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.
Let's tell cook We Want 17" MacBook Pro With Retina Display
- Thread starter 5key
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For some mobile pros the 17" MBP was (and is) the perfect portable work station with real estate on the screen that makes a difference for production and projects that do not always reside in the confines of an office where you can connect to an external monitor.
Not meant to pull out a cafe's or college lawns to just browse the net or work on single files, and not as portable as a macbook Air or a MBP 15", the 17" was in a league of it's own that filled a niche where transporting full desktops or imacs to work on locations locally or worldwide was a real hassle.
The 17" also had the ability to adapt connectivity wise with FW800, thunderbolt, 3 USB2 ports, ethernet, and the express slot to accommodate usb3, esata or multiple FW express cards, without having to carry a slew of adapters, dongles or hubs.
Not having a 17" MBP (pro in the true sense of the word) is a real loss for many in the mobile pro's world.
While I am sure that the 15" MBP fills the spot for most, it is cramped compared to the 17" in workspace, if you ever had the chance to own and use the 17".
Optimal portability would be the Air over any other IMO, but an optimal portable work station on the other hand was and is the 17" MBP.
Not meant to pull out a cafe's or college lawns to just browse the net or work on single files, and not as portable as a macbook Air or a MBP 15", the 17" was in a league of it's own that filled a niche where transporting full desktops or imacs to work on locations locally or worldwide was a real hassle.
The 17" also had the ability to adapt connectivity wise with FW800, thunderbolt, 3 USB2 ports, ethernet, and the express slot to accommodate usb3, esata or multiple FW express cards, without having to carry a slew of adapters, dongles or hubs.
Not having a 17" MBP (pro in the true sense of the word) is a real loss for many in the mobile pro's world.
While I am sure that the 15" MBP fills the spot for most, it is cramped compared to the 17" in workspace, if you ever had the chance to own and use the 17".
Optimal portability would be the Air over any other IMO, but an optimal portable work station on the other hand was and is the 17" MBP.
Many would agree, unfortunately Apple has it`s own direction; if you are using your MBP in a "professional" role it meets your need by coincidence, not design, Apple designs for the mass consumer not the niche "professional" market, however if you need a portable Workstation Windows orientated hardware is the only solution, Apple`s out of that game now and has been for several years.
Q-6
If OP could convince Apple to bring back the 17", we as threat posters can convince the US Government to spend our tax dollars more wisely. My suggestion...
...Don't hold your breath.
...Don't hold your breath.
The current 15" retina measures 16.5" w/bezel. If they could reduce the bezel to something reasonable it wouldn't even need to get that much larger. The bezel on my Powerbook G4 was about half the width of the current model.
The 15" still wants to be 1440x900 at "retina" resolution, which is ludicrous for productivity. The scaled resolutions are passable, but honestly not all -that- great. A 17" native 4k, 1920x1200 retina would be awesome.
Some of you guys sound like the 17" Powerbook killed your dog or something. If they could thin it up, take some cues from the air, it could absolutely be a killer product.
The 15" still wants to be 1440x900 at "retina" resolution, which is ludicrous for productivity. The scaled resolutions are passable, but honestly not all -that- great. A 17" native 4k, 1920x1200 retina would be awesome.
Some of you guys sound like the 17" Powerbook killed your dog or something. If they could thin it up, take some cues from the air, it could absolutely be a killer product.
I don't buy into this thinking - the new iMac 5K with quad core and maxed out ram is going to cost over $3500, the iWatch GOLD model will sell for over $4000. Apple knows these devices won't sell in large numbers. They are presented to a very narrow audience.
----------
I'll gladly post. I will pay $10,000 cash for a 17" MBP with a matte screen, six cores, and 32GB of ram. Yeah….I would. Enough said...
----------
So you're saying that the gold iWatch was created for the mass market?
----------
I would vote yes.
Good idea for laptop in today's world.
Yeah, never understood the 17" hate here.
I'd love to get a new 17" MBP as well, but unlike with iOS device displays, Apple seems to just use what is available when it comes to computer displays, and there doesn't seem to be a ~4K 17" computer display on the market.
Would love a 17" rMBP with a res of 3840x2400. The only thing I'd change about my late '13 15" rMBP is the ability to have the equivalent of 1920x1200 on a slightly larger screen minus the slight blurring that scaling causes.
