The MacBook Pro 17 inch isn't coming back is it?

[whitedragon101]

The 17" display is only 3cm larger (width and height wise) than the 15" one (36.4cmx22.7 vs 33.07cmx20.6). That is around 10% in image size per dimension. I am really not sure whether such minor size difference will already result in major discomfort and inability to make out details (provided healthy eyesight). The 17" does exhibit more spatial artefacts (aliasing) however. So no, sorry, I am not buying this 'bigger is better' argument. 1920x1200 might be small on a 15", but so it is on 17". If you are comfortable with the 17" screen, going to 15" should take only a brief period of accommodation.

Screen size is done by area X * Y. The 17" screen is 23% larger than the 15" .

Also the argument of you could use a smaller screen could take you all the way down to an 13".

The 15" is 23% smaller than the 17"
The 13" is 26% smaller than the 15"

The best way to see what an ideal screen size is, is to see what sizes desktop screens are. They don't have to worry about what is practical to carry, just what is best to work on. Apple is a good representation of this. A small desktop screen is 21" a large one is 27".

So why aren't there 15" desktop screens on the shelves. Because its too small. Waay waaay too small. No matter how many pixels you cram in there its too small to comfortably work on day in day out without connecting to an external monitor. 15" is a compromise. You can lift it and carry it around. 17" is also a compromise but its a compromise 23% larger. It turns out that 17" is just large enough that you can use it as your desktop screen and not feel too cramped.

15" = power and mobility
17" = all day desktop replacement

some people want the latter
(if they did a rMBP 17" it would be more portable too)

 

[Mactendo]

The 17" display is only 3cm larger (width and height wise) than the 15" one (36.4cmx22.7 vs 33.07cmx20.6). That is around 10% in image size per dimension. I am really not sure whether such minor size difference will already result in major discomfort and inability to make out details (provided healthy eyesight). The 17" does exhibit more spatial artefacts (aliasing) however. So no, sorry, I am not buying this 'bigger is better' argument. 1920x1200 might be small on a 15", but so it is on 17". If you are comfortable with the 17" screen, going to 15" should take only a brief period of accommodation.

Actual retina resolution of 15" is 1440 wide. At 1920 it has the same aliasing artifacts. When 17" could have the retina resolution of 1920 px wide crisp and clear.

 

[leman]

Actual retina resolution of 15" is 1440 wide. At 1920 it has the same aliasing artifacts. When 17" could have the retina resolution of 1920 px wide crisp and clear.

No, its actually 2880x1800. And it has far less aliasing artefacts compared to native Full HD, because the pixel granularity is still 1.5:1 (e.g. it renders the logical 1920x1200 image at subpixel accuracy). This means that you have 3 physical pixels to render 2 logical pixels - that additional physical pixel can be used to smooth down rough transitions (e.g. lines).

 

[Naimfan]

Unlikely they'll come back.

Too bad - it's large enough to be a true desktop replacement, where a 15" is not, at least for me. And it's still eminently capable.

Great machines, especially with the HR-AG screen, which I prefer even to the 15" retina I have. The additional screen size just makes it more comfortable to use. And performance for what I do is indistinguishable from the retina (I have a 2.3/16/512ssd hr-ag 17" and a 2.3/16/512 current 15").

 

[Count Blah]

You do know who designs these things right? Ive!!! The dood have never seen something that he didn't want to shrink to micro proportions. I'm sure it pains him to be forced to release a 15" MBP as it is.

 

[Gav Mack]

Unlikely they'll come back.

Too bad - it's large enough to be a true desktop replacement, where a 15" is not, at least for me. And it's still eminently capable.

Great machines, especially with the HR-AG screen, which I prefer even to the 15" retina I have. The additional screen size just makes it more comfortable to use. And performance for what I do is indistinguishable from the retina (I have a 2.3/16/512ssd hr-ag 17" and a 2.3/16/512 current 15").

Seems like we share a common same taste in MBP types as well as a brand of audio product. Though my needs are also for the superb battery life, even on bootcamp and being able to view the screen from further away. Not quite a desktop replacement as my Mac Pro does all the hard work but certainly the mac laptop I will own for the next 3-4 years.

