17" gone for good?

[Queen6]

Can see a 17" in my future, equally for obvious reason not Apple. For some the physically larger display offers advantage versus the trade off in portability. As others have clearly stated Apple`s position is crystal clear...

If you want a modern 17" OS X based notebook the Hacintosh forums is where you will find the answer or a Linux

Q-6

 

[HonestChicken]

I wish there is a 14" MBP

 

[Altis]

Ah, sorry, my bad, I had the wrong horizontal number. Yes, there is also around 2 cm of vertical difference. I still don't understand what's the big deal of having a screen thats 3cm larger in one dimension and 2cm larger in another. The difference in area means that objects will appear 1/5 times smaller on the 15.4" screen. E.g. if you have an object thats 10x5 cm on the 17" display, it would be 8.9x4.47cm on the 15" display, and a 1cmx1cm would become 0.9cm*0.9cm. Are there really any practical disadvantages that come with such a minor decrease of dimensions? Unfortunately, I don't have a 17" here, but I'd really like to compare them side by side. I'm really curious now.

Where I find the biggest difference between the 15" and 17" is being able to effectively use two windows side-by-side. On the 17", there's enough space to have two full working windows side by side in most applications (web, PDF, office, programming). The 15" is just a bit too narrow.

And while you can set the resolution so more content is displayed, things can only be made so small before it strains your eyes. You need to be able to see what you're working with.
[doublepost=1484367171][/doublepost]

Although I for one - and I know others too - would like an updated MBP 17” I don’t have any disillusions of this happening. APPLE just isn’t the same company it was. It’s now a consumer product company with the iPhone as its main earner, and no longer any interest in being a computer company. Interesting that I just read this, which outlines fairly well why some of us would like a new MBP 17”.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3144...pro-17-and-make-your-laptops-great-again.html

I’ve got 2 MBP 17” here at home. No, I don’t need the smallest and lightest portable, just something to move around the house and a trip in the car most weeks where it sits on another desktop. I want and enjoy a big screen, not just pixels, my anti-glare screen is just fine too, sound is good (I imagine a new model could be even better), lots of ports and works with [like most of us] my older drives, have 2tb of SSD and 16gb of RAM in the last version which I upgraded myself. Like the keyboard action and the ‘novelty’ of things like a meg-safe power adapter (which must have saved me many times), ethernet port (there are those times), in and out sound ports (yes, I do plug in some times). Apple has done its best to try and cause problems by disabling the SuperDrive (so replaced it with another storage drive) and ExpressCard port with the latest operating system OS and I read its now a ‘legacy’ computer so ‘what do you expect’, and advised by some like here ’I should move on’, but these old 17” still have the form factor and extras I can’t get in the newest versions.

Till APPLE comes out with a real ‘PRO’ version geared towards professional needs and use, they should just drop that name and call it for what it is a high-end MacBook.

I have the 2010 17" and feel pretty well the same way. It's a bit short on processing power (first gen i5, 8 GB RAM), but the usability of the device is fantastic.

I've thought of trying to find a 2011 17" with the i7 quad, but the logic board failures make it a really risky investment. It's a shame that so many of them fail again and again.

I know Apple isn't going to be making the 17" again anytime soon, sadly. They're quite clear with the market/demographics they're interested in.

For now, I'll just run this 2010 as long as I can. I have a powerful desktop PC that I use for intense applications, so I don't need a super powerful laptop. El Capitan runs alright enough on it, though Safari performs poorly. Sierra runs too poorly for it, though.

Fortunately, Windows 7/10 and Linux run absolutely great on it, so I think when the day comes that OSX becomes too tedious on it, I'll just dual-boot Windows+Linux.

 

[thesaint024]

I watched a few unboxing videos of the 17". I think it would be cool if there was one. I'd never buy it, not in my capacity, but I can see why some people would want it. Makes sense for there to be a semi-portable Mac for people who need a real powerhouse. What would they have to lose making BTO one?

Here in lies the problem. It's a cool concept computer and not much more. There aren't too many people that would buy one, which is probably why they killed it off in the first place. To fit in their product line, it would have to be a mega computer that cost $4-$5k. While people say they want this, I doubt many would actually pay this much for one. People will complain that it costs too much, or like now, complain that they don't even offer one. Either way, not many will buy it. Sound business decision not to even bother.

 

[iKnowMr.Jobs]

Contrary to what these forums would have you believe, but most people don't want to buy a 17 inch computer. The reasons why should be obvious: it'll cost more, the weight and dimensions would be enormous, etc. People were already complaining about the current TouchBar Pros being expensive...could you imagine what Apple would price a 17 inch version? I firmly believe that 15 is about a large as laptops will made from this point because its just large enough to get enough a comfortable real-estate on the display and just small enough to be considered portable.

