort of scaling (pixel-true) on that monitor.

They take up the same screen real estate as a 540p video would.
Atlantico is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 01:40 PM   #111
the-wanderer
macrumors member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: twilight zone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuvi View Post
In the clone era Power Computing, UMAX and couple of others were selling fully licensed HIGH END Mac clones. They were much faster then Apple's. In matter of fact Power Computing had fastest personal computer around Windows machines included. Eventually Steve Jobs killed the clones (Apple bought Power Computing) because Apple wasn't able to compete with then.
Interesting bit of history. If you can't compete, buy the competition and sell mediocrity. Sounds likes Jobs took a page from Gates' philosophy.

All my laptops have been number crunching, video converting machines. I compile from the git and use ffmpeg every day and use MBP because it has good compilers, posix, gcc, etc and good gui with Xcode. I'll never buy some lame, under-powered i-Anything. Compiled ffmpeg and had friend do a test on his iPad and MacAir. The heat nearly roasted his balls as it was on his lap.

Last edited by the-wanderer; Jun 12, 2012 at 01:49 PM.
the-wanderer is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 04:27 PM   #112
heyitsjimi
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida gulf coast. Between Bradenton & Sarasota
Send a message via AIM to heyitsjimi
I have a mid 2009 MacBook Pro. The main reason I bought it was for the express card slot. I had a 15" before. I quickly became addicted to the larger screen. I wouldn't want to be without it. I do audio.

Come on you guys, it's not all that big & clunky. It only weighs 5 something pounds . That's heavy ?? It fits in the same bag I carried the 15" in.

I also don't have any interest in not being able to pop in a CD or DVD.

I'll be looking to find a bargain on the former latest & greatest 17" from before this fiasco. eBay here I come.
heyitsjimi is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 05:30 PM   #113
NeferNefer
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurichie View Post
This simplified choice of either a 13" or 15" laptop for professionals is great news for consumers. I own a 17" MBP and it's too big and bulky to be useful as a portable. I am thrilled to see Apple innovations with the new retina display have made the discontinuation of the 17"er something to celebrate rather than despair.
Why is it important to you that other people with other needs, do not have a choice? Why can't you choose the size you like, if other people still can make a different choice?

I don't understand these flame comments.
NeferNefer is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 05:39 PM   #114
mscriv
macrumors 68040
 
mscriv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dallas, Texas
This new front page article states the following:

Quote:
In looking at scaling, the report explains the new slider option in System Preferences that allows users to select from a spectrum of resolutions that include not only the 1440x900 resolution in Retina quality using the full 2880x1800 pixels, but also larger desktop spaces at 1920x1200 and 1680x1050.
* bold emphasis mine

I'll have to see this in person to judge, but even if the 15" can do 1920x1200 (native 17" resolution) I still think elements could seem too small or difficult to read. Like I said, I'll need to play around with one to get a good feel for it.
__________________
I'm a professional therapist. If I deem our forum interaction to be professional in nature then I will bill you. Prompt payment is expected.
mscriv is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 06:52 PM   #115
nemesys
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Guess I'll keep mine as long as I can

Working with Xcode 4 with its new "all-in-one" layout, I find the 17" to be perfect for this. No need for an external monitor since the 17" screen has enough screen estate for everything I do in Xcode.

A real shame they discontinued it. I see that I'm not alone in preferring to have a larger/heavier laptop but that has enough screen that you can use it without needing an external monitor which I will very likely need to get if I ever have to upgrade to a new MacBook Pro.
nemesys is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2012, 11:07 PM   #116
ThunderSkunk
macrumors 68000
 
ThunderSkunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Durango, Co
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurichie View Post
It just avoids confusion for customers. If you spent any time in the MacBook Pro forum on here, you'd see almost daily the same question should I buy the 15" or 17" MBP? Apple has made that decision for everyone now. I think it's a good thing.
That may be the most shortsighted opinion I've ever read on here.
ThunderSkunk is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 12:32 AM   #117
justperry
macrumors 603
 
justperry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 7 Km South of an active upside down (boat) volcano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mscriv View Post
This new front page article states the following:



