Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The area of any rectangle will be its diagonal measurement squared, regardless of its aspect ratio.
Pythagorian Theorum.:eek:

I think you're a bit mixed up there, the Pythagorean theorem applies to right-angled triangles.

The area of a rectangle is equal to the width multiplied by the length.
 
I think you're a bit mixed up there, the Pythagorean theorem applies to right-angled triangles.

The area of a rectangle is equal to the width multiplied by the length.

Well, he is right insofar that the diagonal of a rectangle can be computed via the Pythagorean theorem. But only knowing the diagonal is not enough - there are infinitely many rectangles with the same diagonal size which all have different areas.
 
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.

Simply this :

1) Some people want a screen bigger than 15"
2) They want to have a notebook that provides it
3) The 17" did that job well
4) Its gone and we would like it back

200,000 people a year wanted one too and bought a 17".

It isn't about having a correct size of laptop, there is no right or wrong. Given identical performance some people would buy a 13" because they find 11" too small. Some people would buy the 15" because they find the 13" too small. The 17" is no different. Some people would buy the 17" because they find the 15" too small.

As you said yourself. You don't like the 27" iMac because you find it too big, others think its a godsend. No one is wrong, but its nice that both models exist so that people can choose. For Apple laptops the big option is gone for now.
 
Settle?

Not going to settle. Have had macs since my first 128.
If there isn't a 17" by the time I'm ready to retire my current, I'll get a crappy WinTel notebook. Alienware makes some very nice models.
 
I'd totally buy a 17" rMBP. I currently use 2 laptops, a 13" rMBP for portability and a 17" HP Envy for gaming and processing power. I'd love to swap the latter for a 17" rMBP with a full mobile quad-core CPU, a dedicated GPU that's more powerful than the 750m, and a glorious 3840x2400 screen.
 
I'd totally buy a 17" rMBP. I currently use 2 laptops, a 13" rMBP for portability and a 17" HP Envy for gaming and processing power. I'd love to swap the latter for a 17" rMBP with a full mobile quad-core CPU, a dedicated GPU that's more powerful than the 750m, and a glorious 3840x2400 screen.

I'll sign the petition ;)
 
Wow. A thread started last year and is still alive today! I think that alone speaks volumes about how much the 17" MBP is missed. I'll sign that petition as well. In the meantime, I am not giving up my 2009 17" with antiglare screen for any current Apple machine.
 
Me Too!

I too would buy a 17" rMBP. I think the form factor would offer any or all of these possibilities:

  • More memory
  • 4TB SSD
  • Faster processor and beefier fans
  • Bigger battery...
  • ...or add an external battery!
  • DVD loading slot
  • Add two Camera Card slots
  • Added USB (USB3), Thunderbolt ports
  • Add a Firewire port (I have a firewire audio/MIDI interface)
  • Bring back the Ethernet port as an option

I consider myself a power user; have always been one. For my laptops, versatility is key and heavier is no problem because I use backpacks and I already carry a 17" Asus... When I want to travel light, I'll carry iPad or iPhone.
 
The 17" cMBP was kind of overpriced compared to the 15". But there's one thing I liked a lot about it: it had small bezels, which meant even though the screen was significantly larger than the 15", the laptop itself wasn't that much bigger.
 
I miss these things. Had one in at work the other day (anti-glare, also) and found it to be lovely to work on, even though I use a 15" retina everyday. The screen was just so spacious.

It was definitely showing its age though in terms of performance. Wasn't handling Mavericks too well.
 
I miss these things. Had one in at work the other day (anti-glare, also) and found it to be lovely to work on, even though I use a 15" retina everyday. The screen was just so spacious.

It was definitely showing its age though in terms of performance. Wasn't handling Mavericks too well.

Performance on the 2011 17"MBPro's is awesome on Mavericks the 2.3-25Ghz i7 processors are only 5% slower than the very fast current i7 quad cores! This means they are still sporting leading edge CPUS the only benefit really of the current gen is lower power consumption leading to better battery performance!

Maybe your slowness was old HD technology ... put a Samsung 1Tb SDD inside and the 2011 FLIES on 10.9!

The 17" screen is STILL THE BEST ... it's why I still use one with Expresscard34 eSata & USB 3, 1.5TB HD installed in DVD bay.... Fark Retina ... I don't need smaller pixels give me legibility anyday.

My Ultimate MBPro in 2014 is a 2011 17" model with TWO x 2.7Ghz i7 processors (plenty of room in there) same 2011 screen (i don't want more pixels)!

Think about it Apple most serious mobile pros .. Music & Video guys work off the power supply ... battery performance is rarely needed and when it is the second CPU could be turned off! :)
 
Performance on the 2011 17"MBPro's is awesome on Mavericks the 2.3-25Ghz i7 processors are only 5% slower than the very fast current i7 quad cores! This means they are still sporting leading edge CPUS the only benefit really of the current gen is lower power consumption leading to better battery performance!

Maybe your slowness was old HD technology ... put a Samsung 1Tb SDD inside and the 2011 FLIES on 10.9!

The 17" screen is STILL THE BEST ... it's why I still use one with Expresscard34 eSata & USB 3, 1.5TB HD installed in DVD bay.... Fark Retina ... I don't need smaller pixels give me legibility anyday.

