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.
Apple Quietly Discontinues MacBook Pro 17"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Having a bigger screen does not equal better performance.
You can get a cheap 17" PC laptop from COSTCO or via online. The CPU, GPU and other componets will be very lowend stuff.
my Brother bought a desktop replacement gamer's laptop. ASUS brand, 17", i7 cpu, 8GB of ram, high end Radeon Gpu. Problem. It's thick and heavy as hell. It's almost like lugging around a 20" imac arround. Very poor battery life of 2 hours.
The New regular Mac Book Pro 15" is actualy 15.4 inches screen size. It's a very big screen for a mobile device. packed with a newer i7 that draws much less power than the ASUS. A faster new Nvidia Geforce 650m, you can slap 16GB very cheaply via buyinging it online at amazon. It's a very powerfull desktop replacement laptop that is lighter than most elcheapo PC laptops. It also gets 7 hours battery life to boot.
Ultrabooks are trying to emulate the MBP and MBA. But when restricted to low cost perameters. It just can't measure up.
No it equals having a larger sized screen for those that need/want it (and the extra case space equals room for more standard ports, etc. as well) I would think that to be obvious. Who said anything about performance?
Apple has a bad habit of tying screen size to performance unfortunately. Whereas other players can fit dedicated GPUs and faster processors in small form factors with full HD screens (Sony Vaio Z with 1920x1080 display... yummy), Apple has always made sure that if you wanted extra performance, you had to sacrifice weight and size to do it, and they weren't about to give you screens with good real-estate (1440x900 on a 15", ugh... thank god they seem to have fixed that with the Retina display and its 1920x1200 mode).
Since that is not a native display mode (it is 2800x1800 or 1440x900 in the sharper 'retina' scaled mode), I can't help but wonder if it's not going to look as sharp as it would if it were the display's native resolution (all LCD displays I have look noticeably "foggier", especially for text when displaying non-native resolutions (or at least when they are not multiples of that resolution). It may look OK, but I doubt it's optimum. CRTs actually synced at the exact resolution and so they looked optimum at every supported resolution, but LCDs are a different beast. Those non-used pixels don't just go away and so it has to be scaled and the quality of the scaler used makes all the difference. My $600 24" LG LCD monitor I bought for gaming on my PC is much sharper scaling than my $300 24" LG LCD monitor I bought for a dock for the MBP, but they look identical in native mode.
Interesting fact that when everybody is expecting iPod Classic to die out, 17Inch MBP walk away first.
The interpolated modes on the rMBP look much better than that because the image is actually scaled down instead of up. The rMBP is rendering the desktop at 3840x2400, then scaling that image down to 2880x1800.
At first glance, it's hard to tell that it's running at a non-native resolution (if you don't know what to look for).
For all the details: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6
Exactly, 1920x1200 mode on the Retina MBP is running at the native 2880x1800 resolution. The final frame buffer is a 2880x1800 frame buffer rendered to the screen. Apple is downscaling a much larger frame buffer internally rather than letting the monitor interpolate the pixels (which is what causes the blurryness). The monitor thus runs at its native resolution and the image stays sharp.
It is a very clever trick they pulled off and frankly, I think this replaces the 17" in terms of screen real-estate (actual windows and content you can display).
you're the worst. go and try out that laggy underpowered revision 1 bugfest and let us know how it goes after the first 48 honeymoon hours.
I just read the article and it makes it pretty clear what's going on. However, just as I suspected, it's NOT all clear (literally). They are pretty much doubling or quadrupling the image internally based on its existing resolution) and then downscaling to to fit the screen. This would work great for 1440x900 since it's an exact multiple of the 2880x1800 native resolution. But if you run 1920x1200, it says the UI elements (vector and font based) look sharp, but any images will have SOME blurriness to them because 1920x1200 is NOT a 1:2 scale of 2880x1800. Doubling or quadrupling 1920x1200 and then downscaling still results in some blur since it is not a multiple scaling ratio. Furthermore, the article makes it very clear that older apps like Microsoft Office look blurry on the display for text.
There's one other huge problem and that would be the GPU having to move all these pixels. A 3D game could render internally to a lower resolution to speed things up, but the GPU still has to push all those quadrupled pixels out to the screen and from what I've read, it's barely able to do this for ordinary OS apps. Diablo 3 may play OK, but it's not exactly Crysis. What happens when you run Windows on this machine? It will just be treated like a 2880x1800 display.
