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

[jjahshik32]

Why would the 17" HR be any less adequate for gaming than the 15"?

Just because the native resolution of the High-Res 17" is 1920x1200 doesn't mean you have to play games in those resolutions. You can always bump down the resolution in the game to those same resolutions you would be using for optimized performance on the 15" and then use the higher resolutions for your applications where the increased screenspace makes a difference.

Am I misunderstanding this?

Yes you are misunderstanding because think about it, have you ever played a game when you bumped down a notch in resolution? Looks like utter crap.

I did own the previous gen 2.4ghz SR 17" mbp hi resolution and it was a joy to use but I sold it because I wanted to wait for the led version.
But I did game on that 17" and while I played older games like half life 2 and around that era games, 1920x1200 ran smooth on the mbp.

Right now I have the 15" mbp 2.4 SR model and I'm thinking about selling it and put extra $ to buy the 17" high res. I just looove the screen size and to those of you who said that you dont like all that extra space between the keyboard, I love that space. I remember when the last gen 1.67ghz powerbook the 17" actually ran ALOT cooler due more space for heat to dissipate unlike the 15" and especially now its a 45nm chipset I wonder how cool the 17" runs! I'm sure it has the same effects today against the 15" and 17" mbps.

I do remember the 17" running alot cooler than my current 15 and both were the same 2.4ghz sr models.

 

[bruno75]

Why would the 17" HR be any less adequate for gaming than the 15"?

Just because the native resolution of the High-Res 17" is 1920x1200 doesn't mean you have to play games in those resolutions. You can always bump down the resolution in the game to those same resolutions you would be using for optimized performance on the 15" and then use the higher resolutions for your applications where the increased screenspace makes a difference.

Am I misunderstanding this?

Because playing a game at any resolution other than native res for your LCD results in a much poorer quality image. If you have an LCD, try changing your desktop resolution to something other than native and you'll see some of what I'm talking about. Everything gets blurry and you lose sharpness because of the pixel mapping where each individual pixel is assigned multiple pixels on your "pixel dense" native resolution giving everything a fuzzy quality. It doesn't mean you can't play and enjoy the game but it certainly reduces image quality.

 

[bruno75]

Here's my take on the issue:

I've owned 3, 17" laptops in the past few years and done extensive work, play and travel with them. That being said, I'm opting for the 15.4" mbp this time around for a few different reasons.

1) Size and portability. Most people want 17" notebooks because they are looking for a DTR (desktop replacement and need a display that is adequate to perform most of their work/leisure activities. This comes at the tradeoff of size,bulk and weight and decreased portability. This was my fundamental philosophy during the past few years, but my argument now is this... Why not get a portable 15.4 notebook and simply use an external display for when you are at home? Even when I was using my 17" screens I found myself wishing I had a proper "large" display which is why I'm using a 24" Dell LCD at the moment and intend on using it with my MBP. Lugging around a 17" notebook is a pain. It's unwieldy on planes, doesn't fit on desks very well, can't be set up very easily on coffee shop tables and well.. you get the picture. I found myself leaving my laptop at home more times than not and using it strictly as a stationary DTR which begs the question... Why did I get a laptop in the first place?

2) Screen resolution. This is purely relative because I think all of us have different thresholds of tolerance as well as different levels of vision. The majority of my 17" screens have been 1920x1200 and that has always been a difficult resolution for me to work with on such a small screen. It simply hurts my eyes after a very long computing session and text/icons end up being uncomfortably small for me. Sure, it's more screen real estate and I can open more documents side by side, but on a 17" screen it's almost too much. 1920x1200 on my 24" widescreen is just perfect. 1440x900 on a 15.4" screen is also perfect for my particular tastes. Also, if you're a big gamer (as I am), this plays an important factor. Generally speaking, you want to play games at native resolution on your LCD's so that you don't sacrifice image quality with pixel mapping at non-native resolutions (yuck). 1920x1200 is fine if you are playing on a more powerful notebook card (7950gtx, 8800m, etc..) but 8600m GT isn't going to cut it for anything other than older games at that resolution.

3)Form Factor. I haven't found a 17" notebook yet where I was happy with the keyboard placement and found it comfortable. Most of the time, the 17" depth is causing you to lay a large portion of your hands/forearms over the chassis to reach the keyboard. You end up with this massive lower chassis underneath the LCD comprised of nothing more than a keyboard and trackpad. That's a huge amount of space and I don't care how well you place everything, you end up with tons of redundant useless space. I don't like this and again, personal preference.

So, my argument (with myself) for buying the 15.4" mbp is that it's a more than adequate resolution for my needs, it will provide me a much longer lifespan with games at 1440x900 (vs 1920x1200) and if I need a bigger display, I can always hook it up to my external. (The price difference between 17" and 15" allows you to easily get a 20" widescreen LCD) It retains portability with it's size/weight and allows me to carry it around more often.

