Depends what you want it for. I do more design stuff now so I'm happy to have the 17" rather than my previous 15". It's my only computer and I only take it out once or twice a month. I also don't want a desktop computer. It's a good compromise for me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
17 inch mbp too big
- Thread starter tim100
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If a 17" is too big for you, then it's too big. That's why they make 15" and 13" MacBook Pros 
As for me, I tote around a MacBook Air, so I wouldn't be caught dead with a 17" behemoth
As for me, I tote around a MacBook Air, so I wouldn't be caught dead with a 17" behemoth
The 17" MBP isn't that bad since the laptop is like barely 1" thick; usually I like to take it out when the weather is nice and I'm editing or writing a paper. I'm cautious about bringing it to like Barnes & Noble or Starbucks because it's an attention grabber >.>
LOL Yah I see one regularly@my public library. This older lady whips out the 17" and it sits almost as tall as she does.... hehe
If the air came with the same hardware configuration as the 13 at a similar price it would be no brainer for me either
If the air came with the same hardware configuration as the 13 at a similar price it would be no brainer for me either
Gabriel! You have the same configuration I am going to shoot for this week. Do you think the 320gb scorpio was a good upgrade? Satisfied? And did you see a big increase in performance with it and the 4 gigs versus 2 gigs of ram?
I had the drive so I thought I would give it a shot. It works great and I have no vibration issues whatsoever. I haven't noticed any significant reduction in battery life either. I've heard that the version with the shock sensor might not play nicely with the built in sensor of the MBP but I have the cheaper version without it. All in all, great drive, great price and I would only replace it with an SSD.
As far as the RAM is concerned, it's a shame that apple offers a laptop with only 2gb of ram in 2009. IMO it's the only reason to go with the 2.53 as the CPU isn't that much powerful. The extra 2gb make a huge difference, especially if you multitask. I forget firefox open all day long and it gets up to 400-500mb pretty easily. Add SPSS and a couple of RDBMS programs and you're out of RAM...
Also it's impossible to run a Windows or Linux Virtual machine properly without 4gb of RAM. I've been using Windows for 15 years and there are tasks where I am far more productive in Windows so I stick to what I know best. Excel and SPSS for Mac are a joke anyway. I allocate 2GB to a Win 7 in Fusion and everything runs almost like natively in a nice laptop. And with spaces it's like instantly flipping between to computers.
4gb should be the standard. And it is for almost every other manufacturer... It's day to night difference and worth every single dollar. I've toyed with 8gb for a while and although the difference wasn't that noticeable between 4 and 8gb, I am really not sure whether I should spend 300 euros on 8gb of ram (which would make my 2x1GB and 2x4GB sticks useless) or a 160gb SSD. You can never have too much RAM.
OKay cool. Thanks for the help. I will love having the extra ram! I use Photoshop a lot, and next week start my Illustrator class so I want the ram.
Cool!
I kind of agree but...
I don't think of the 17 inch Macbook Pro as a portable, it's a desktop that is easy to move. So if you need a workstation for the plane, or when you're out on assignment or shooting somewhere you have a desktop. It's a lot easier than packing up an iMac, but more cumbersome than an Air.
I decided that I don't need a full desktop on the go, but the 13 inch screen is too small to work well with Final Cut or Aperture. So I settled with the 15 inch machine and will probably soon get a 24 inch Apple Display.
Exactly. My 17" MacBook Pro is plenty portable for me to go to class with daily. Why we need to have these threads every month seems ridiculous.
Yet look where we are. It is indeed portable. Maybe not as portable as a Macbook, but it definitely isn't very cumbersome.
I agree with some of the others saying the poll is useless. I don't even understand the reasoning behind the question or the poll. (even though i answered ). Most likely all you are going to get is the number of people that didn't buy a 17 inch screen voting that its too big, and the number of people that did buy one saying its not too big.
Bottom line is people have different needs and preferences. If there was a one size fits all computer, we wouldn't have 3 different models of MacBook Pros. I think the 13 inch screen is too small. But that doesn't mean anything more than i wouldn't buy it...
). Most likely all you are going to get is the number of people that didn't buy a 17 inch screen voting that its too big, and the number of people that did buy one saying its not too big.Bottom line is people have different needs and preferences. If there was a one size fits all computer, we wouldn't have 3 different models of MacBook Pros. I think the 13 inch screen is too small. But that doesn't mean anything more than i wouldn't buy it...
