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.
MBP 17 or MBP 15 2012
- Thread starter lionmanpt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
17", because it can still run Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. But that is my preference according to my computational needs.
Yours probably differ, thus the 15" might be better suited for yours, though the lower resolution (1440 x 900) might be really off-putting.
Yours probably differ, thus the 15" might be better suited for yours, though the lower resolution (1440 x 900) might be really off-putting.
What matters is which one you would choose. Everyone has different needs and preferences. What may be the best choice for others may not fit your needs at all. Is the larger screen of major importance to you? There are a few other differences, but primarily screen size. Only you can decide.
To help in your decision, you can use these to compare the specifications of any Macs you choose:
There's no difference in screen QUALITY, but pixel density on the 17 is higher than on the 15" I believe. And the 17" has all the bells and whistles (ExpressCard, larger size, better speakers, etc) as well as the ability to have a ton of internal storage (SSD+HDD). I've had 17" MBPs for years with some peppering in of 15" for a couple weeks here or there, but I always went back to my 17.
Thanks for your answer ! If the pixel density is higher, that means a "better" screen. Am I correct ?
MBP 17 if it comes with free wheels and a trailer hitch. 
Seriously... if didn't need to lug the damn thing around that much I'd go for anything that is reverse compatible with Snow Leopard (as simsaladimbamba suggests).
Seriously... if didn't need to lug the damn thing around that much I'd go for anything that is reverse compatible with Snow Leopard (as simsaladimbamba suggests).
To most people it does.
MBP 17 if it comes with free wheels and a trailer hitch.
Seriously... if didn't need to lug the damn thing around that much I'd go for anything that is reverse compatible with Snow Leopard (as simsaladimbamba suggests).
Oh please, it's a whole pound heavier than a 15". I've traveled with mine all over the world in a backpack for years and never felt it was heavy.
True that.
I don't think Retina 15" has any more "screen real estate" than the regular 15" MacBook Pro. Just sharper. Like the iPhone and iPad. The 17" still has more on the screen.
True that.
I don't think Retina 15" has any more "screen real estate" than the regular 15" MacBook Pro. Just sharper. Like the iPhone and iPad. The 17" still has more on the screen.
If I'm not mistaken, you can use one of the scaled displays and have a screen real estate of 1920x1080 on the rMBP which gives you more space to work with compared to the 1440x900/1650x1080 (high res model) available on the cMBP.
In my case it is not a refurbished 17''. It is a brand new one. The shop in question is a large retailer that must have some stock that wants to sell quickly.
True that.
I don't think Retina 15" has any more "screen real estate" than the regular 15" MacBook Pro. Just sharper. Like the iPhone and iPad. The 17" still has more on the screen.
The 1920x1200 scaled mode offers as much real estate as the 17" display, and looks sharper in the process. And if you're really craving extra real-estate, you can set it to 2880x1800
No. Pixel density can matter but color can still suck on them. They could have way high response times causing headaches and blurring windows. Backlights can bleed, etc etc etc.
Everyone I know that have a 17" plan on a 15" or complete reactionary 13" next time they buy. Too big and heavy (Apple apparently felt similarly). In the end it is all about the screen. Do you need it? Probably not if you are planning on an external display. 1920x1200 on 17" is pretty small text res as well. AND Ivy bridge runs cooler and 2012 MBP's have faster GPU's.
Mid 2012 dGPU is slightly faster: dGPUs benchmarks
Regarding iGPU, HD4k is about 50% faster than HD3k...
Regarding iGPU, HD4k is about 50% faster than HD3k...
Here is the link with the specs:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-i7-2.4-17-late-2011-unibody-thunderbolt-specs.html
Price: 1.600 Euros ( 1994 USD). The previous price was 2.499 Euros ( 3.115 USD).
The price sounds good. Is it available in europe? If so, I might be interested. Who is selling it?
Yes it was available in Portugal on a retail store on a "24 hour happy day" they promoted yesterday..........
When all else fails, use a car analogy...
Obviously, there's going to be some hardware improvements at least on paper in the 2012's vs 2011's as has already been pointed out: better performing GPU and moderate performance gain and decreased power usage in Ivy Bridge vs Sandy Bridge. Apple is in business to sell new machines, and that isn't going to happen unless they have better hardware and new features in the new models.
But it really decides on what's important to you, and what you intend to be using the machine for; i.e., your usage case and preferences. I could spend all day arguing why a Toyota Corolla is the perfect car when I'm a middle aged married guy without kids in the house who wants a dependable and economical car to drive to work seven miles away every day. OTOH, if you're a younger married guy with four kids or live on a farm, are in the middle of a mid life crisis, or have to take well heeled clients around town to look at real estate purchases, it probably won't apply to you.
I could go into detail about why I love my late '11 17" MBP with a glossy Samsung screen, and what I use it for.* But the only thing that really matters is what you'll be using it for, and what's important to you. Are you regularly going to be hauling it around town and want to play the latest games you can on a Mac? 2012 15" definitely. Or, are you just schlepping it across the house occasionally for general purpose stuff and want the biggest portable screen possible? 17" will be dandy for that.
Either one is a modern, capable, well built machine, so there's not a wrong answer necessarily.
*Or health concerns, or complaining about society in general and young people in particular. I did say I was middle aged, after all...
Obviously, there's going to be some hardware improvements at least on paper in the 2012's vs 2011's as has already been pointed out: better performing GPU and moderate performance gain and decreased power usage in Ivy Bridge vs Sandy Bridge. Apple is in business to sell new machines, and that isn't going to happen unless they have better hardware and new features in the new models.
But it really decides on what's important to you, and what you intend to be using the machine for; i.e., your usage case and preferences. I could spend all day arguing why a Toyota Corolla is the perfect car when I'm a middle aged married guy without kids in the house who wants a dependable and economical car to drive to work seven miles away every day. OTOH, if you're a younger married guy with four kids or live on a farm, are in the middle of a mid life crisis, or have to take well heeled clients around town to look at real estate purchases, it probably won't apply to you.
I could go into detail about why I love my late '11 17" MBP with a glossy Samsung screen, and what I use it for.* But the only thing that really matters is what you'll be using it for, and what's important to you. Are you regularly going to be hauling it around town and want to play the latest games you can on a Mac? 2012 15" definitely. Or, are you just schlepping it across the house occasionally for general purpose stuff and want the biggest portable screen possible? 17" will be dandy for that.
Either one is a modern, capable, well built machine, so there's not a wrong answer necessarily.
*Or health concerns, or complaining about society in general and young people in particular. I did say I was middle aged, after all...
Thanks for your answer ! This is going to be used like a desktop replacement, I do not have the slightest intention to carry it with me (for that purpose I use my iPad).