* bold emphasis mine

I'll have to see this in person to judge, but even if the 15" can do 1920x1200 (native 17" resolution) I still think elements could seem too small or difficult to read. Like I said, I'll need to play around with one to get a good feel for it.
Yup

Supported resolutions: 2880 by 1800 pixels (Retina); scaled resolutions: 1920 by 1200, 1680 by 1050, 1280 by 800, and 1024 by 640 pixels

But then again, it's on a smaller 15" display so the question is, will it be useable?
Everything on the screen is smaller and may not be readable by many former 17" users.

Hopefully they will get a 17" again when new displays become available.
justperry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 03:34 AM   #118
NeferNefer
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurichie View Post
It just avoids confusion for customers. If you spent any time in the MacBook Pro forum on here, you'd see almost daily the same question should I buy the 15" or 17" MBP? Apple has made that decision for everyone now. I think it's a good thing.
I find it so hard to believe that you're actually serious with this comment.

And in my case, I feel like Apple has made the choice for me to start thinking about moving platforms. It's just another sign from Apple, that they don't care about high end users anymore.

And I've been a very loyal Apple user since 1994, recruiting others.
NeferNefer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 04:02 AM   #119
henrik5
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Size vs resolution

If it's all about resolution, iPhone 4 should have four times as many icons on its app pages. I expect the retina display to be fantastic but for me as a developer, I expect to see less code onscreen the I do on my 17" MBP.

I don't think that the 17" model is dead. If it was dead, Apple might as well make the announcement. By not making that statement, they hope to sell more of the 15" retina version. I think that we'll see a retina 17" in a couple of months, hopefully with a faster GPU.
henrik5 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 04:22 AM   #120
ElGrecus
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
I've owned two 17" MBPs. They are fantastic. I don't need a desktop machine and I do a lot of 3d modeling. I need the space. I don't want to hook up another monitor when I'm working at the coffee table in front of the TV, or on the road. Added resolution just means more squinting. A 2" x 3" monitor at 100,000,000 pixels by 120,000,000 pixels is STILL a 2" x 3" monitor.

Apple: no matte option on laptops? No purchase for me. I've been an Apple user since 1983. But the glossy monitors give me migraines. Until there is a matte option, I'll have to look elsewhere or go blind. Is this not enough proof?... http://macmatte.wordpress.com/
ElGrecus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 04:31 AM   #121
binoctex
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
So lets say we can put 1 trillion pixels in a iPhone display - would you be willing to use that as your professional working environment. Obviously not - its too small for professional use no matter how many pixels there are.

As a 17" owner - I need the physical screen size to do my work. This may not be the case for everyone - but it is for me. Period.

I picked up a 17" because I needed a professional workhorse that I didn't have to squint at to handle all my work including coding in Eclipse, video editing with Final Cut, Illustrator work, among others.

The 15" macbook pro has 106 (106.59572) square inches of display whereas the 17" macbook pro has 130 (130.23) square inches.

What does this mean? The 17" macbook pro has 22% MORE visible space to use. Any argument that tells me that I can do without it due to more pixels is missing the point entirely.
binoctex is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 05:17 AM   #122
Benbikeman
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderSkunk View Post
That may be the most shortsighted opinion I've ever read on here.
And that's in the face of some pretty stiff competition!
__________________
London wedding photographer | London portrait photographer | MBP 17 i7 2.4GHz 16Gb 2Tb | iPad 2 3G 64Gb
Benbikeman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 05:24 AM   #123
HasanDaddy
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Folks - go to the REFURBISHED store on Apple.com - many 17" still available, at discount, with matte screens!

