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

MBP 15 Retina is no good substitute for MBP 17

T

tubeexperience

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Feb 17, 2016
3,192
3,897
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baypharm
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grahamperrin
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: arefbe
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.....
 
Last edited:
redheeler said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have the Retina set to to 1920 x 1200, but it just doesn't feel the same: everything feels tiny.
 
redheeler said:
...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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
nStyle said:
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.
Click to expand...

MacBook Pro 17-inch doesn't fit with Apple's craze for all things ultralight and ultrathin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grahamperrin
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..
 
  • Like
Reactions: baypharm, widestload and Mr. Retrofire
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thewap, strawbale, diggy33 and 4 others
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.)
 
grahamperrin said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Dell and HP made 20 inch laptops. I am assuming that they flopped since they were discontinued after release.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grahamperrin
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S
Samuelsan2001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: arefbe and grahamperrin
tubeexperience said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
maxsix said:
Yet I do understand why Apple killed them off.

Too useful
Too reliable
Battery life was excellent.
Keyboards were wonderful.
Owners were completely satisfied.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
[doublepost=1465224772][/doublepost]
aristobrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that's the reason, Apple would have killed off the Mac Pro by now.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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