So, to make a long winded opinion very brief: I'd suggest buying a 15.4" and getting an external LCD later on if you need additional screen real estate. Better yet, go to an Apple store and play with both computers. That's what won me over to the 15.4" because it had been so long since I'd used a smaller screen that I automatically assumed that anything smaller than 17" wasn't big enough. When I started messing with the 15.4" mbp in the store, I realized that it was just about perfect.

 

[DaveF]

I bought the 15" MBP last summer for many of the same reasons already given:

1) Cost. $200-$300 cheaper was significant. I decided if I found the 15" screen too small at home, I could buy a decent 20" LCD for what I saved.

2) Portability. I don't travel much with my laptop, but the consistent advice -- from 17" portable owners -- was that they are notably more difficult to fly with. And for my few trips, I wanted a usable laptop. And it so happens that the 15" MBP fits my satchel perfectly -- the 17" would have been a tight fit.

3) LCD, battery life, etc.

What I wish for was a middle ground: high-res (1680x1050) 15" screen.

And gaming works just fine at non-native resolutions. I've found that playing older 640x480 games (StarCraft) interpolated to fit my 1440x900 screen is just fine. The quality isn't perfect, but it's a non-issue for me.

 

[scott9s]

Thanks to all who replied. I decided to go with the 17" Hi Res Matte.

Excellent points by everyone.

Yes, a 15" can do side-by-side windows, but with a 17" 1920 x 1200, it's just nicer. The portability after picking up my brother's dell 17" and then comparing it to the mbp 17". Wow, now that's portability. That's the thing, any other 17" laptops are not 1" thick. I can easily pick the 17" laptop closed and carry it around with one hand, and I guess that's the extent of portability that I need.

Can I pick up the laptop closed with one hand and walk from one room in my house to another?

Can I put my laptop in a bag and not be too heavy as I go to work?

I think the answer is yes for both the mbp 15" and 17", but the 17" is more my style.

We'll see, after a couple years, I might be like give me air.

 

[Sweetbike40]

I went with the 17" because of the higher resolution screen and because it became my main computer. I do graphics and animations. I don't need to travel with it. If i had to take it back and forth to work, i'd be ok. It's fine when carrying nothing else. But also carrying a handbag and gymbag, it all gets kinda heavy. But i'm not walking very far. It certainly doesn't seem too big. It's small to me. I'm actually very small, so i'd imagine to an average guy, it would be fine.

 

[madmartigan]

you realise that the 17inch is better suited for games, because the gpu is clocked alot higher in the 17 than 15 providing ample increase in fps.

if your going to game with it get the 17inch version.

 

[Ryox]

the 17" isn't that bulky if you use it at home or in side the office... If you carry it outside, you start to feel the size difference of the 15" & the 17".
The high res screen gives you so much more work space than the 15" but if you plan to use it anywhere other than your home and office where you might have to carry it for a while or your pushed for space, your better off with the 15"
If your going to go for the 17" you have to go for the High res display, it is gorgeous.

 

[Ryox]

you realise that the 17inch is better suited for games, because the gpu is clocked alot higher in the 17 than 15 providing ample increase in fps.

if your going to game with it get the 17inch version.

On the high res model, the graphics chip wont be able to run many recent games at native screen resolution, it would choke quite badly.

 

[Cave Man]

If you have a MBP,

Why did you get the 15" or 17"?

Because it was the smallest screen offered. It's a pain lugging the 15" MBP and my camera gear on an airplane. My MacBook was so much nicer.

 

[bruno75]

you realise that the 17inch is better suited for games, because the gpu is clocked alot higher in the 17 than 15 providing ample increase in fps.

if your going to game with it get the 17inch version.

It's clocked marginally higher and doesn't provide any significant performance boosts, but the reality is that you end up with lower fps due to having to run the game within native resolutions (1920x1200 or 1680x1050). 1440x900 looks like crap on a high res LCD, but looks great on a native res screen. So, the extra clock on the gpu might seem better for gaming, but only marginally so and only if you don't mind losing image quality.

 

[madmartigan]

lower resolutions do not look like crap on this screen and anybody saying so is just mad about their 15inch purchase

 

[bruno75]

lower resolutions do not look like crap on this screen and anybody saying so is just mad about their 15inch purchase

Cut and pasted from a tech site because I'm too lazy to explain:

All LCD screens can actually display only a single given resolution referred to as the native resolution. This is the physically number of horizontal and vertical pixels that make up the LCD matrix of the display. Setting a computer display to a resolution lower than this resolution will either cause the monitor to use a reduced visible area of the screen or it will have to do extrapolation. This extrapolation attempts to blend multiple pixels together to produce a similar image to what you would see if the monitor were to display it at the given resolution but it can result in fuzzy images.