 

[jackoatmon]

if people on this forum had their way apple would be selling 987" macbooks that you could stand inside and they would have 3 TB of RAM, get 4 million FPS in Overwatch and they would literally melt you they would be so hot as they literally exploded you from the fan noise and you would die but you would get so much overwatching done and be soooo Pro

 

[duervo]

I've had a 17" laptop before. Not an Apple one, mind you. It was an HP zd8000 (next laptop I got was my first MacBook Pro, early 2008, 15".) An intern at work had a 17" MacBook Pro, though, at the time. For either system, it's not the weight that bothered me. It's the physical footprint. For me, a 17" just takes up too much space for a laptop.

 

[tubeexperience]

Contrary to what these forums would have you believe, but most people don't want to buy a 17 inch computer. The reasons why should be obvious: it'll cost more, the weight and dimensions would be enormous, etc. People were already complaining about the current TouchBar Pros being expensive...could you imagine what Apple would price a 17 inch version? I firmly believe that 15 is about a large as laptops will made from this point because its just large enough to get enough a comfortable real-estate on the display and just small enough to be considered portable.

So what you are saying is that putting in a bigger display and a bigger battery would make the laptop significantly more expensive?
[doublepost=1484426768][/doublepost]

Ah, sorry, my bad, I had the wrong horizontal number. Yes, there is also around 2 cm of vertical difference. I still don't understand what's the big deal of having a screen thats 3cm larger in one dimension and 2cm larger in another. The difference in area means that objects will appear 1/5 times smaller on the 15.4" screen. E.g. if you have an object thats 10x5 cm on the 17" display, it would be 8.9x4.47cm on the 15" display, and a 1cmx1cm would become 0.9cm*0.9cm. Are there really any practical disadvantages that come with such a minor decrease of dimensions? Unfortunately, I don't have a 17" here, but I'd really like to compare them side by side. I'm really curious now.

And you can make the same argument about the MacBook Pro 15":

Why would anyone need a MacBook Pro 15"? What's the big deal? Everyone should be fine with MacBook Pro 13".
[doublepost=1484426997][/doublepost]

Here in lies the problem. It's a cool concept computer and not much more. There aren't too many people that would buy one, which is probably why they killed it off in the first place. To fit in their product line, it would have to be a mega computer that cost $4-$5k. While people say they want this, I doubt many would actually pay this much for one. People will complain that it costs too much, or like now, complain that they don't even offer one. Either way, not many will buy it. Sound business decision not to even bother.

Or, you know, it would be like a MacBook Pro 15", but with a bigger display and a battery.

 

[dapork]

If there was a significant market for them they probably wouldn't have discontinued them.

 

[tubeexperience]

If there was a significant market for them they probably wouldn't have discontinued them.

It was discontinued because when the Retina MacBook Pro first came out, a Retina display of that size would be prohibitively expensive. Obviously, that wouldn't be the case anymore.

 

[leman]

And you can make the same argument about the MacBook Pro 15":

Why would anyone need a MacBook Pro 15"? What's the big deal? Everyone should be fine with MacBook Pro 13".

Well, not really. Remember, we are talking about 1920x1200 resolution. If one uses the 1680x1050 resolution, I think that going from the 15" to 13" is tolerable. But 1920x1200 on a 13" screen is really way too small.

And frankly, I'd love to use the 13" for its weight alone, but unfortunately, it doesn't come with a quad-core CPU or a GPU and, that is a no-go for me.
[doublepost=1484429682][/doublepost]

It was discontinued because when the Retina MacBook Pro first came out, a Retina display of that size would be prohibitively expensive. Obviously, that wouldn't be the case anymore.

That is an interesting hypothesis, but I don't think its true. Don't forget that the non-retina model and the retina model coexisted for some time while the 17" was dropped altogether in 2012. If they ever intended to introduce a 17" retina model, they'd probably let the 17" stick around some longer. Looking back (and especially given the reports that 17" sales were lacklustre at best), the guess that Apple intended the 15" retina to supersede the 17" model makes much more sense to me.

 

[thesaint024]

So what you are saying is that putting in a bigger display and a bigger battery would make the laptop significantly more expensive?
[doublepost=1484426768][/doublepost]

And you can make the same argument about the MacBook Pro 15":

Why would anyone need a MacBook Pro 15"? What's the big deal? Everyone should be fine with MacBook Pro 13".
[doublepost=1484426997][/doublepost]

Or, you know, it would be like a MacBook Pro 15", but with a bigger display and a battery.