My Ultimate MBPro in 2014 is a 2011 17" model with TWO x 2.7Ghz i7 processors (plenty of room in there) same 2011 screen (i don't want more pixels)!

Think about it Apple most serious mobile pros .. Music & Video guys work off the power supply ... battery performance is rarely needed and when it is the second CPU could be turned off! :)

which usb3 expresscard are you using?
 
which usb3 expresscard are you using?

just a yumcha no name one atm and I have stability issues with Mavericks
the yumcha esata is very stable though .. I did the drivers for Mav in Multibeast.

1920 x 1200 rocks in 17" it OWNs a 15" Apple! BiGGER IS Better!

How cheap would 1920 x 1200 screens be now? The yield would be 100%!

Do It Apple

Oh btw the guy before saying that any offering would need a 4Tb SSD is an idiot. You need to go with what is available now! 1TB x 2 in a Raid 0 stripe would be max,, but I prefer reliability ... less is more so 1Tb SSD with a 2Gb HD and there is room for a 3rd bay if they didn't do the extra i7 processor
 
just a yumcha no name one atm and I have stability issues with Mavericks
the yumcha esata is very stable though .. I did the drivers for Mav in Multibeast.

1920 x 1200 rocks in 17" it OWNs a 15" Apple! BiGGER IS Better!

How cheap would 1920 x 1200 screens be now? The yield would be 100%!

Do It Apple

Oh btw the guy before saying that any offering would need a 4Tb SSD is an idiot. You need to go with what is available now! 1TB x 2 in a Raid 0 stripe would be max,, but I prefer reliability ... less is more so 1Tb SSD with a 2Gb HD and there is room for a 3rd bay if they didn't do the extra i7 processor

dont forget the 17" is perfect candidate for the External GPU !!!

check out http://www.villageinstruments.com/tiki-index.php?page=ViDock
 
Performance on the 2011 17"MBPro's is awesome on Mavericks the 2.3-25Ghz i7 processors are only 5% slower than the very fast current i7 quad cores! This means they are still sporting leading edge CPUS the only benefit really of the current gen is lower power consumption leading to better battery performance!

Where did you get that 5% figure from ? High end 2013 15"rMBP has a 64bit geekbench score of 14436 vs 2011 high end 17" score of 11050.

Thats alot more than 5% slower. (11050/14436)*100 = 76.5%. So the 2011 17" is in fact 23.5% slower than the 2013 15".
 
Last edited:
I loved my 17" MacBook Pro except that it warped and they had to replace it twice.

Then when the 15" unibody came out, I ask them to replace it with one of those instead.
 
I still have my 17 inch from back in 2009, 5 years and still running like a beast. even the battery still holds a 4 hour productive charge (developing on XCode, etc...)
Seriously the best laptop i've ever owned, but it seems like I'll have to settle for a 15 incher, at least with retina set to 1.5 factor, i'll still have 1920x1200.
Let's see what's revealed at the WWDC next week.
 
I know 200,000 seems like a lot of units but the cost to engineer/design is far too great.

Engineers are expensive and most of their R&D is invested into their big three (Air, 13 Pro, 15 Pro). In the last five years, they've sold more than 10 million Macs consistently every year. And at least three of those years didn't even have a 17" in the refurbished line-up.

200,000/10,000,000+ is less than 2% of sales figures. There's no such thing as investing only 2% of your research, development, designers and engineers into a product. This is especially true if you want the product to be released in a timely fashion. (No one wants to see a Haswell equipped 17" laptop in 2016)

At the end of the day, it's just not a good business investment decision for Apple. In fact, it's probably a terrible one, like a gaming Mac desktop or an upgradeable Mac desktop. The idea of it is nice, just like the idea of a performance sports car that doesn't have a voided warranty when you upgrade its parts and is super cheap to maintain and has great gas milage. But just having an idea doesn't make it a good one for everyone involved.
 
Perhaps the next *major* MacBook Pro re-design will be 14" and 16" - There is still some bezel to shave away so that the chassis itself wouldn't be much bigger than the 13" and 15" today.
 
Performance on the 2011 17"MBPro's is awesome on Mavericks the 2.3-25Ghz i7 processors are only 5% slower than the very fast current i7 quad cores! This means they are still sporting leading edge CPUS the only benefit really of the current gen is lower power consumption leading to better battery performance!

Maybe your slowness was old HD technology ... put a Samsung 1Tb SDD inside and the 2011 FLIES on 10.9!

The 17" screen is STILL THE BEST ... it's why I still use one with Expresscard34 eSata & USB 3, 1.5TB HD installed in DVD bay.... Fark Retina ... I don't need smaller pixels give me legibility anyday.

My Ultimate MBPro in 2014 is a 2011 17" model with TWO x 2.7Ghz i7 processors (plenty of room in there) same 2011 screen (i don't want more pixels)!

Think about it Apple most serious mobile pros .. Music & Video guys work off the power supply ... battery performance is rarely needed and when it is the second CPU could be turned off! :)

All the 17"s we get in that are running Mavericks aren't too speedy. Old HD technology, maybe. I do IT for my university.

From a pure display standpoint, I'm not sure which I'd prefer. Retina or the huge size of the 17". :)
 
Apple should just buy a bunch of these, rebrand them, fit the special Apple ID chip and load up OSX

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/m/campaigns/workstations/zbook-17.html
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.