 

[Mactendo]

No, its actually 2880x1800. And it has far less aliasing artefacts compared to native Full HD, because the pixel granularity is still 1.5:1 (e.g. it renders the logical 1920x1200 image at subpixel accuracy). This means that you have 3 physical pixels to render 2 logical pixels - that additional physical pixel can be used to smooth down rough transitions (e.g. lines).

I wrote 'retina resolution', not 'native resolution'. And retina resolution of 15" screen is 1440 px wide.
1920 px UI on a retina 1920 px wide screen (as it could be in case of 17" MBP) will look always better and more crisp than resampled 1920 px UI on a retina 1440 px wide screen (as it is in case of 15" MBP).

Try to draw a 1 px thick line on a 1.5 physical pixels. You can't do it. It'll be antialiased. When in case of 17" 1920x1200 resolution (or 3840x2400 native resolution) this line will be just doubled since 1 screen pixel corresponds to 2 physical pixels of the LCD.

----------

You do know who designs these things right? Ive!!! The dood have never seen something that he didn't want to shrink to micro proportions. I'm sure it pains him to be forced to release a 15" MBP as it is.

But strangely with iPhones he's doing quite the opposite. Larger and larger

 

[leman]

I wrote 'retina resolution', not 'native resolution'. And retina resolution of 15" screen is 1440 px wide.
1920 px UI on a retina 1920 px wide screen (as it could be in case of 17" MBP) will look always better and more crisp than resampled 1920 px UI on a retina 1440 px wide screen (as it is in case of 15" MBP).

Try to draw a 1 px thick line on a 1.5 physical pixels. You can't do it. It'll be antialiased. When in case of 17" 1920x1200 resolution (or 3840x2400 native resolution) this line will be just doubled since 1 screen pixel corresponds to 2 physical pixels of the LCD.

I'm sorry, but nothing you wrote makes any sense. First of all, I have no idea what a 'retina resolution' is. The 15" rMBP has only one resolution, and that is 2880x1800. In every case, its about mapping a logical resolution to this native resolution. I have no idea where you number of 1440 comes, unless you are confusing different HiDPI resolutions. Again, the 1920x1200 HiDPI on OS X is rendered with pixel-doubling to a 3840x2400 offscreen buffer, which is then down sampled to 2880x1800 which means that each of subpixels on a 2x2 grid is mapped to 1.33 native pixels on average.

And when you draw a 1px think line in this mode, you are not drawing 1px thick line on 1.5 physical pixels. Its the other way around (again, 1px in the logical Full HD corresponds to 1.5 physical pixels on the screen). This means less aliasing, because you can use that half pixel to blend the transitions. Pleas refer to Apple Developer documentation on the HiDPI modes for more info and example pictures.

 

[whitedragon101]

I'm sorry, but nothing you wrote makes any sense. First of all, I have no idea what a 'retina resolution' is. The 15" rMBP has only one resolution, and that is 2880x1800. In every case, its about mapping a logical resolution to this native resolution. I have no idea where you number of 1440 comes, unless you are confusing different HiDPI resolutions. Again, the 1920x1200 HiDPI on OS X is rendered with pixel-doubling to a 3840x2400 offscreen buffer, which is then down sampled to 2880x1800 which means that each of subpixels on a 2x2 grid is mapped to 1.33 native pixels on average.

And when you draw a 1px think line in this mode, you are not drawing 1px thick line on 1.5 physical pixels. Its the other way around (again, 1px in the logical Full HD corresponds to 1.5 physical pixels on the screen). This means less aliasing, because you can use that half pixel to blend the transitions. Pleas refer to Apple Developer documentation on the HiDPI modes for more info and example pictures.

I think what he means is this. Take a 1920x1200 white bitmap image, it has a single vertical 1 pixel black line running from top to bottom.

On a native 1920x1200 screen. The image will show a single line of pixels running from top to bottom. The pixels either side will be pure white. Perfect. An exact representation of the source image, no smudges (artefacts).