These aren't new problems. Any time you buy a huge monitor and expect to game on it you're going to have to either have an uber expensive gaming rig with things like SLI to push that many pixels at those huge resolutions to get perfect native sharpness or you put up with some scaling distortion in order to get the frame rates you need for the game to be playable. I expect that eventually the GPUs will catch up to this display, but all reviews indicate it's pushing the limit on the Gen1 product just for basic apps. This is probably fine for an iPad, but I'm not so sure it's great for a regular computer. Fortunately, 1440x900 modes will scale well and I would use those modes for any gaming. 1920x1200 wouldn't scale as well for bitmaps.
And this idea that a 15" notebook can easily replace a 17" (as some on here keep saying) is flawed as well. Yes, you can fit as much on the screen with a higher resolution mode, but you'd also have to stick your nose closer to the screen since it won't appear as large in an absolute sense and monitor size is chosen as much for the actual size as it is the resolutions it offers, much more so for regular HDTVs (e.g. I have a 93" screen to watch HDTV on it; I'm not pushing some mega-resolution on it, just regular HDTV and even NTSC modes).
A 15" is hard enough to look at with 1440x900. 1920x1200 would result in very tiny UI and text elements. Even Apple knows 2880x1800 is unusable as a straight up resolution (they don't offer it). People have enabled it with hacks and in Windows, but it's SO TINY on a 15" screen. In the end, Apple is taxing the heck out of a GPU just to get 1440x900 to look "sharper". True 1080p HD material on it will still have to to be scaled to fit. It may look good and it may even look great, but it won't be "native". You will only get 1:1 "perfect" images with multiples (i.e. 720x450, 1440x900 and the full 2880x1800, which is not available as a true mode in OSX).
I also think discontinuing the 17" wasn't the best move. I see that the 15" rMBP may replace it for some people, but not for everyone. Especially right now, where the rMBP is still a first-generation product and the software support isn't complete yet.
Still, my 2010 17" MBP is waaay slower in terms of gaming performance.
Windows 7 will treat it like a 2880x1800 display.
Windows 8 has similar scaling support as OSX.
True, there is some blurriness, but it's still sharper than a "native" 1920x1200 display. Don't underestimate the effect of the high pixel density.
True, that applies to all non-retina-ready apps.
If you're a hardcore gamer with the urge to play every game with maximum settings at the native resolution, maybe this isn't for you.
Still, my 2010 17" MBP is waaay slower in terms of gaming performance.
Windows 7 will treat it like a 2880x1800 display.
Windows 8 has similar scaling support as OSX.
Using 1920x1200 for games (with "normal" interpolation, not what Apple does for the desktop) still looks better than using 1440x900.
Easier than 1920x1200 on a 17" (110dpi vs. 132dpi).
Definitely smaller than on a 17" screen, that's for sure.
Not at all. Everyone has different eyes, but assuming your vision is properly corrected (via glasses or contact lenses or whatever) that resolution should be more than ample. In fact, to my eyes it looks a tad on the big side.
I've tried 2880x1800 and three things strike me:
1. For certain sorts of things it is a revelation (e.g. the types of apps that are conventionally constrained by the amount you can see on screen at once)
2. It is the smoothest resolution to use in terms of animation within OSX (perhaps excluding the somewhat Fisher Price 1440x900 HiDPI) - certainly, all animations are far smoother than at 1920x1200 HiDPI.
3. 2880x1800 is, however, hard on the eyes unless you're prepared to work/sit very close to the laptop. 1920 is the optimal balance but even with the discrete card it isn't totally smooth even on ML. Good enough not to worry too much about it.
In case it wasn't obvious, the plumber post is just a click-whore spammer - don't click the link (reported to mods)
I think I could be the last and final purchaser of a custom spec'd 17"er.
Imagine that. I absolutely might be the owner of the very last 17" ever assembled for Apple. One day my Pro might be worth big bucks even more than the several thousand it cost!
Imagine that. I absolutely might be the owner of the very last 17" ever assembled for Apple. One day my Pro might be worth big bucks even more than the several thousand it cost!
Apple still has nearly three years of Applecare obligations to meet, so I'd imagine that either quite a few extras were made after the last one sold, or they still have the capability for short-run production as required.