I just ordered mine earlier today

17LIVES!!!!
__________________
LAPZILLA uMBP 512 SSD, 8 gig RAM & 2.66 i7 Core; iPad 2 AT&T 64; Verizon iPhone 4S 64; Ultimate Ears Custom 11 Monitors
www.MiguelAli.com
HasanDaddy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 05:55 AM   #124
chaosbunny
macrumors 68000
 
chaosbunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: down to earth, far away from any clouds
Quote:
Originally Posted by CylonGlitch View Post
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".
But not without this optional accessory:

__________________
>> Mac Pro 5,1 | 6x3.46ghz | GTX670 | 24gb | 240gb ssd | 6tb hds | usb3 | Dell U2711 + Wacom Cintiq 13" HD <<
chaosbunny is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 06:17 AM   #125
RamGuy
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Norway
It's blatantly obvious that Apple pushes the new MacBook Pro 15" Retina to replace the MacBook Pro 17" and it somewhat makes sense as 17" notebooks doesn't make much sense for 95% of the user-base out there these days.

Apple is going lighter, thinner and more portable in order to make living with you notebook that much easier, the MacBook Pro 17" has never fitted into the new route Apple has been taking the last few years and even though it's thin and light for a 17" notebook it's not something a normal person would consider buying in 2012 and it's price point has always been premium making sales even less likely.


On the other hand, those who have bought the MacBook Pro 17" inch the last few years has normally been those who need a powerful, yet portable machine that can replace they immediate need for a desktop and considering the lack of development for Mac Pro the MacBook Pro 17" has become more and more acceptable for power users needing something for their Final Cut Pro, and other video and audio studio productions. It has offered everything they could possibly need in terms of I/O with Firewire 800 (very popular in audio production), thunderbolt (gives you VGA, DVI, HDMI and displayport capabilities along with it being the next generation docking port), you've had several USB ports, the gigabit ethernet for distributing those large project over your local network and last but not least the ExpressCard slot which gives you endless of opportunities when it comes to adding additional controllers when needed, also the superdrive (DVD-RW) is somewhat important for a few that like to be able to make easy CD / DVD distribution on the go. The screen size and it's offered workspace with it's 1920x1200 has been wonderful for many as well.


In other words the MacBook Pro 17" has pretty much been the only Apple notebook offering a power and pro-user all kinds of I/O, wonderful workspace on a notebook screen and decent performance in one rather thin and lightweight package compared to dragging a Mac Pro around. The MacBook Pro 15" Retina does not offer the same by any stretch of the imagination as it doesn't come remotely close in terms of I/O capabilities with the lack of Firewire 800, the lack of ExpressCard, the lack of gigabit ethernet and so on.

It's true that 95% of the community does not care, but the last 5% have just been ripped of their portable workstation and with the Mac Pro not seeing any decent updates either the pro-users are pretty much left in the dark.


Good thing for me though is the fact that it should be much more easy for me to sell my MacBook Pro 17" Mid-2010 and MacBook Pro 17" Early-2011 so I can grab myself two MacBook Pro 15" Retina instead as Apple has killed the 17" and I'll bet there are several pro-users out there willing to pay a decent price for used MacBook Pro 17".

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by CylonGlitch View Post
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".

That's not entirely true.. If it's true that we can't chose anything higher than 1920x1200 scaling on the display the workspace will be the same as on the MacBook Pro 17" just everything will be tinier.

If we wore to be able to chose 2880x1800 your statement would be true, but as of this date that doesn't seem to be the case and you wouldn't really be able to utilise 2880x1800 on a 15" without a loupe anyway.
RamGuy is offline   3 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will Apple Quietly Let the Mac Mini Go? Wrangler Mac mini 102 Feb 26, 2014 11:21 AM
Apple Discontinues 15-inch Non-Retina MacBook Pro, Leaves 13-inch Version in Lineup MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 77 Nov 13, 2013 08:13 AM
Apple Discontinues Original Smart Cases and Covers Despite Continued Sales of iPad 2 [Updated] MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 54 Nov 4, 2013 05:17 PM
iPad Mini: Apple quietly dropping price of iPad mini by $30? PracticalMac iPad 27 May 26, 2013 08:29 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC