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

15" vs. 17" - Current Owners, What do you think?

15" all the way.

Home >> School

At School >> studio >> comp lab >> coffee shop >> meetings >> class

Actually, those who have purchased the 17" advise others who are in the market to go 15". They think, while the extra space is nice, that it really isn't all that much when portability comes into play.

I also have an external monitor at home, so I hook it up to that when I'm home. Work on graphics that help to have a large screen. Then while at school I can present that or print it out.

Either way, I think in the end you will be happy with the 15?
 
I don't know, call me weird, but I think the 17-inch is really portable, and I switched to this from a 15-inch Thinkpad.

Maybe it's because I've seen those 20-inch laptops :eek:.
 
valdore said:
Maybe the 17 is the good choice then. It'll just sit in my hotel room anyway while I'm somewhere. Or with me in a coffee shop with wifi or whatever... :)
Click to expand...

If you read up I think the consensus is that 17" is impossible to use on the airplane unless you travel first class.
 
I bought a 17'' high-res back in November and as of now I am satisfied with it. The only worry I have is next year when I start college, carrying it around may be some what of a hassle. The bigger high-res screen is nice though. I do a lot of video editing so it was somewhat necessary.
 
I bought a 17" MBP just after new years and, after having been a MacBook owner since last May, I can say that the extras a 17" gives me, personally, is worth the little extra effort I have carrying it around.

Every day I took the MB to class last semester, and now every day I take the MBP to class. Aside from getting a few occasional stares from someone who hasn't seen me with it, it is just about as comfortable as my MB.

Now, though, when I grab my wife's MacBook to do something real quick, it feels like I am literally placed into a tiny cardboard box. I don't know how I could ever go back.

If you will be using your computer alot, especially if you game at all, I would totally go for the 17".
 
Its love hate thing

I love the 17 inch screen (size Does matter) but I hate the weight. at 7 lbs I cant wait for apple to Air-erize it.
 
The problem with gaming guys is that games look like crap when played at non-standard screen resolutions. So, if you have a 1920x1200 screen, it's going to look terrible at any other resolution. Keep that in mind if you plan on doing a good bit of gaming. The 8600M GT simply can't handle most games at 1920x1200 .
 
bruno75 said:
The problem with gaming guys is that games look like crap when played at non-standard screen resolutions. So, if you have a 1920x1200 screen, it's going to look terrible at any other resolution. Keep that in mind if you plan on doing a good bit of gaming. The 8600M GT simply can't handle most games at 1920x1200 .
Click to expand...

Gaming on laptops is a pretty bad idea, unless just very casually if you are bored in a hotel on a trip or something, but then you wont really care about the quality as much as just to kill some time. If you are a gamer, get a desktop.
 
bruno75 said:
The problem with gaming guys is that games look like crap when played at non-standard screen resolutions. So, if you have a 1920x1200 screen, it's going to look terrible at any other resolution. Keep that in mind if you plan on doing a good bit of gaming. The 8600M GT simply can't handle most games at 1920x1200 .
Click to expand...

The native resolutions of even the 15" screen (1440-by-900) is itself very "nonstandard" in that many games don't support that resolution and you are going to be playing in a non-native resolution regardless. Both screens have the same AR, so you are going to be dealing with the same adjustments no matter which screen you play with.

Not to mention people who game on desktops with displays that have resolutions of 2560 x 1600 or so. Those people NEVER play in their native resolutions and games certainly don't look "terrible" as you say.

Sitting a couple feet back from a 17" screen and playing a game in 1024x768 or so is certainly not going to look terrible.
 
I think 17" vs. 15" depends on how you plan to use it. For graphics, video editing, etc., I think the 17" is the better choice. However, for web browsing, software development, etc., I think the advantage of the extra screen space is diminished.

The main problem I see is the LED 17" is cramming a 1920 x 1200 resolution. As a software developer, on my 24" external monitor (1920 x 1200) I use a size 10 font. On a 17" screen, that same size 10 font will appear as size 7. That's WAY unreadable. So to counteract, I can increase the scale of the UI or my font, but that's significantly reducing the advantage of buying a 17".

In the end, I went with the 15". Not only for the above reason, but also because I don't like the keyboard placement on the 17".

Cheers,
 
Its love hate thing

I love the 17 inch screen (size Does matter) but I hate the weight. at 7 lbs I cant wait for apple to Air-erize it.
 
I'm an architect and have a 17" MBP that is two years old that is all maxed out - I have it hooked up to a 30" apple display at the office and at home I use a 23" external display. So I take the laptop back and forth each day and will take the laptop to a jobsite to show clients pictures and 3D models. So, the screen size is not that important because of the fact that 95% of the time I using external monitors. My concern is performance - is it possible to get a 15" MBP that can match or out preform a 17" MBP.
thanx
 
krypt said:
I think 17" vs. 15" depends on how you plan to use it. For graphics, video editing, etc., I think the 17" is the better choice. However, for web browsing, software development, etc., I think the advantage of the extra screen space is diminished.

The main problem I see is the LED 17" is cramming a 1920 x 1200 resolution. As a software developer, on my 24" external monitor (1920 x 1200) I use a size 10 font. On a 17" screen, that same size 10 font will appear as size 7. That's WAY unreadable. So to counteract, I can increase the scale of the UI or my font, but that's significantly reducing the advantage of buying a 17".

In the end, I went with the 15". Not only for the above reason, but also because I don't like the keyboard placement on the 17".
Click to expand...

Excellent point about readability of font. I do a ton of web development with multiple browsers and one or two code windows and possibly one or two vm's. I am tired of my 15" win-laptop with 1400 x 900.

It seems like everyone I have talked to say they love their 17" real estate, but they miss the portability.

Seems the consensus Trade-off is: built-in real estate vs portability vs cost.
 
The reason i bought a laptop is because I needed a portable computer. If I didnt care about portability, I would have gone with a desktop computer. Therefore, because of its smaller size and lower weight, I got the 15'.
 
I use both a 15" and a 17" daily.

The 17" is a work laptop, and it's main use is as a portable desktop. It's great for that use case, but to me it's very portable. Some people joke that when I carry the 17" it looks like a normal size laptop, but that's because I'm 6'6" tall.

The 15" at home is perfect as well, as it is used mainly as a real lap-top laptop!

I think others say it well... if you are working in lots of graphics or windows that need constant attention, screen real estate is your friend. If you are taking notes, writing papers, doing email and looking at the web, you can switch windows via keystroke and get away with the 15", it's still a beautiful screen with plenty of pixels.

I use my 17" at work connected to a second monitor that has the same resolution, using both the laptop and external simultaneously.
 
skd said:
but what about performance?
Click to expand...

15" has everything that 17" has, minus the crappy 300gb 4200rpm HD which nobody needs anyhow...same CPU, GPU (512ram), same amount of ram can be installed, etc...so there isnt much difference besides perhaps the screen, but then again if you said you use 30" at work I really doubt you are going to care for the 2" extra that 17" give you, but carrying around 15" will be much easier and it has a slightly better battery life.
 
Deciphering the comments:

1) If someone says that 1900x1200 res is "too high" you can safely ignore them. It's not like we live in the age of fixed pixel fonts. I bought the very first laptop with a 1900x1200 screen (15.4" Dell D800) 7? years ago (had a 1600x1200 lappy before that.) Even in Windows lets you adjust the DPI to scale things as big as you want. More is truly better here.

2) If someone says "15" is more portable" without describing any real experience traveling with a large laptop take their advice with at least a 15" grain of sand. First look at the specs... 17" is only 1.3" wider, .8" deeper. It's really not a big deal. For work I've been lugging a Dell E1705 AND a 15" IBM T60p (in the same bag) all over Europe... I've got over 100,000mi on them (140 days of travel last year.) The E1705 is a genuine boat anchor (more than 2lbs heavier than the 17" MBP), but if you buy a good bag (I like Booq Bags) you can get used to it. I even took that E1705 for a thousand miles or so on my back via motorcycle (CBR1100XX if you care.) 17" can be a pain working on an airplane... IF you are hoping to use the tray. The person ahead moving around their seat generally makes this too annoying anyway. Just lean back, prop your knees against the seat in front and adjust the screen accordingly. The battery life on my E1705 is **** making the effort mostly pointless, but when I've had to, I've been able to work even in cattle-class budget airline (RyanAir, EasyJet, etc) seats.

