I bought one in 2007, then another one in 2010 and would have bought one on 2014 but Apple had stopped producing them by then and had to settle for a 15 inch. The 13" is to bloody small.
I've owned four and still have two. The only other laptop I've owned was the Wallstreet PowerBook which was so far ahead of its time, I still keep it for my my Mac library. I think it's the oldest Mac that could run (barely) OS X, and that's with a 5400 IDE drive. I wonder if it'll run on compact flash.
[doublepost=1496151085][/doublepost]
I think with the amount bezel in the previous generation 15 inch MacBook Pro, a 17 inch display could well be created from it without increasing the foot print.
Fingers crossed. Oohhhh. A 17" Retina display. I'll have to sit down now.
[doublepost=1496151647][/doublepost]
17" MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard = Perfection.
[doublepost=1496095019][/doublepost]
Not to mention massively superior to the latest generation Touch Bar MacBook Pro.
Only 1TB SSD? How about 4TB raided? Suck on that you skinny, touchy feely post millennial turkeys.
I'm talking about the pathetic excuses for pro laptops we're supposed to settle for now, of course. Can any other series run at least seven OS gens? Where the hell is the next Snow Leopard anyway? One turd release after another.
[doublepost=1496152103][/doublepost]
I had upgraded my 15" TiBook to the new model that came out a mere month or two before the 17" AlBook was suddenly announced - I then upgraded again immediately when I watched that keynote and then continued upgrading to the latest 17" every two years.
But since Apple's killing off of the 17" I've not upgraded since - I am still on it. Upgraded RAM, installed SSD, and still going strong... I just can't bring myself to downgrade to 15".
Thing is, Apple insists it was a niche yet over the past few years I have encountered many others still using a 17" UniMacBook Pro too and they all tell the same story - can't go down to 15" so bumped up specs and making it last as long as possible.
As amazing as it is to think how many of us still have a 17" going strong after all these years, imagine a pc notebook lasting even half that, it also saddens me to think Apple has created a situation where they have a customer base who are intentionally running very old Macs. Like their other Pro decisions I think it is another demonstration Apple have abandoned or misunderstood a portion of their customers.
Perhaps there is a small chance when Apple recently announced they would release a "Pro" focused MacBook Pro later this year it might be a 17"?
Bumped up the specs huh. That's a bit old school isn't it? Get with the times and pay upfront. Whatever your decision, you certainly pay for it later.
I'm looking forward to when SSDs get somewhat cheaper and I can raid 4 or more TB in my late 2011 17". What an awesome machine.
[doublepost=1496153100][/doublepost]
Actually keeping your Macbook Pro charging all the time hurts your battery more than actually using it. Cycling your battery will keep it in better health than charging 24/7.
I believe Apple switched to USB-C because they don't expect the user to be charging there MacBook Pros so often. The battery should be enough to last the day is the idea. Cycling is good for the battery.
The battery might last a day if you don't open mail, Safari, Photoshop, FCP, Logic, or forget to stop the mds processes etc, randomly draining the battery with no outlet in sight, or almost any other app. Have fun with that. Or stick to an iPad.
Not expecting To charge THEIR MacBook maybe, but not MacBook Pros. You run a pro app and that juice is gonna get sucked hard and those fans gunna spin.
USB-C/Thunderbolt is Jony's wet dream, and he's not going to mess it up with different ugly ports. Moving all that **** outside with adapters, cables and boxes is the users problem now. Sure more stuff will eventually get USB-C'd, but at your expense and/or with questionable quality and reliability.
[doublepost=1496153730][/doublepost]
Incorrect actually, if you use the maximum scaling option you are getting the very same effective work space(1,920 × 1,200) as an 2011 17 mbp, albeit rendered at higher resolution but on a smaller physical screen.
Thank you, although I've spotted mentions of actually accessing the native resolution, but I have no idea how the interface or apps could adapt to that. That scaling option gives me a possible option in adapting to the 15" world, but I don't know how that affects actual (apparent?) resolution and increased power consumption for the extra work requirements.