MBP 15 Retina is no good substitute for MBP 17

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by tubeexperience, Jun 5, 2016.

  1. tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #1
    Some people on this forum and many other forums insist that the MacBook Pro 15 Retina is so great that many who have the MacBook Pro 17 won't miss the later if they upgrade.

    The common argument is that since the MBP 15 Retina have a much higher resolution the MBP 17, it would be much easier to see on the former even with the smaller screen.

    Well, I have the two side-by-side and I have to disagree, but let carry this logic further.

    The MBP 17 has a resolution of 1920 x 1200 and the iPhone 6/6S Plus has a resolution of 1920 x 1080.

    Follow the previous reasoning, it should be almost as easy to see on an iPhone 6 Plus screen as on a MBP 17 inch screen. This is absurd.
     
  2. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #2
    By default the rMBP is set to take advantage of the higher pixel density by rendering everything at 2x the normal size to make it look more crisp. You can run at a non-native resolution in System Preferences > Displays if you need more screen space, and it still looks better than a non-Retina screen. You can even run it at full 2880x1800 using Retina DisplayMenu, but this makes everything incredibly small.

    The iPhone 6s Plus takes advantage of the extra pixels similarly, but instead renders everything at 3x the normal size.
     
  3. SkVan Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2016
  4. smelly cat macrumors regular

    smelly cat

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    #4
    I wouldn't exactly say it's absurd. The higher resolution and resulting pixel density on the 15" allows for reduced graininess. The retina display can also be scaled to fit more content.

    However, I do agree, nothing quite replaces having a physically larger screen -- Retina or not.
     
  5. ABC5S, Jun 5, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2016

    ABC5S macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    Location:
    Florida
    #5
    Since Apple is not going to release another 17 inch, (Discontinued 2012) nor would most ever purchase a used 17 inch, the argument is moot at best. My retina MacBook Pro Mid 2014 is sharp and pleasant to look at. I'll take the newest MacBook Pro 2016 when it comes out.
     
  6. grahamperrin macrumors 601

    grahamperrin

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #6
    17" early 2009 MacBookPro5,2 to my left, I can't say that it's blurry. When I first got it I found myself wearing spectacles more often, but that was because of the relatively high density.
     
  7. guppy1000 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    #7
    I would kill for a 17" Macbook. Don't need Pro. Just something very thin and light, but with a very large screen.
     
  8. austinpike, Jun 5, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2016

    austinpike macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Location:
    MN
    #8
    The 15" looks great at a "native" pixel doubled 1440x900. Which equates to ridiculously low working resolution for a 15" screen. (1680x1050 always seemed the sweet spot for 15" to me.) To get 1920x1200 it is essentially interpolating. Given the sheer number of pixels, it looks adequate, but not really that great.

    A 17" screen could nearly fit in the footprint of the current 15" if Apple incorporated a slim bezel like many other manufacturers are doing.

    I hope they have something big up their sleeve. The current design is so long in the tooth. I really wonder what all the employees in that new spaceship are going to be doing all day. A slim 17" Pro with TB3 and an external GPU option .... dream on.....
     
  9. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #9
    I have the Retina set to to 1920 x 1200, but it just doesn't feel the same: everything feels tiny.
     
  10. austinpike macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Location:
    MN
    #10
    That is debatable... it is adequate at 1920, but the interpolation gives it a slight blurriness. Between that, the smaller size, and the glossy screen, it is not as comfortable to work on as the 17" at a 1:1 1920 pixel size. If the 15" screen were a true "retina" at 1920 (pixel-doubled 4k) it might be crisp enough to make up for the smaller size.
     
  11. ABC5S macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    Location:
    Florida
    #11
    Got it. Brain Freeze

    Made correction
     
  12. nStyle macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    #12
    You're right...nothing replaces physical screen size. Apple could definitely release a rMBP 17" and it would be a dream computer for many people. I guess they've determined that it's not in their best interest to manufacturer it for whatever reason.
     
  13. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #13
    MacBook Pro 17-inch doesn't fit with Apple's craze for all things ultralight and ultrathin.
     
  14. argentum47 macrumors regular

    argentum47

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
    #14
    The usable space line of logic is bullcrap.