Either you are just being contrarian or you are a really wishful fan of 17" MBP's. If you've been following Apple at all, you'd see that they don't just add a product line that is the most economically feasible for customers. They add them to make sense in THEIR lines. Having a 17" with exact same specs as a 15", except with a larger display and battery doesn't really do anything for them except make a handful of hardcore 17" fans happy. They would likely up the processor, graphics, and everything else they can fit in the bigger form, just so that they can justify adding $500-$1000 to the price. Otherwise, why bother doing the additional design, add complexity in their supply chain, or endure anemic sales of a 17"?

 

[tubeexperience]

Well, not really. Remember, we are talking about 1920x1200 resolution. If one uses the 1680x1050 resolution, I think that going from the 15" to 13" is tolerable. But 1920x1200 on a 13" screen is really way too small.

And frankly, I'd love to use the 13" for its weight alone, but unfortunately, it doesn't come with a quad-core CPU or a GPU and, that is a no-go for me.

Some people might be able to tolerate 1920x1200 on 15.4", but prefer 1920x1200 on 17".

Also, if a 17" Retina display is available, it would be able to run at an ever higher resolution than 1920x1200.

That is an interesting hypothesis, but I don't think its true. Don't forget that the non-retina model and the retina model coexisted for some time while the 17" was dropped altogether in 2012. If they ever intended to introduce a 17" retina model, they'd probably let the 17" stick around some longer. Looking back (and especially given the reports that 17" sales were lacklustre at best), the guess that Apple intended the 15" retina to supersede the 17" model makes much more sense to me.

Apple (at least when Steve Jobs was around) prefers simple lineup as oppose to convoluted one. If a MacBook Pro Retina 17" is not available, it creates the confusion of whether the MacBook Pro Retina 15" or the MacBook Pro 17" (non-Retina) is the "true" flagship and hence the latter has to be discontinued.

and especially given the reports that 17" sales were lacklustre at best

Recall the price of the MacBook Pro at the time: $1199 for MBP 13", $1799 for MBP 15", $2499 for MBP 17".

It's no surprise that the MBP 17" didn't sell very well because it costs $700 more than MBP 15" for some reason.

Somehow, I doubt that the bigger display and bigger battery costs Apple anywhere near $700.

Many people who bought the MBP 15" would have preferred the MBP 17"

 

[BarracksSi]

WTF... talk about necro-thread. Why was this bumped? This must've been late 2012 -- who still has this question in 2017?

.... Oh.

Still. WTF.
[doublepost=1484455275][/doublepost]

Contrary to what these forums would have you believe, but most people don't want to buy a 17 inch computer. The reasons why should be obvious: it'll cost more, the weight and dimensions would be enormous, etc.

One of my former coworkers had one. He liked how big the screen was, but he hated transporting it. He said he'd never buy a 17" laptop again.

 

[Brien]

I wish there is a 14" MBP

I'm surprised that with a 12" MacBook they didn't shift to 14 and 16" for the MBP. Smaller bezels would mean the laptops would be about the same size as the old 13/15's were.

 

[cubalibre]

[doublepost=1484455275][/doublepost]
One of my former coworkers had one. He liked how big the screen was, but he hated transporting it. He said he'd never buy a 17" laptop again.[/QUOTE]

Same here, still have a top of the line 2011 17" i7, bought it for the screen and CPU/GPU - but the weight and size is really too much to lug around unless you absolutely have to. Still works great though, and functions as my wife's home computer.

Ordered the 15" 2016, which should be delivered in a week or so. If the 13" came with a quad core i7 and a dGPU I would have preferred that + an external 5K screen over the 15". Big screen for home/office use, small size and light weight for the road. Would not get a 17" again if they made new ones.

My main usage is Lightroom, and also quite a lot of Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, inDesign and C4D.

 

[tubeexperience]

One of my former coworkers had one. He liked how big the screen was, but he hated transporting it. He said he'd never buy a 17" laptop again.

Same here, still have a top of the line 2011 17" i7, bought it for the screen and CPU/GPU - but the weight and size is really too much to lug around unless you absolutely have to. Still works great though, and functions as my wife's home computer.

Ordered the 15" 2016, which should be delivered in a week or so. If the 13" came with a quad core i7 and a dGPU I would have preferred that + an external 5K screen over the 15". Big screen for home/office use, small size and light weight for the road. Would not get a 17" again if they made new ones.

My main usage is Lightroom, and also quite a lot of Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, inDesign and C4D.

Boys, stop complaining. My big a** textbooks weigh more than that.

 

[cubalibre]

Boys, stop complaining. My big a** textbooks weigh more than that.