On a native 2800 x 1200 screen. As you pointed out the 1 pixel on the 1920 when mapped to the 2800 = 1.5. So we need a 1.5pixel vertical black line on the screen for perfect sharpness. But you can't have 1.5 physical pixels. You can have 1 or 2. So what you get is a compromise of 1 pixel black and 1 pixel 50% black. It could also be 1 black and 2 at 25% black or other combinations. So you will see a black line with and artefact. A smudge of grey beside it. There will always be a smudge artefact of some kind. You can never have the perfect 1 to 1 mapping because 2800 can not be divided by 1920 and get an integer result. (i.e 2800 / 1920 = 1.5 not 1 or 2 or 3 etc).
This is why on the hi-dpi mode 1440x900 is described as "best for retina" as 2800 / 1400 = 2. A perfect integer. Which means no artefacts. If your logical resolution is left at 1440 you will get no artefacts. At 1920 there will always be artefacts. (It does depend on how good your eyesight is and your sensitivity to graphical anomalies as to whether you see them).

On a native 3840 x 2400 screen. Here you get the best of all worlds. The vertical 1 pixel line is drawn as 2 pure black pixels. You also get all the extra pixels a native 1920 x 1200 screen doesn't have to smooth out curved objects etc.


So basically if you want a logical resolution of 1920 on a retina display you need a 3840 x 2400 panel to have no artefacts.

 

[akdj]

I think what he means is this. Take a 1920x1200 white bitmap image, it has a single vertical 1 pixel black line running from top to bottom.

On a native 1920x1200 screen. The image will show a single line of pixels running from top to bottom. The pixels either side will be pure white. Perfect. An exact representation of the source image, no smudges (artefacts).

On a native 2800 x 1200 screen. As you pointed out the 1 pixel on the 1920 when mapped to the 2800 = 1.5. So we need a 1.5pixel vertical black line on the screen for perfect sharpness. But you can't have 1.5 physical pixels. You can have 1 or 2. So what you get is a compromise of 1 pixel black and 1 pixel 50% black. It could also be 1 black and 2 at 25% black or other combinations. So you will see a black line with and artefact. A smudge of grey beside it. There will always be a smudge artefact of some kind. You can never have the perfect 1 to 1 mapping because 2800 can not be divided by 1920 and get an integer result. (i.e 2800 / 1920 = 1.5 not 1 or 2 or 3 etc).
This is why on the hi-dpi mode 1440x900 is described as "best for retina" as 2800 / 1400 = 2. A perfect integer. Which means no artefacts. If your logical resolution is left at 1440 you will get no artefacts. At 1920 there will always be artefacts. (It does depend on how good your eyesight is and your sensitivity to graphical anomalies as to whether you see them).

On a native 3840 x 2400 screen. Here you get the best of all worlds. The vertical 1 pixel line is drawn as 2 pure black pixels. You also get all the extra pixels a native 1920 x 1200 screen doesn't have to smooth out curved objects etc.


So basically if you want a logical resolution of 1920 on a retina display you need a 3840 x 2400 panel to have no artefacts.

