Returned My New 17" MBP Today

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Stangs55, Apr 27, 2010.

  1. Stangs55 macrumors 6502a

    Stangs55

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Location:
    The Lone Star State
    #1
    ...and pickup up the 15" i7 high-resolution anti-glare. First thing I did tonight was swap out the 5400 rpm drive for a Seagate 7200.

    I've lived with the 15" standard resolution MBP for years now and have never been able to treat it as more than a toy compared to my Windows Desktop running on my 30" 2560x1600 display.

    I decided that with the new MBP's, I would go ahead and grab the 17"--after all, on paper, it looks very similar in size to the 15". Even in the store, the difference appears minimal. But I have to say that in real life, the difference is huge. It took under a week with the 17" to realize that the extra 1 pound in weight is a huge difference. I'm not a small guy--6 foot, 200 lbs--but that 17" was just too much to lug around.

    My biggest hangup with the 15" has always been the abysmal resolution--1440 just doesn't cut it when you do alot of photoshop and FCP. My wife loved it for email and web surfing, but it was never a practical tool for me. Now it seems like they've really hit the sweet spot with their high resolution displays (1680x1050).

    So now I sit typing on my new 15" MBP and couldn't be happier!

    (As an aside, yes I had to pay a 10% restocking fee. The only people that can rival the retard level of the Apple "Geniuses" are the Best Buy Geek Squads)
     
  2. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #2
    I'm glad you are happy. Although I'm confused, the 17" is only a pound heavier? Or is is it the size?
     
  3. Stangs55 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Stangs55

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Location:
    The Lone Star State
    #3
    15" is 14.35 x 9.82 x 0.95 and 5.6 lbs.
    17" is 15.47 x 10.51 x 0.98 and 6.6 lbs.

    To me, this doesn't look like much of a difference on paper. It's just less than an inch deeper and just over and inch wider with an extra one pound of weight. My issue was that in real life, these numbers are deceptive--the device is MUCH more of a machine to carry around than the 15".
     
  4. tim100 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    #4
  5. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #5
    I think the 17" although not much heavier, is bulkier.

    For the same reason I find the MacBook Air to be very portable compared the 13" MacBook [Pro] despite their small weight difference.
     
  6. striatedglutes macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    I'm wondering why you never hooked it up to your 30" to use it? Or did you need to use both at once?
     
  7. Stangs55 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Stangs55

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Location:
    The Lone Star State
    #7
    Oh I did!

    I picked up a mini-displayport to displayport cable from Monoprice and enjoyed my MBP in its 2560x1600 glory! Which, I guess, is another reason I didn't need the 17"...because I can always plug in a cable when working from home and have all the real estate I need. In real life, I'll rarely do this since I prefer my Windows 7 desktop 10:1 over OS X...but it's nice to have the option.
     
  8. wirelessmacuser macrumors 68000

    wirelessmacuser

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Location:
    Planet.Earth
    #8
    Size is always a very tricky decision. I have both my new 2010 MBP i7 in 15" and also my mid 2009 MBP 17". And like stated earlier, on paper there's very little difference, in day to day carrying which is what I do, one does notice quite a difference. For me I'm 6'3" and don't mind the weight _or_ the bulk which is the most noticeable. It's worth it to have the larger screen for some of my projects. Yet that said, if I was going to limit myself to just one it would be the 15, since the footprint is smaller. A 17" is a bit too large at Starbucks and other internet cafe's. At the end of the day it's truly personal preference as they are both great machines.
     
  9. Stangs55 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Stangs55

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Location:
    The Lone Star State
    #9
    I actually don't think the 17" is "too" big for anything really--Starbucks, etc (okay...you're pushing it in an airplane). For me, the problem was getting from A->B...it's just too big to travel with.
     
  10. JimAtLaw macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #10
    The 17 is indeed pretty big, but it's not heavy or bulky, just wiiiide - enough so that a lot of your smaller cases won't hold it and you definitely need to account for its dimensions when picking luggage; don't guess, try it before you buy. Still worth it though, IMHO, as the extra screen real estate is substantial (and it fits just fine in a not-oversized Zero Halliburton, with room to spare for files & power, etc., since it's so slim).
     
  11. koruki macrumors 6502a

    koruki

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #11
    I was just holding the 15" MBP up from the base and checking outs its angles and proportions the other day and it was just Perfection. I've got the 13" uMBP and Macbook air in the house, but the 15" is just perfection to me. :cool:
     
  12. Err0xx macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #12
    Seriously?

    No offense man, but if your 6'0 and 200 lbs you must have like under 10% muscle if a pound causes you to grief about being "too big to lug around." I'm 6'0 and 155lbs and my 17" is hardly heavy compared to my 40 lbs of college textbooks each day.
     
  13. JoshGlzBrk macrumors 6502a

    JoshGlzBrk

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    #13
    I think he meant it not as being too heavy per say, but it's a lot of mass to carry around.

    Finding a bag to fit it, making room for it on a desk or table.

    Think of it like having a huge SUV in a country like the UK. It's not going to be pretty..
     
  14. Err0xx macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #14
    Hmm doing a quick search on Amazon reveals tons of compatible cases with the 17" MBP and I've never had an issue with desk space. I mean it's an inch increase in size in width and Length and like .3 inches bigger in thickness. I guess everyone has their preferences - I, for one, could not live without the 17"'s screen real estate.
     
  15. Err0xx macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #15
    Great Bags

    Also, as a follow-up, here are 3 bags that are absolutely fantastic. They make them for both the 15" and 17" MBP's and are excellent choices for those in the market for a good laptop bag.

    http://www.amazon.com/100568-vertig...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1272510882&sr=1-1

    http://www.booqbags.com/laptop-back...acbook-pro-bags/Viper-rush-XL-MacBook-Pro-bag

    http://www.amazon.com/MacCase-Jacke...7?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1272511004&sr=1-7

    The bottom two products (the booq Viper Rush and the MacCase Jacket) are my two favorite cases. I have both and use the MacCase for my daily college uses and the Viper Rush for everything else. What's cool about the Viper is that you can leave the laptop in the case while you use it, which makes mobility nice and provides a high level of laptop protection.
     
  16. mdatwood macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #16
    I've had a 17" MBP for years and travelled all over the world with it. To travel good bag is required though. I have a booq book bag style bag and I've never felt that I was lugging anything around. They no longer sell my exact bag, but it's a smaller version of this.
     
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #17
    Each to his own. I've been using the 4 GB C2D high-res 17" since it came out, and, it fits me perfectly. The resolution on the 15" was just not enough for me. The weight difference is minimal. The bulk is greater, but, at my 6'1" height, e.g. using a laptop on a airplane is impossible anyway. For me, 1920x1200 is the sweet spot, not 1680x1050.
     
  18. dzine808 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    #18
    i second that...i came from a 15" XPS Hi-Res (1680x1050)...not enough real estate...1920x1200 FTW!!!!
     

Share This Page