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

17" better than 15" MBP

R

rpeters

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 10, 2010
3
0
I have been using 15" MBP for some time now and need a second macbook pro. I have loved the 15" but have never had the chance to really work with the 17". I notice that the native resolution is listed as quite a bit higher on the 17". I am wondering if those who have tried both notice about the resolution and other differences they prefer.
Thanks for any thoughts about this.
 
I had the 15" and now have the 17" MBP and have to say, that the higher resolutions is quite good for working with lots of open documents and applications. It takes some time to get used to because of the higher pixel density, meaning the pixels are smaller compared to the 15" MBP.
The other aspects like CPU and GPU power can be neglected, as those can be achieved with the 15" MBP too.
The portability is also a little bit hindered, but nothing major. A good rucksack will help you with that.

Have a look here at some topics about 15" vs 17":
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=011016...e:forums.macrumors.com&hl=en&as_qdr=all&meta=
 
if you do a lot of reading and writing.. the 17" can be a pain in the eyes after a while. other than that.. the increase in resolution is very noticeable and I like it better than the 15" for everything else except reading and writing for long periods of time.
 
I am not really getting what you are asking for. But if I had a choice between 17 and 15 inches for the nearly same price, I d grab 17.

I think both 17 and 15 are big to carry around, so the size should not be a minus for the 17 over 15.

17
-better sound
-bigger screen
-remains cooler
-bigger fans are very quiet
-more slots
-and probably soon there will be better upgrades options available for the 17 because if i7 updated that is expected in the next few weeks or month and it will probably be more powerful (my thoughts) than 15 version.


I have old 2007 versions of both 17 and 15.



PAC88 said:
if you do a lot of reading and writing.. the 17" can be a pain in the eyes after a while. other than that.. the increase in resolution is very noticeable and I like it better than the 15" for everything else except reading and writing for long periods of time.
Click to expand...

You can zoom in when reading (in every possible program or file type), even in browser you can increase the size of letters. In Office Word, you can increase the % of how big the document on the screen. Reading or writing wont be a problem! The only things that are smaller are letters on the taskbar on the top (menu bar is it called?), but the size can also be changed (google for that)
 
Thanks for the comments.
I have been reading quite a bit about this and find that there is one question that I am still not clear on.
I find that more and more I keep my 15 "about three feet away from me while working on papers. Often I just go through sites with mouse, no key pad needed.
Because of the distance I find that many pages are hard to read at this distance comfortably so I have been zooming in on screen.

My question is whether the smaller pixels in 17" will help with viewing items on screen as I scroll in because of increased quality or if smaller pixels will just make it worse.
Thanks for any advice.
 
rpeters said:
Thanks for the comments.
I have been reading quite a bit about this and find that there is one question that I am still not clear on.
I find that more and more I keep my 15 "about three feet away from me while working on papers. Often I just go through sites with mouse, no key pad needed.
Because of the distance I find that many pages are hard to read at this distance comfortably so I have been zooming in on screen.

My question is whether the smaller pixels in 17" will help with viewing items on screen as I scroll in because of increased quality or if smaller pixels will just make it worse.
Thanks for any advice.
Click to expand...

Worse, because everything is smaller from the same distance compared to the 15".
You get 77 percent more pixels with just getting 33 percent of more physical screen.*


But zooming will be about the same experience.


*
17": 1920 x 1200 = 2304000 pixel
15": 1440 x 900 = 1296000 pixel

2304000/1296000 = 1.777
17/15 = 1.333
 
rpeters said:
Thanks for the comments.
I have been reading quite a bit about this and find that there is one question that I am still not clear on.
I find that more and more I keep my 15 "about three feet away from me while working on papers. Often I just go through sites with mouse, no key pad needed.
Because of the distance I find that many pages are hard to read at this distance comfortably so I have been zooming in on screen.

My question is whether the smaller pixels in 17" will help with viewing items on screen as I scroll in because of increased quality or if smaller pixels will just make it worse.
Thanks for any advice.
Click to expand...

You are talking about sites, then you must be browsing. Zooming on screen can be replaced by zooming text only

Safari

Go to View > Zoom Text only, and then Zoom In or Out in the View menue.

Firefox

View > Zoom > Zoom Text only and then zoom in or out.


Browsing should not be painful, really!
And you can lower the resolution of the screen, if it is acceptable.


But small text is really not a problem and should not be a reason to buy or not buy a 17 version.
 
Thanks for the comments.

I think I am just going to wait for an update and get a 17" and spend some time trying it out, comparing it to the 15" 2.8 I already have. I can't figure out the significance of differences in screen resolution for different applications based on the math. Your comments did help though.
I also find the math confusing when comparing the 15" to the 27" imac. My math says that the pixels on these two are similar in size meaning that you get more work area but not higher pixel density. The 17" MBP then would have more pixels per area then both. When is this good, when is it bad or is it always good?
It is intriguing and a detail I would like to completely understand.
 
The pixel density on the 27" and the 17" is roughly the same.

Some application menu are a bit harder to read with the higher pixel density, like Photoshop or Avid or Final Cut.
 
spinnerlys said:
Worse, because everything is smaller from the same distance compared to the 15".
You get 77 percent more pixels with just getting 33 percent of more physical screen.*


But zooming will be about the same experience.


*
17": 1920 x 1200 = 2304000 pixel
15": 1440 x 900 = 1296000 pixel

2304000/1296000 = 1.777
17/15 = 1.333
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, since the screen size is expanded both vertically and horizontally.
Is a 30 inch screen twice as big as an 15 inch? No, its four times as big.

Anyways 17/15= 1.1333 and a 17 incher is (17/15)^2 ≈1.3 times the size.
 
cluthz said:
Not entirely true, since the screen size is expanded both vertically and horizontally.
Is a 30 inch screen twice as big as an 15 inch? No, its four times as big.

Anyways 17/15= 1.1333 and a 17 incher is (17/15)^2 ≈1.3 times the size.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I knew I missed something. It's getting already late here in Kansas. Or are we not there anymore? I have to ask Harvey.
 
Command + - FTW.

Meant to add I to have a 15 and 17 and I just like my 15 better overall even though my 17" bests it in the options listed above.
 
I'm seriously thinking of going with the 17" because I think it would be a bit of pain to go from working on a 30" with 2560x1600 resolution to something as low as the 15"

The 17" to me doesn't seem monstrously heavier than the 15". I'm sure if you were carrying it around a lot it would be. But as I'm personally not likely to carry either around a lot I'm inclined to think that if you're a high resolution user regularly you'd appreciate the extra pixels that the 17" would offer you.
 
I have a 15" MacBook Pro now (provided by my employer) and whenever the update happens I'm going to buy a new one for my own use.

I'm seriously considering the 17", with a matte screen. It's only about an inch wider - so I don't think portability would really be an issue. Plus it has the same 1920 x 1200 resolution as my external monitor which is a big plus.

Of course, if they throw a dedicated GPU into the 13" one and have a matte screen option I'd consider that too... and just use it connected to the external monitor most of the time. That's probably not going to happen though.

The 15" just isn't that attractive to me any more - I guess I'm just ready to try something different.
 
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