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.
Are 17" Macbook pro's ever getting a reboot?
- Thread starter MrManiac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unfortunately, no. I believe at one point Apple made some remark about how the 17" models were their least popular. They've been discontinued for a while now, and Apple hasn't made a remark about brining them back.
Thanks for the info, Why is everything I like gets cancelled
I guess I'll just have to make a hackintosh or something when my hardware becomes too outdated.
You could get a Retina Macbook Pro 15" and set it to 1920x1200 resolution like I do, which would give you close to the same screen real estate as the 1920x1200 on the 17", but with many more pixels. I would check one out in an Apple Store or Best Buy and set the resolution to that. I bet you wouldn't be disappointed
You could get a Retina Macbook Pro 15" and set it to 1920x1200 resolution like I do, which would give you close to the same screen real estate as the 1920x1200 on the 17", but with many more pixels. I would check one out in an Apple Store or Best Buy and set the resolution to that. I bet you wouldn't be disappointed
It is actually disappointing
I've owned over 7 maxed out 15" rMBs since late 2012 and I gave it a real shot, sold them and gifted them to nieces / nephews. Nothing compares to my loaded MAXED out 17" late 2011 2.5Ghz i7 Goddess machine. Sorry. None.As long as the red shiny fruity company hasn't made any official statements etc, there is NO telling what will happen, I personally would love to see the return of a larger screen on a superb and powerful mobile body.
It might return someday, but I don't think it will happen soon. It seems like everybody is so focused on the 13" devices right now (15" is also loosing popularity). But after some years going smaller and smaller, the big devices might make a return, like the 17" rMBP.
It is not difficult to find an answer. You can just go to Apple's website. I bet you didn't even google it.
I would not bet on it. The power of computers is increasing faster than computing demands, and lighter, smaller machines are simply more convenient. Very few people would be willing to carry a huge device with them when they can accomplish the same with a smaller one.
Actually I'm thinking of selling my 2011 17" Macbook Pro.
How much could I expect to get for mine?
Specs are:
2.2GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2X2GB
128GB Solid State Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 17-inch Hi-Resolution Antiglare Widescreen Display
How much could I expect to get for mine?
Specs are:
2.2GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2X2GB
128GB Solid State Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 17-inch Hi-Resolution Antiglare Widescreen Display
You could try Mac2sell.net
According to them, my loaded maxed out 2.5Ghz 17" is worth ~$3500
Agree with vpro - the Retina is disappointing compared to the 17"
That said, since Apple doesn't want your money, the only other 17" 'portable powerhouses' I'd suggest you look into are the Razer Blade Pro, and perhaps the Pulse 17. I'm looking for reviews on the Pulse 17 still.
Just really wish someone would bring out a proper 17" MBP successor, with something in the 2560x1600+ resolution range.
According to them, my loaded maxed out 2.5Ghz 17" is worth ~$3500
Agree with vpro - the Retina is disappointing compared to the 17"
That said, since Apple doesn't want your money, the only other 17" 'portable powerhouses' I'd suggest you look into are the Razer Blade Pro, and perhaps the Pulse 17. I'm looking for reviews on the Pulse 17 still.
Just really wish someone would bring out a proper 17" MBP successor, with something in the 2560x1600+ resolution range.
You could try Mac2sell.net
According to them, my loaded maxed out 2.5Ghz 17" is worth ~$3500
Agree with vpro - the Retina is disappointing compared to the 17"
That said, since Apple doesn't want your money, the only other 17" 'portable powerhouses' I'd suggest you look into are the Razer Blade Pro, and perhaps the Pulse 17. I'm looking for reviews on the Pulse 17 still.
Just really wish someone would bring out a proper 17" MBP successor, with something in the 2560x1600+ resolution range.
How about HP 17" ZBooks? Those are configurable with DreamColor displays. Not a higher resolution, but still a huge improvement over the 17" MBP.
Maybe Lenovo will come up with some new 17" W-series too, once they revise the product line.
Both the W-series and ZBook/EliteBook displays have been great, though Apple finally almost cought them up with the Retinas.
It is actually disappointing
I'm confused. The 17" resolution was 1920x1200, which is exactly what the 15" Retina supports. What is it that you don't like about the 15" that you got with the 17", other than the individual pixels being larger?
The rMBP might call it 1920x1200 - but it isn't. Pull up an Excel spreadsheet and you'll have a different number of visible rows on the 15" rMBP vs the 17".
Also, I have yet to see a matte (anti-glare) Retina screen.
The 17" MBP is clearer at 1920x1200 than the rMBP trying to be 1920x1200.
Also, I have yet to see a matte (anti-glare) Retina screen.
The 17" MBP is clearer at 1920x1200 than the rMBP trying to be 1920x1200.
You are still viewing a smaller surface. If we took this logic to the extreme, we should not have a preference between a 1 inch monitor and a 17" one on the basis of them having the same number of pixels.
Those of us with less than perfect vision may find it a strain to view a higher resolution on a smaller screen.
