The screen size you'd choose, 'IF' ...

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by entatlrg, Nov 5, 2009.

?

If price, weight and resolution where equal which screen size would you choose?

  1. 13"

    41 vote(s)
    27.2%
  2. 15"

    72 vote(s)
    47.7%
  3. 17"

    38 vote(s)
    25.2%
  1. entatlrg macrumors 68040

    entatlrg

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    #1
    13" or 15" or 17" ?

    If everything was equal ... the price, weight, resolution where all the same on a 13, 15 or 17" notebook. The only difference would be the screen and amount of space it takes on your desk. Which size would you choose?


    Price can influence the screen size you choose, as can resolution, footprint on a desk etc... for me if I could have 'any' style of computer I'd take a 15" MacBook Air, (With 2 usb ports and 4gb RAM :)
     
  2. Ann P macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Location:
    California
    #2
    A monster 13" MacBook. I purchase a laptop for portability so might as well go all the way.
     
  3. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #3
    I guess I'd have to say 15", the MacBook Air is the perfect weight, although the screen is a bit cramped. Adding resolution to the 13" would make it hard to see, even with good eyes! The 15" would be the best balance between everything, but only if weight was equal to the MacBook Air.
     
  4. pesc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    #4
    13". or 12". For portability (I have large external screens for desk usage).

    And I would prefer 4:3 because that would give me more pixels and more screen area than those newfangled short-screens (aka "wide screen" in marketspeak).
     
  5. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #5
    I voted for the 17", but then I realized how retarded I would look in class with a massive 17" laptop despite the weight.

    13" all the way for portability. If I wanted screen size and power I'd go for the iMac27
     
  6. iLog.Genius macrumors 601

    iLog.Genius

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #6
    I think 15.4-inch is the perfect size...if only it had a bigger resolution.
     
  7. harperjones99 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #7
    14 inch...probably virtually unnoticeable but mentally would make me feel like I reached a compromise.
     
  8. splitpea macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #8
    15" because my eyesight sucks, but 17" is just too unwieldy.
     
  9. Sneakz macrumors 65816

    Sneakz

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    #9
    The 15" for sure. It's just that horrid resolution Apple has been stuck with since the MBP first launched in Feb 2006.
     
  10. eswank macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    NorCal
    #10
    I chose the 17" because of the resolution. I wouldn't mind lugging this beast around.
     
  11. jshelton macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    #11
    Awesome.
     
  12. dan5.5 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #12
    I would get a 15. It's a good compromise between portability and usability.
     
  13. darngooddesign macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #13
    I can't separate resolution from screen size. I have the 15 because its the minimum res I will accept, but would immediately choose the 13" if it had the 15's resolution.
     
  14. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #14
    14"

    Not too big, not too small. I like my laptop just right :)
     
  15. entatlrg thread starter macrumors 68040

    entatlrg

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    #15
    agreed, 14" seems to be the sweet spot for size ... I used a 14" Thinkpad for years.... was real heavy though
     
  16. shambo macrumors 6502a

    shambo

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    #16
    15" Badboy Pro obviously (see sig) as the 13" Weeboy is too small for my professional work while the 17" Slab to clunky and cumbersome to carry.
     
  17. Higgs1 macrumors 6502

    Higgs1

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #17
    13" is by far my favorite size, for portability, storage, and overall usage, really loving my 13" Macs. Don't think I could go back to a 15"+
     
  18. UngratefulNinja macrumors 68000

    UngratefulNinja

    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #18
    I just switched from a 12" ibook so even the 13" seems big to me right now :) The smaller the better for me :p
     
  19. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #19
    Definitely 15". 13" is too small and with same res as 17", everything would be very small. 17" is IMO not enough portable so I chose the Golden Middle Course, 15"
     
  20. entatlrg thread starter macrumors 68040

    entatlrg

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    #20
    Will there ever be a 15" MacBook Air is the big question?

    That's the notebook of my dreams with 4gb RAM, 256 ssd, 2 or more usb ports.... that would be a winner of a laptop from day one ....
     
  21. andrew upstairs macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2009
    Location:
    Downtown Los Angeles
    #21
    I've had a 13", a 15", and a 17". I prefer the 15".
     
  22. Dreamail macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Beyond
    #22
    Screen size is not what counts... Resolution is.

    Well, screen size is only part of the question.

    What I'm really interested in is screen resolution. Sheer pixel count.
    People might want a certain resolution but not necessarily the laptop size it currently comes with.

    Can't speak for others of course, but personally I'd love a 13" display with 1920x1200 pixels resolution.
    I'd want the portability of a 13" display with the 1080p capable HD resolution of a 1920x1200 display.

    With technologies like resolution independence - if it ever happens in OS X - this would not mean tiny text on ultra high-res 13" displays.


    You see, I want 1920x1200 as a minimum resolution, yet I would never buy a 17" MacBook Pro because it is way too big for me, physically.

    Unfortunately Apple doesn't offer 13" or 15" displays in 1920x1200 resolution.
    I hope one day.

    Yet I would never buy the current 13" MacBook Pro model as its resolution is just not high enough for my needs.
    So I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    In the meantime I'd buy a desktop and get me a 30" 2560x1600 resolution display. Or the new 27" iMac.
    More pixels for the buck!
    And I'd carry an iMac to exactly as many places as I'd carry a 17" MacBook Pro. To say I wouldn't carry it around.

    And I get a quad-core 8 thread capable CPU and the ability to upgrade the RAM to 16GB when I need it.
    None of that's available in any Mac notebook today.
     
  23. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #23
    15" with a 2560x1600 display. They do make one… I think. At least they did make one for a Thinkpad and it was S-IPS.

    That said, it's obviously be a 15" computer.
     
  24. Eric S. macrumors 68040

    Eric S.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Mountains, California
    #24
    I wouldn't carry around anything larger than 13".
     
  25. entatlrg thread starter macrumors 68040

    entatlrg

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Waterloo & Georgian Bay, Canada
    #25
    13" is more popular than I expected, I guess if you hook up to an external 24" monitor often, then it's the perfect combo.
     

Share This Page