Me, personally I was given my laptop by my college. I do a lot of computing on the go, and as a designer I really benefit from the 22" widescreen at home for juggling large images and actually using Word without the toolbox in front of my publishing screen..
If you use your laptop on the go, love to take it out and use it around town or travel with it, and you need a serious desktop solution, then why not buy a 150-200$ monitor, 30$ laptop stand and a Kb and mouse? You will get both a desktop and a laptop for around 2-300 bucks more (maybe cheaper depending on your deal). It is far cheaper than even buying a Mac Mini to use as a home computer (and purchasing a monitor I may add). So you can see the relevance, many people can actually use it.
As a student.. I need it. Have you tried to design a 1680x1050 image on a 1280x800 screen? Sucks. With a touchpad sans mouse, sucks even harder. You scroll and scroll. Images take much longer to produce. If you want the best of both worlds, a few hundred bucks isn't a big deal. Go mow some lawns.
If I go to the local coffee shop, I will tug the laptop with me. It's 13" and the current definition of Apple portability computing. You won't get the, "Oh he's bringing his 17" laptop with him, that thing is huge." You can be as nondescript and coy as you like. The most people will give you is longing and admirable stares. Or the occasional Windows fanboy disgruntled stare.
Then I come home, set it on it's stand, plug in the USB splitter, MD2DVi dongle, Power Cord and Speakers. I am desktop computing in less than 30 seconds flat. Personally I rather like it.
Yes, but unlike the iMac you can use it at your home desk, then take it to your office desk everyday with moderate ease
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
Well like I always say in these threads, which seem to come up a handful of times a year, they're both the most 'portable' systems. It really depends on what you want.
For someone who wants to do work where a large desktop is a necessity or highly preferred, the 13" MBP is a grossly overpriced paperweight. Why waste the money on a main machine that doesn't let you do the work you need to do? The productivity you'd get in an hour may be what you'd get in 30 minutes on a 17" MBP. No need to scroll side-to-side too often, up and down, zoom in and out too much, or use Exposé to switch between different images or documents too often.
If I want a machine to only write emails, documents, upload photos from my camera, watch some pjorn, and i
browse the internet, why would you take a 17"??
If I went into research as I had intended a few years ago, I'd have thought the 17" was the most portable. It has the best battery life, and I can view a PDF and write a paper or work on an Excel spreadsheet simultaneously. Now that I work at a hospital, I'd get the 13".
Well like I always say in these threads, which seem to come up a handful of times a year, they're both the most 'portable' systems. It really depends on what you want.
For someone who wants to do work where a large desktop is a necessity or highly preferred, the 13" MBP is a grossly overpriced paperweight. Why waste the money on a main machine that doesn't let you do the work you need to do? The productivity you'd get in an hour may be what you'd get in 30 minutes on a 17" MBP. No need to scroll side-to-side too often, up and down, zoom in and out too much, or use Exposé to switch between different images or documents too often.
If I want a machine to only write emails, documents, upload photos from my camera, watch some pjorn, and i
browse the internet, why would you take a 17"??
If I went into research as I had intended a few years ago, I'd have thought the 17" was the most portable. It has the best battery life, and I can view a PDF and write a paper or work on an Excel spreadsheet simultaneously. Now that I work at a hospital, I'd get the 13".
i think it is definatly not! but as all things in live, it drops down to personal preference. i for myself am a kind of digital "nomad" and like to keep most of my gadgets and tools as portable as they can be
i recently got rid of my imac and mac pro and now am on a 17" MBP AND an MBA. this combo keeps me as mobile as it can,..... i move the MBP around the house but eventually take it to the office on some days. the MBA is with me all the time
but again,... to each their own
i recently got rid of my imac and mac pro and now am on a 17" MBP AND an MBA. this combo keeps me as mobile as it can,..... i move the MBP around the house but eventually take it to the office on some days. the MBA is with me all the time
but again,... to each their own
I dont think its too big. Apple does a good job with the 17 inch really not being so much bigger in terms of dimentions of the 15 inch.
That being said, I have a 15 inch, and always will have a 15 inch. But I really want the next gen MBPs to have a higher resolution display..... 1440x900 is totally not high enough
That being said, I have a 15 inch, and always will have a 15 inch. But I really want the next gen MBPs to have a higher resolution display..... 1440x900 is totally not high enough