If we took your logic to an extreme, you should prefer a 100 inch laptop. Hence why talking about taking it to "extremes" is not really an argument.
All you had to do is say that you preferred the PPI on the 17". We're talking about a surface reduction of 17.9% (129.9 square inches vs 106.7 square inches). That isn't night and day, but I can appreciate your preference.
----------
Can you explain this?
This was my biggest hesitation in leaping from high-res matte 15" MBPs to the Retina. It was super annoying at first, and still is on occasion, but I've mostly gotten used to it. I appreciate the concern, though.
They're not going to bring them back..
1 sales were always anemic.
2. Apple is going for low-hanging fruit sales.. iCrap stuff sells well and the margins are almost as good.. people who sink $3500-4000 in a laptop expect more, are more picky, are demanding, etc... iCrap fanboys spend $500 5 or 6 times a year, and give little hassle.. the margins are huge with fanboys.
3. the market size for 17" is shrinking.
and all this invaluable information is worth exactly what you paid for it...
18% isn't 180%, but I would say that yes - it's certainly a large difference.
john123 said:
Yes, the Retina's version of 1920x1200 IS NOT a true 1920x1200, since you can't take a third of a pixel to sample to 2880x1800 (Retina resolution)
john123 said:
Just pointing out that many people are taking the 'Retina' and setting it up for 1920x1200 - when we already had an arguably superior 1920x1200 display in the 17".
The lack of a matte option is a killer, imho.
Technically, the retina display in the 1920x1200 mode offers more visual detail than a native 1920x1200 display - because it is essentially a 1920x1200 display with subpixel precision. And - of course you can take a third of the pixel. Its called bilinear filtering.
If you are getting less rows in Excel then you are using different font size/windows size/app settings or there is something wrong with your application.
Already the fact that rMBP display is IPS makes it superior to the (admittedly, a very good one) 17" TN panel.
After years of using a 13", the 15" looks absolutely positively humungous in comparison.
All I'm hoping for is a quad-core Iris Pro 13" rMBP in the not too distant future.
They're not going to bring them back..
1 sales were always anemic.
2. Apple is going for low-hanging fruit sales.. iCrap stuff sells well and the margins are almost as good.. people who sink $3500-4000 in a laptop expect more, are more picky, are demanding, etc... iCrap fanboys spend $500 5 or 6 times a year, and give little hassle.. the margins are huge with fanboys.
3. the market size for 17" is shrinking.
and all this invaluable information is worth exactly what you paid for it...
You base your "findings" on strictly personal criticism of something you've been lead to feel is no longer "trendy" and the need to obliterate personal choice. This is exactly what advertisement does. In the words of the GREAT - Bill Hicks………….. (Well you know how he felt about people in advertisement right?) If not look it up ^_^
Statements like these hold no point and do not offer any constructive input what so ever.
----------
In dreams, quad-core 13", it is meant as a diary notebook. Eventually what you might find is more plausible is we run out of oil and other natural resources, so technically and realistically in the future there will be no need for hunks of metal people carry around in their persons. ^_^
I harbour secret hope that when the non retina MBP disappears completely they will have a little space on the production line for ..... a 4k 17" . They would need a fanfare to bring the 17" back and video editors wanting 4k on the move could do it.
IGZO 17" 4k, I wants it precious
IGZO 17" 4k, I wants it precious
i have a 2011 17" mbp with ag screen that I upgraded with 16gb ram and 256gb Samsung pro 840 ssd. A week or so ago I bought the new 15" rMBP 2.6/16/512.
Having them both side by side I have to say the 17" is still my favorite, plenty of screen real estate, great ag screen, higher ppi than the iMac and the 2.2 I7-2720QM is still plenty fast. Truly a desktop replacement. I honestly have no desire for an additional monitor with the 17. I hope someday Apple will re-release the 17 but I'm not holding my breath. The 15 rMBP is very sleek, screaming fast and the retina screen is very nice.
Having them both side by side I have to say the 17" is still my favorite, plenty of screen real estate, great ag screen, higher ppi than the iMac and the 2.2 I7-2720QM is still plenty fast. Truly a desktop replacement. I honestly have no desire for an additional monitor with the 17. I hope someday Apple will re-release the 17 but I'm not holding my breath. The 15 rMBP is very sleek, screaming fast and the retina screen is very nice.
I bought a new 17" MBP the very moment it became apparent they no longer generated a profit margin as large as Apples greed.
I'm enjoying it while it lasts, after which I won't give it a second thought. Customer loyalty is no longer on Apples list of priorities. Times change at Apples whim.
I'm enjoying it while it lasts, after which I won't give it a second thought. Customer loyalty is no longer on Apples list of priorities. Times change at Apples whim.
4K screen, three thunderbolt ports, dual SSD's, and a serious GPU (ie: mobile Nvidia Quadro) and it would be kick ass. But it would have to offer something more over the 15" than just more pixels like I said, 15" has the quad core and dGPU (for now...) options hanging over the 13" so maybe even a mobile Intel i7 6-core, maybe we'll see it with Skylake XD. I'd probably jump on it even though I'm broke