I've switched. 17" user for eight years, the last two with the 15" rMBPs. I've held on to one of my 17s, still love it...but I'll tell ya now...and I'm kinda ignorant when it comes to responding intelligently to your response....that said, with three 15" rMBPs in the office and a 17"...the 'sharpness' of the 15s in HiDPI scaled 1920x1200 is significantly sharper than the same, native resolution on the 17s. We do audio video production in Alaska and I'm everywhere....all over the state with the rMBPs and have left the 17"@ home now for 18 months. There's NO competition. The displays on these rMBPs are simply phenomenal. They best my 2011/2.5/16/500 GB Sammy SSD (840) by leaps and bounds. Aliasing? You'd have to be Superman to see ANY artifacting, even with a magnifying glass a half inch from the display. I've never been as satisfied with a laptop in 25 years. These 13/15" rMBP rigs are simply a Grand Slam.
I'm smiling each time I turn it on....course it could be due to my 43 year old eyes...but like the retina display on the iPhone 4, the iPad 3/4/Air and now mini....there just isn't words that quantify how incredible HiDPI actually 'is'. Windows knows it. They're hard at work on it and it's implementation with external monitors. Hollywood knows. Shooting 4&8k stock. Hell, you can get 4k video now on a half dozen smart phones out or in the way...most likely including the 'iPhone 6' this fall.
Anyway, I'm a 17" lover. I feel like Apple WILL bring it back. BUT, not until they've got a 4k standard, the graphic power to not just achieve a constant 60fps in the UI but run another pair of displays through HDMI and thunderbolt. I think it'll take after the nMP myself. That's not going to make 'em a zillion bucks BUT it's a compelling workstation with phenomenal power. IGZO panels, iGPU development with Intel, compute GPU power aggregation with AMD...I'm not counting Apple outta the 17" game yet. In fact, as mentioned earlier a couple of times...and as I can attest to as an owner, the 17 has always been in parity with the 15" spec-wise. Other than a couple of extra I/O options (ExpressCard, third USB port), they've been 'the same'. No number pad. Just a higher, beautiful resolution upgrade. They've GOT a 1920/1200 machine now. It's time for the '4k' standard to be set (something Apple is dealing with now....just look at display issues with the nMP), graphic and workstation CPU and GPU options, the blade PCIe SSD, possibly with a second 'spinner' vs the optical drive...32 or even 64GB of memory...I wouldn't count them out. The nMP, while having a couple teething issues with multiple displays with different resolutions....is for all intents and purposes is again, another Grand Slam. One not noticed by the iOS crowd....BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY recognized by Apple as a necessity for the developers, the creatives, the photo and motion manipulators, etc.
IMHO, I think they wanted to 'change' the 17" TO a Pro, workstation machine...possibly and as suggested configured to own, by a select few, built in America and possibly...just maybe, like the nMP, a 're'imagining of the portable 'workstation'.
I'm not giving up. As a 1,1 thru 5,1 MP owner, I remember 'the wait'. Everything I own now is doing its job, paying the mortgage, is reliable, extremely fast and I'm having a hard time believing anyone so 'against' the 15" has spent more than ten minutes with one. It's fast as hell, light as air, boots in less than ten seconds, USB 3 screams, thunderbolt is even faster...and 'large' IPS displays can be had at BestBuy any day of the week for under $300 if you 'need' the real estate while you hurry up and wait
As always, YmmVary
J

 

[leman]

On a native 2800 x 1200 screen. As you pointed out the 1 pixel on the 1920 when mapped to the 2800 = 1.5. So we need a 1.5pixel vertical black line on the screen for perfect sharpness. But you can't have 1.5 physical pixels. You can have 1 or 2. So what you get is a compromise of 1 pixel black and 1 pixel 50% black. It could also be 1 black and 2 at 25% black or other combinations. So you will see a black line with and artefact. A smudge of grey beside it. There will always be a smudge artefact of some kind.

Well, you just described how anti-aliasing works That grey smudge is exactly what removes the jaggies. For example: http://courses.engr.illinois.edu/ece390/archive/archive-f2000/mp/mp4/anti.html

Of course, for straight lines, its slightly less optimal, because there are no jaggies on the native screen and one would indeed think that non 1:1 mapping produces worse quality. This is not entirely so, however. Just imagine that each hardware pixel on a retina screen contains two subpixels. What you do then is draw 3 sub pixels for each logical Full HD pixel. Obviously, you'll end up blending data for some hardware pixel, but that's how graphics works. I mean, thats even how pixel colouring is done - you actually have discrete red, green and blue pixels which are lighted independently, but because they are so close, we perceive them as one things. Same with the grey smudge you talk about. If the spatial resolution is small enough so that we can't identify the pixel boundaries, our brain interprets that grey smudge as part of the black line.

And again, I have also clearly said that the full native 3840x2400 would obviously provide even sharper image, because there are simply more hardware points to map sub pixels to. My main point was to argue that current implementation does indeed have a vastly better image quality than a native Full HD screen - which should be kind of obvious to everyone who saw these displays in action (I am staring at a rMBP display right now and I have had enough experience with 17" - the later looks washed out in comparison with retina).

 

[kathyricks]

Looks like Apple's own execs used to use the 17":

 

[Gav Mack]

A 3840x2400 17 inch panel could possibly see the return of the 17, after all it was the panel in the rMBP that killed it off. It would have to have a GPU capable of driving it properly and efficiently without affecting battery life cos that's an awful lot of pixels to shift in a notebook.

 

[jger77]

Screen size is done by area X * Y. The 17" screen is 23% larger than the 15" .

Also the argument of you could use a smaller screen could take you all the way down to an 13".