Not going to happen though.
Not going to happen though.
That kind of pixel density is not going to happen on a screen that size anytime soon; more likely the 21.5'' iMac will go 4K.
Also, no 27'' 5K display was yet on the market when the Retina iMac was released, and the same held true for the 2012 rMBP 2880x1800 15'' display. So Apple does not always use what is already available on their computer displays.
In that bezel is the camera, the bluetooth/wifi antennas, and the curve on the outer shell (so you can't move the camera any higher). The display polariser is less than 1mm thick and can't feasibly be made any thinner. They have taken many cues from the air (the display shell is pretty much the same design and the bezel is much thicker on the air). The bottom case is a constant thickness on the pro to allow for the bigger batteries needed to drive the retina display for a decent amount of time.
The 15" can manage 2880x1800 natively (just that OS X soft blocks it - it can be worked around) and is fine at that resolution. At the scaled "retina" resolutions, pictures and videos display at their native resolution and are not scaled.
The iMac 5k has a slightly redesigned logic board and a different screen polariser. That's it. Every other component is the same as the non retina 27" iMac.
The gold Apple watch (there is no such thing as an iWatch
) has the same casing design as the standard watch therefore the same moulds can be used.A 17" rMBP would require a complete new casing, screen, logic board and CPU to do what you want.
The cost to produce is made much higher to do what you want. They withdrew the 17" cMBP for a reason.
They could take the whole range 1 inch bigger and up the Retina resolution while making the screen bezel low-profile to accomodate the extra 0.6" in the case of the 15" Macbook (which in reality is 15.4").
A 4K 16" would be usable, then they could just scale the resolutions of the current 15.4" and 13" models to 14" and 12" sizes.
A 4K 16" would be usable, then they could just scale the resolutions of the current 15.4" and 13" models to 14" and 12" sizes.
I would get a 17" retina.... Wouldn't need an external monitor for my design work, that's for sure.
I've started threads without reposting in them before.
What's the point of your post?
And how are they going to thin the bezel? The screen is stuck to the casing. You need space for the tape to stick the screen down, also at the top you need to accommodate the camera.
You realize that there are multiple Windows notebooks with 15" 4k screens selling for less than the rMBP 15", right?
Was pretty portable for me for 7 years as I flew around the world every other week.
----------
Then don't buy one if they're every brought back. Why deny those of us who want one just because you're too weak to carry it around?
umm what ever
They made a 5K 27in iMac, the 17" MacBook Pro was anything but "too big" - it was PERFECT for a portable, it is the biggest anyone should want in a slim notebook like a MacBook Pro. Anybigger would be stupid but 17" is the max for a slim retina MacBook Pro. I would pay 10, 000 for one easily! It is what I REALLY want
Love you ALL!
Happy 2015 to come. Gonna be a "big one". YEAH! xox
They made a 5K 27in iMac, the 17" MacBook Pro was anything but "too big" - it was PERFECT for a portable, it is the biggest anyone should want in a slim notebook like a MacBook Pro. Anybigger would be stupid but 17" is the max for a slim retina MacBook Pro. I would pay 10, 000 for one easily! It is what I REALLY want
Love you ALL!
Happy 2015 to come. Gonna be a "big one". YEAH! xox
That's something for their designers to figure out. Most LED TVs I've seen that aren't bargain basement garbage have thinner bezels than the current MacBook Pros, they have screen sizes of 40"+ and simply have a few mm more at the bottom of the display to accommodate controls and an IR sensor, more than enough for a camera given the iPhone manages to have one just fine in a very compact space.
You can tell him all that you want, but it probably will not happen. I, personally, don't care if Apple brings back the 17" MBP because I have no need for one, and it's not like Apple reintroducing the 17" will affect anyone that much (unless they buy one, then their wallet will be affected )
But if someone gave me a new 17" Retina, I'd be pretty happy. I just don't understand the people who are against it so much. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
)But if someone gave me a new 17" Retina, I'd be pretty happy. I just don't understand the people who are against it so much. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
We love 17 inches MacBook Pro, we also love the retina display. It's time to back. Make it happen. Please...
Image
Let's @ cook to make it happen !
Yes, please.