Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How did you decide between the 15'' and 17'' MBP

oviously you are willing to pay ~$5,000 in your system (thats what a ~$3,000+ 17" MBP plus ~$1,000 ACD display plus tax + any other acc you would want to get, starting with the display adaptor)
For that much isent just better get a 15" and an HUGE 1080p LCD HDTV as display (48"++) I got a 40" bravia and believe me, it is heaven!
 
Once you've used a laptop with the 17" 1920 x 1200 High Def resolution, you wont be able to use a laptop with the 15" resolution, its just pathetic.
 
xoggyux said:
oviously you are willing to pay ~$5,000 in your system (thats what a ~$3,000+ 17" MBP plus ~$1,000 ACD display plus tax + any other acc you would want to get, starting with the display adaptor)
For that much isent just better get a 15" and an HUGE 1080p LCD HDTV as display (48"++) I got a 40" bravia and believe me, it is heaven!
Click to expand...

Actually I get an educational discount, and my program is paying for the computer. So unfortunately I can't get at HDTV with the funds.
 
genmic said:
Your not quite figuring, or maybe wording, that correctly.

984,000 is 75.9% of the 15" total resolution. But that has nothing to do with the 17". The 17" has an amount of extra pixels, that to the 15" would be 75%, but it doesn't work that way. In short, the 17" has 43% more pixels.

This is what you meant anyways.

1440 x 900 = 1,296,000
1920 x 1200 = 2,304,000

The difference is 1,008,000.

1,008,000 / 2,304,000 = 43%
Click to expand...

Your 1920 is correct, I was using only 1900. But I stand by my assertion that the 17" has more than 75% more pixels. My wording was correct. Here's the proof:

Misc


http://picasaweb.google.com/dlhuss/Misc?feat=directlink
 
MacAlpha said:
The only thing that I wish is that the 15 had the battery that the 17 has.
Click to expand...
Man, how I wish this was true! If it was, this would be a no-brainer and I wouldn't be mulling this same decision myself. I've been reading on the forums that the 15" MacBook Pro can get around 4 hours from a charge, so I have to consider if that's good enough.
 
ViciousShadow21 said:
i disagree. the 1440x900 fits the 15" extremely well. the 17" has the same resolution that the 24" ACD has. thats a huge screen difference for the same amount of pixels.
Click to expand...

I disagree on his point as well. I'm actually coming from a 1920x1200 Gateway (hold your laughter) on a 17" and it was just a tad too high for me. I think 1440x900 is good for the 15"... I would like to see what 1650x1080 would look like though.
 
genmic said:
Your not quite figuring, or maybe wording, that correctly.

984,000 is 75.9% of the 15" total resolution. But that has nothing to do with the 17". The 17" has an amount of extra pixels, that to the 15" would be 75%, but it doesn't work that way. In short, the 17" has 43% more pixels.

This is what you meant anyways.

1440 x 900 = 1,296,000
1920 x 1200 = 2,304,000

The difference is 1,008,000.

1,008,000 / 2,304,000 = 43%
Click to expand...

dlhuss is almost right! (the only mistake was in 17' inch resolution (which is 1920*1200 instead of 1900*1200)

15': 1440*900 = 1 296 000
17:1920*1200 = 2 304 000

2304/1296 = 1,78 (17' has 78% more pixels)
1296/2304 = 0.56 (15' has 56% less pixels)

(1296*1.78 = 2304)
 
go with the 15 inch, the 17 is enormous and would get annoying to carry around all the time. Being able to access the hard drive and battery will be nicer with the 15 as well.

The only con would be that it doesn't support 8gb of ram but it sounds like for what you will be using it for you dont need 8gb (personally i think 8gb is a bit ridiculous for anyone to have) 4gb is plenty and I have heard that you can upgrade the 15 to 6gb if you want to.
 
macDonalds said:
I disagree on his point as well. I'm actually coming from a 1920x1200 Gateway (hold your laughter) on a 17" and it was just a tad too high for me. I think 1440x900 is good for the 15"... I would like to see what 1650x1080 would look like though.
Click to expand...

I have a 1920x1200 24" Gateway monitor and it's one of the nicest looking LCD screens I've seen. Lots of inputs too.
 
petz0ldt said:
go with the 15 inch, the 17 is enormous and would get annoying to carry around all the time. Being able to access the hard drive and battery will be nicer with the 15 as well.

The only con would be that it doesn't support 8gb of ram but it sounds like for what you will be using it for you dont need 8gb (personally i think 8gb is a bit ridiculous for anyone to have) 4gb is plenty and I have heard that you can upgrade the 15 to 6gb if you want to.
Click to expand...

Um...google - it's easy to change out the hard drive. And for 1.1 more pounds you get 60% more battery life and as stated before, 78% more screen real estate. Seems like a no brainer to me.
 
53x12 said:
Actually I get an educational discount, and my program is paying for the computer. So unfortunately I can't get at HDTV with the funds.
Click to expand...

If you are not paying for the computer buy the more expensive one and max the expecs. If then you dont like buy a netbook from your pocket to carry around :D.
 
1. You will be working with an external LCD.

2. The programs you want to use don't require more than 4 GB of RAM anyway. Besides, you can go up to 6 GB of RAM.

The only really "necessary" reason to go for the 17" is the extra battery life. Everything else about the 15" is tolerable for you because of the above.

dlhuss said:
15.4": 1440 x 900 = 1,296,000 pixels
17": 1900 x 1200 = 2,280,000 pixels

difference = 984,000 pixels

984,000 / 1,296,000 pixels = .759 or 75.9% more
Click to expand...

A calculation of total pixels is equivalent to a calculation of "area".

Although non-instinctive, due to the nature of area calculations, where going from a 13" to a 15" laptop is a bigger difference than going from a 15" to a 17" laptop in terms of physical changes in length and width, you really should be more concerned with increases in linear pixels rather than total area (pixel count). Actually, same with camera sensor pixels. They only market it as 10 MP or 12 MP because it doesn't matter for them.

A 17" MBP's screen has 33% more horizontal pixels than the 15" MBP. Same with vertical pixels. 30% more horizontally is a lot. You could fit 2 spreadsheets side-by-side, or 2 PDFs. ;)


Like you, I'd need a 1650 x 1080 resolution on my 15" for me to be happy. It's really not that absurd, since the 15" has a much lower ppi than a 17":

17" (1920 x 1200): around a 130 ppi screen. Looks good too.
15" (1440x900): around 113 ppi screen.

a 15" screen with (1650 x 1080) would be around 130 ppi.


My ideal resolutions:
10" - 12" at 1200x800
13.3"-14" at 1440 x 900
15.4" at 1680 x 1050 (my ThinkPad)
17" at 1900 x 1200
Click to expand...

Me too. I want exactly what is listed above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back