The 15" is 23% smaller than the 17"
The 13" is 26% smaller than the 15"

The best way to see what an ideal screen size is, is to see what sizes desktop screens are. They don't have to worry about what is practical to carry, just what is best to work on. Apple is a good representation of this. A small desktop screen is 21" a large one is 27".

So why aren't there 15" desktop screens on the shelves. Because its too small. Waay waaay too small. No matter how many pixels you cram in there its too small to comfortably work on day in day out without connecting to an external monitor. 15" is a compromise. You can lift it and carry it around. 17" is also a compromise but its a compromise 23% larger. It turns out that 17" is just large enough that you can use it as your desktop screen and not feel too cramped.

15" = power and mobility
17" = all day desktop replacement

some people want the latter
(if they did a rMBP 17" it would be more portable too)

The 17" is actually closer to a full third bigger than the 15.

17.7^2= 313 sq. in.
15.4^2= 237 sq. in. (-76)
13.3^2= 177 sq. in. (-40)
11.6^2= 135 sq. in. (-42)

Based loosely on the rumours, it looks like they're gonna consolidate the the airs and 13 in pro(r) on a ~ 12 Retina line. It wouldn't suprise me to se a XL(17.7~18.5)in retina in the near future. I expect that everything will be glued in though. Storage, GPUs, CPUs and memory will carry a 50%+ premium over diy upgrades.

 

[thundersteele]

Some years ago switched from a desktop (1280x something on 20'' or so) to a 17'' MBP with 1920x1200 resolution. This was a big step down in physical text size, and took me a while to get used to.

Since then, I went from:
17'' at 1920x1200 to
15.4'' at 1680x1050 to
13.3'' at 1440x900 (HiDPI retina)

This seems to correspond to a physical text size that I am comfortable with right now. I know some people use 13'' screens with 1920x resolutions, but I don't think I could get used to that. There is some value in physical screen size, depending on personal preferences, so I don't fully understand why people argue against this.

OK apart from that however the retina has a significant impact. I still use the 15'' for gaming, but when I read websites on it I immediately start to miss the retina screen. Text is incredibly sharp. Given the same screen size and same effective resolution, the retina screen is much more readable - that does translate into additional work space. I might end up switching to the 1680 HiDPI resolution on my 13'', and now I can also imagine using 1920x on the 15'' retina.

So where does the 17'' fit here? There is just no demand, and the 15'' retina has further reduced it I think. I guess one could run a 3840x screen on a 2560x HiDPI resolution, but I don't think many people really need that. And then there are a few people with bad vision where only physical size helps, but Apple will not design a laptop specifically for them.

 

[whitedragon101]

So where does the 17'' fit here? There is just no demand, and the 15'' retina has further reduced it I think.

The year it was axed the 17" MBP sold 200,000 units. Thats a pretty reasonable amount of demand.

 

[thundersteele]

The year it was axed the 17" MBP sold 200,000 units. Thats a pretty reasonable amount of demand.

For me too. In the end of course we don't know whether it is gone because Apple considers the volume too small, or if they failed to make a 17'' retina with current technology.

An point against the sales volume argument is that Apple puts a lot of effort in the Mac Pro, which might sell less (don't know, this is something I just read somewhere else).

 

[whitedragon101]

For me too. In the end of course we don't know whether it is gone because Apple considers the volume too small, or if they failed to make a 17'' retina with current technology.

An point against the sales volume argument is that Apple puts a lot of effort in the Mac Pro, which might sell less (don't know, this is something I just read somewhere else).

I'm just crossing my fingers and wishing very hard it was for technical reasons (no 17" retina panels or the GPU power to drive them). I like jger77's idea that the new rumoured super thin/light fanless 12inch could replace the Air line with a single laptop leaving room for 1 more at the top.

 

[simon48]

I'm just crossing my fingers and wishing very hard it was for technical reasons (no 17" retina panels or the GPU power to drive them). I like jger77's idea that the new rumoured super thin/light fanless 12inch could replace the Air line with a single laptop leaving room for 1 more at the top.

It's not because of the GPU, the current GPUs can drive multiple external displays just fine.

 

[Mactendo]

I think what he means is this. Take a 1920x1200 white bitmap image, it has a single vertical 1 pixel black line running from top to bottom.