Plenty refurbished
On the UK store, there are still plenty of refurbished 17" MBPs available. I can think of two reasonable explanations:
1. Apple still builds a few every month, and they will be available on the refurbished store as long as they sell. So the 17" is officially discontinued, but in reality it isn't.
2. Apple has some left over, but nobody is buying them. Which would justify the decision to discontinue the 17".
On the UK store, there are still plenty of refurbished 17" MBPs available. I can think of two reasonable explanations:
1. Apple still builds a few every month, and they will be available on the refurbished store as long as they sell. So the 17" is officially discontinued, but in reality it isn't.
2. Apple has some left over, but nobody is buying them. Which would justify the decision to discontinue the 17".
This is kinda sad. I bought a 13" 2009 for travel, and then got 'down-sized' and don't travel as much. I thought that I'd like the 13 for carrying on local pleasure trips but end up taking my 15 more, although I do take my iPad, and find that used more than either, except for movies and such at the hotels.
Always thought about the 17. Yes, it's big. Yes, it's heavy. Yes, it's big and heavy. ;-) But the screen is the biggest thing about it and that is important for many people. If I had the money to throw out, and a stronger back, and a bigger bag (that's the problem with traveling with one I'll bet) I'd happily plunk down the cash for one.
As for the Mac Pro, I love mine more than any other box in this place. It's fast and lets face it, it's fast, and roomy. I've got it loaded with drives, and it screams cooking videos and crunches everything and asks for more. I've been meaning to upgrade the video, and possibly the processors, but this is the only Mac that you can do that to. THAT alone is worth the price of admission. And now the Apple 'server' is a Mac Pro (and the retarded Mini) and they are going to kill the server off AGAIN? On what plane, or 'Steve Jobs Multiverse' does that make sense? They can't 'court businesses' with an attitude of 'screw the businessy hardware'... Heck, they could have almost spurred the growth of a worldwide 'own your own server' market if they had priced the Mac Mini 'server' a bit less, and added something like an eSATA or ThunderBolt port on it sooner... But who says that past Apple leaders haven't proven themselves extremely capable of shooting Apple in the foot, and nearly taking the entire leg with it.
Um, I have to mention it but anyone remember Steve's last management pick, and how that worked out? Just sayin'... (I still think that Apple should have bought the server/workstation business from Sun when Oracle swallowed their software business. What, Steve couldn't play Larry like a cheap flute and get him to sell the hardware business to him? Amazing...)
Always thought about the 17. Yes, it's big. Yes, it's heavy. Yes, it's big and heavy. ;-) But the screen is the biggest thing about it and that is important for many people. If I had the money to throw out, and a stronger back, and a bigger bag (that's the problem with traveling with one I'll bet) I'd happily plunk down the cash for one.
As for the Mac Pro, I love mine more than any other box in this place. It's fast and lets face it, it's fast, and roomy. I've got it loaded with drives, and it screams cooking videos and crunches everything and asks for more. I've been meaning to upgrade the video, and possibly the processors, but this is the only Mac that you can do that to. THAT alone is worth the price of admission. And now the Apple 'server' is a Mac Pro (and the retarded Mini) and they are going to kill the server off AGAIN? On what plane, or 'Steve Jobs Multiverse' does that make sense? They can't 'court businesses' with an attitude of 'screw the businessy hardware'... Heck, they could have almost spurred the growth of a worldwide 'own your own server' market if they had priced the Mac Mini 'server' a bit less, and added something like an eSATA or ThunderBolt port on it sooner... But who says that past Apple leaders haven't proven themselves extremely capable of shooting Apple in the foot, and nearly taking the entire leg with it.
Um, I have to mention it but anyone remember Steve's last management pick, and how that worked out? Just sayin'... (I still think that Apple should have bought the server/workstation business from Sun when Oracle swallowed their software business. What, Steve couldn't play Larry like a cheap flute and get him to sell the hardware business to him? Amazing...)
Not really: the exterior dimensions are about the same as a typical 15-inch Windows laptop, and it's exactly one pound heavier than the MBP 15.
Again, no: it fits very comfortably into a standard IATA-sized carry-on bag. Sure, it's awkward to use in economy seating, but then so is the MBP 15 (in both cases you can't really open the screen enough if the person in front of you has reclined their seat). It's fine in both premium economy and business class seating.