    They always forget that you can apply the same logic to the 17", which means you will have even MORE usable space on a larger physical screen at the same UI physical size.

    For many professional users who need to have a maximally close-to-desktop computer that is still portable, the 17" MBP was indispensable. Not really sure how the current Mac Pro (which is even more of a niche market) lives while 17" MBP died..
     
  15. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #15
    I _rely_ on my MBP'S for mission critical, resource intense work. The 17" MacBook Pro's I had were my favorites. At work we had over forty in the lab when they were current models and my fellow engineers loved them.

    Yet I do understand why Apple killed them off.

    Too useful
    Too reliable
    Battery life was excellent.
    Keyboards were wonderful.
    Owners were completely satisfied.

    With those problems it was too much for Apple.
     
  16. grahamperrin macrumors 601

    grahamperrin

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    #16
    I wonder whether any vendor offers, or will offer, a notebook with a display that's significantly larger than 17". As far as I could tell, from a few searches, 17.3" is the largest at this time.

    (I tried searching for "19" notebook" knowing that the inch notation would be misinterpreted as a closing quotation mark. Now I realise, I should have sought "19-inch notebook" … but I'll not do it now. Past 02:30 in the morning.)
     
  17. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #17
    Dell and HP made 20 inch laptops. I am assuming that they flopped since they were discontinued after release.
     
  18. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #18
    Apple don't make what you want and they aren't going to make what you want.

    You have 2 choices, compromise and keep the 15 inch rMBP and get used to it it's a great machine or buy something else.
     
  19. tubeexperience, Jun 6, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2016

    tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #19
    I never said that I won't.

    If the dGPU on my MBP 17 (Late 2011) fails again and Apple decides to replace the laptop with a rMBP 15, I will take it.

    That's not to say that it's a good substitute.
     
  20. robvas macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    USA
  21. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #21
    If you take an argument ad absurdum, of cause it will be absurd. The fact is that the 15" screen can fit just as much content as the 17" screen, at better quality and only with minor reduction in physical size. The difference between the 17" and 15" in screen size is merely 3cm in width and 2cm in heights. Its around 10% reduction in physical size. Certainly not enough for legibility to suffer that much.
     
  22. Fishrrman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #22
    17" MacBook is gone and won't be coming back...
     
  23. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #23
    I only have anecdotal experience from the specific Apple Store I worked in, but my impression is that (regardless of how great they were, and how much owners loved them), they simply didn't sell enough to justify the expense of keeping them around (and having to redesign them for retina).

    Analysts also cited weak sales as the primary reason for them being dropped.

    Perhaps if they were more popular with consumers (vs. lab/creative pro use), they'd still be around.
     
  24. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #24
    Another thing I notice is that the color temperature is different.

    The rMBP gives a "Warm White" image while the cMBP gives a "Daylight" image.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 6, 2016 ---
    If that's the reason, Apple would have killed off the Mac Pro by now.
     
  25. nStyle, Jun 6, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2016

    nStyle macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    #25
    My guess is it has nothing to do with profitability. I think they definitely could've remained profitable on the 17". But, it probably didn't fit their criteria of "profitability". And there's no way for you to know that the Mac Pro does or doesn't fit their criteria. But it obviously does or they wouldn't be selling it. Or maybe they're keeping it around simply to round out the lineup by having a pro-level option out there and remain a "one stop shop" for everyone.

    Dropping the 17" isn't really hurting their image of having a wide range of laptops available. They still sell 6 different form factors without it. My personal thoughts on the matter is that most laptop users buy laptops for portability. Thus, 13" is the perfect form factor for traveling. 15" is a tad too large/cumbersome for travelers, and especially frequent fliers. 17" is kind of in between. It doesn't do laptop well and it doesn't do desktop well (referring to screen size/form factor, not to computing power). It's "okay" at both. With a screen that large, why have an external monitor? But it's still only 17". And it's too heavy/awkwardly large to travel with frequently. Yes, I know, it depends on who you ask. But Apple obviously determined that most people will not miss the 17", thus they dropped it.

    The 17" is like a jack of all trades but a master of none. I personally prefer having a 13" laptop for portability and a nice large screen for stationary work.
     

Share This Page