What you really need to think about is your work habits/needs. Java IDEs? Photo/Graphics work? are you the kind of person that opens a ton of things at the same time? All of these are good reasons to have as much real estate as you can. Oh, and is $400 or so significant? I use my laptop on average 12hrs a day, day in a day out... it's easy to amortize the costs. My wife's case is different: she reads email, surfs the web, writes, etc... if she gets a new one, a plain MacBook will happy suit her needs.

I'll be picking up a new 17"MBP high res glossy, as soon as I'm back in the states again (a few weeks.) I'm really looking forward to it.
 
EricVT said:
The native resolutions of even the 15" screen (1440-by-900) is itself very "nonstandard" in that many games don't support that resolution and you are going to be playing in a non-native resolution regardless. Both screens have the same AR, so you are going to be dealing with the same adjustments no matter which screen you play with.

Not to mention people who game on desktops with displays that have resolutions of 2560 x 1600 or so. Those people NEVER play in their native resolutions and games certainly don't look "terrible" as you say.

Sitting a couple feet back from a 17" screen and playing a game in 1024x768 or so is certainly not going to look terrible.
Click to expand...

When I said "non-standard", I meant that someone playing on a native 1920x1200 pixel screen will need to play at a much lower resolution if they want decent framerates. When they lower the resolution, their high pixel density LCD will need to approximate for the lower resolution and they will lose sharpness, clarity and introduce a blurriness into the image. It's very noticeable and a caveat of playing games at "non-native" screen resolution.
 
denovich said:
Deciphering the comments:

2) If someone says "15" is more portable" without describing any real experience traveling with a large laptop take their advice with at least a 15" grain of sand. First look at the specs... 17" is only 1.3" wider, .8" deeper. It's really not a big deal. For work I've been lugging a Dell E1705 AND a 15" IBM T60p (in the same bag) all over Europe... I've got over 100,000mi on them (140 days of travel last year.) The E1705 is a genuine boat anchor (more than 2lbs heavier than the 17" MBP), but if you buy a good bag (I like Booq Bags) you can get used to it. I even took that E1705 for a thousand miles or so on my back via motorcycle (CBR1100XX if you care.) 17" can be a pain working on an airplane... IF you are hoping to use the tray. The person ahead moving around their seat generally makes this too annoying anyway. Just lean back, prop your knees against the seat in front and adjust the screen accordingly. The battery life on my E1705 is **** making the effort mostly pointless, but when I've had to, I've been able to work even in cattle-class budget airline (RyanAir, EasyJet, etc) seats.
Click to expand...

well soldiers are used to lugging around 50lbs worth of crap in their backpacks and march for 3 days, it doesnt make it pleasurable or comfortable. We can get used to anything, but thats not the point, its how you get around and whether or not its convenient for you, and doesnt feel awkward.
 
denovich said:
If someone says that 1900x1200 res is "too high" you can safely ignore them. It's not like we live in the age of fixed pixel fonts.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. And don't forget resolution independence is coming in 10.6. You'd have to be absolutely nuts to not buy the highest possible resolution screen you can get.
 
rezonat0r said:
EXACTLY. And don't forget resolution independence is coming in 10.6. You'd have to be absolutely nuts to not buy the highest possible resolution screen you can get.
Click to expand...

Oh the promise of resolution independence. I can't wait for it whenever it does happen, but I'm not holding my hope for 10.6 to include it.
 
scott9s said:
So, my current (ready to throw out the window) laptop is 15" and 6.2 lbs.

I love screen real estate.

I'm thinking a 15" or a 17" 1920 x 1200 Hi Resolution. the thought of having two windows side by side on the same screen seems so alluring.
Click to expand...

I can do 2 windows side by side on my 15" fine. Obviously the 17" can do it even better..but yeah
 
I don't have one yet, but go with the 15". Its cheaper and will give you the same performance in a lighter case. Plus 15" is still substantial.
 
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
Back