On a native 1920x1200 screen. The image will show a single line of pixels running from top to bottom. The pixels either side will be pure white. Perfect...

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Mactendo]

And again, I have also clearly said that the full native 3840x2400 would obviously provide even sharper image, because there are simply more hardware points to map sub pixels to. My main point was to argue that current implementation does indeed have a vastly better image quality than a native Full HD screen - which should be kind of obvious to everyone who saw these displays in action

You said this regarding screen sizes:

I am really not sure whether such minor size difference will already result in major discomfort and inability to make out details (provided healthy eyesight).
1920x1200 might be small on a 15", but so it is on 17"

Which obviously isn't true and should be kind of obvious to everyone with good logical thinking skills. 17" screen is more readable than 15" at the same resolution and the healthy eyesight is a question of time especially if you consider daily staring at a smaller screen at a high resolution.

 

[Count Blah]

But strangely with iPhones he's doing quite the opposite. Larger and larger

TV sizes are getting larger as well. Some times you have to swallow your pride and give the people what they demand. But if ANY case can be made(pun intended) for a product to be smaller - Ive WILL make it smaller - Useability be damned!!!

 

[leman]

You said this regarding screen sizes:

Which obviously isn't true and should be kind of obvious to everyone with good logical thinking skills. 17" screen is more readable than 15" at the same resolution and the healthy eyesight is a question of time especially if you consider daily staring at a smaller screen at a high resolution.

So because I might have been wrong with one thing, I am also certain to be wrong with another thing, right Those two topics (how retina resolution works vs. comfortable screen size) are completely independent and should be treated as such. It's a bit inconsequent to question my logical thinking and then completely disregard it yourself

To the topic:

Personally, I don't see much difference between 17" and 15" running at 1920x1200 , sure, the text is slightly smaller on the 15" but not at the level I would call uncomfortable. Logical thinking has nothing to do with this. There is nothing logical about bigger screens being more readable. In fact, the size of a 12pt font on the 15" at the normal working distance is comparable to that of your average newspaper. Now, I'l have to ask: have you actually worked on both screens for prolonged periods of time before, or are you just 'logically thinking'?

----------

The 17" is actually closer to a full third bigger than the 15.

17.7^2= 313 sq. in.
15.4^2= 237 sq. in. (-76)
13.3^2= 177 sq. in. (-40)
11.6^2= 135 sq. in. (-42)

Are you kidding me? That is the diagonal. You can't compute the area of the screen by having the diagonal squared

Size of a 16:10 display with 17" (43cm) diagonal is around 36.46cm x 22.78cm
Size of a 16:10 display with 15.4" (39cm) diagonal is around 33.1cm x 20.7cm

The difference is display area is around 20%

 

[jger77]

----------



Are you kidding me? That is the diagonal. You can't compute the area of the screen by having the diagonal squared

Size of a 16:10 display with 17" (43cm) diagonal is around 36.46cm x 22.78cm
Size of a 16:10 display with 15.4" (39cm) diagonal is around 33.1cm x 20.7cm

The difference is display area is around 20%

I realize that I've erroneously tacked an extra 7/10 inch onto the diagonal of a 17 in.


The area of any rectangle will be its diagonal measurement squared, regardless of its aspect ratio.
Pythagorian Theorum.

You're right, its some where between a fifth and a quarter.

 

[accountforit]

So why aren't there 15" desktop screens on the shelves. Because its too small. Waay waaay too small. No matter how many pixels you cram in there its too small to comfortably work on day in day out without connecting to an external monitor. 15" is a compromise. You can lift it and carry it around. 17" is also a compromise but its a compromise 23% larger. It turns out that 17" is just large enough that you can use it as your desktop screen and not feel too cramped.

15" = power and mobility
17" = all day desktop replacement

some people want the latter
(if they did a rMBP 17" it would be more portable too)

Many people use a 15" and only a 15" with no external monitor. I am not sure of the point that you were trying to make, but a lot of people don't need, or even want, a huge screen. I have tried out the 27" iMac 2 times in the past 6 years and hated it both times. To me, it's just too darn big, but you find other people claiming it is a godsend. I find the 21" perfect.

I find that a 15" can be a desktop replacement. There is more than enough screen real estate to be productive. You just sit a little closer.