Haha, that was my mindset as well when I got my first 17" in 2008 - but after using them daily for almost five years (I had another one before the 2011) I had enough.

Turns out the little extra size and weight matters quite a lot with time - especially when you carry some camera equipment with the laptop as well. Just made me want to avoid bringing the laptop if possible.

 

[BarracksSi]

Boys, stop complaining. My big a** textbooks weigh more than that.

I'll bet none of your textbooks are as wide as the 17" MBP was, though. Weight is one thing, but when it's longer and wider than most coffee table books, finding bags and sleeves for it becomes an issue. I don't think any of my backpacks would hold a 17" laptop even if it was less than an inch thin.

 

[aevan]

At this point, I think it's actually more likely we'll see a 17" iPad one day than the MBP

I do understand the need for 17" - I believe the extra 2" would actually make the display perfect for certain work, however, it would hurt mobility. Apple could do it, they could design something that is still very mobile (in a way) - but the demand for such a device would be small. I believe their logic is that if you do need more space, you should get an external screen. And yes, I'm aware that is not the same thing.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

At this point, I think it's actually more likely we'll see a 17" iPad one day than the MBP

I do understand the need for 17" - I believe the extra 2" would actually make the display perfect for certain work, however, it would hurt mobility. Apple could do it, they could design something that is still very mobile (in a way) - but the demand for such a device would be small. I believe their logic is that if you do need more space, you should get an external screen. And yes, I'm aware that is not the same thing.

A 17" iPad?! I agree that's more likely though!

I think the 17" was, and would still be a fairly small market, and not necessarily worth investing into. At the price it would eat into the MacPro market, and for people who want the best they'd probably be more inclined to get a MP for cheaper than a 17" MBP would cost. Portability is obviously the main factor, but I think very few people could justify the cost of a more powerful 15", when a 15" would be enough when combined with a desktop for most uses.

So partly sales reasons, but I just don't think they can justify the R&D for it. Also, very few high power users specifically require MacOS, and it's even harder for a company to justify the higher cost for the machine over a Windows based portable workstation. So the market I feel is just too small. Although undoubtedly there's people who would love one, I think given the marketplace it just wouldn't do well.

 

[tubeexperience]

I'll bet none of your textbooks are as wide as the 17" MBP was, though. Weight is one thing, but when it's longer and wider than most coffee table books, finding bags and sleeves for it becomes an issue. I don't think any of my backpacks would hold a 17" laptop even if it was less than an inch thin.

I use a Jansport backpack that I bought from Staple. Fitting a MBP 17" is no problem.

At this point, I think it's actually more likely we'll see a 17" iPad one day than the MBP

I do understand the need for 17" - I believe the extra 2" would actually make the display perfect for certain work, however, it would hurt mobility. Apple could do it, they could design something that is still very mobile (in a way) - but the demand for such a device would be small. I believe their logic is that if you do need more space, you should get an external screen. And yes, I'm aware that is not the same thing.

I am sure that would work great. When I walk into a lecture hall, I just need to tell everyone to move over so I can plug in my external display.
[doublepost=1484499569][/doublepost]

A 17" iPad?! I agree that's more likely though!

I think the 17" was, and would still be a fairly small market, and not necessarily worth investing into. At the price it would eat into the MacPro market, and for people who want the best they'd probably be more inclined to get a MP for cheaper than a 17" MBP would cost. Portability is obviously the main factor, but I think very few people could justify the cost of a more powerful 15", when a 15" would be enough when combined with a desktop for most uses.

So partly sales reasons, but I just don't think they can justify the R&D for it. Also, very few high power users specifically require MacOS, and it's even harder for a company to justify the higher cost for the machine over a Windows based portable workstation. So the market I feel is just too small. Although undoubtedly there's people who would love one, I think given the marketplace it just wouldn't do well.

I doubt that having a bigger display and a bigger battery would costs much more.

 

[macmee]

maybe, but as one of the replies indicated, its more about resolution than actual screen dimensions. you can adjust your resolution to have a similar experience.

Even I have 20/20 vision and changing the DPI to have a "similar experience" hurts my eyes after a few hours of use.

 

[BarracksSi]

When I walk into a lecture hall, I just need to tell everyone to move over so I can plug in my external display.

This really makes no sense. Any lecture hall worth its salt would have a projector.

[edit] Or are you talking about being a spectator and using an external display?

Still makes no sense. Why can't you watch the lecture instead of a big-ass laptop screen?

 

[tubeexperience]

This really makes no sense. Any lecture hall worth its salt would have a projector.

I am usually not allow to use the projector.

That's what the professor uses.