Laptop comes in many screen sizes. Which size do you preferred?
And, no I did not include 9" and 19" because they are too "out there".
And, no I did not include 9" and 19" because they are too "out there".
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.
What's your favorite laptop size?
- Thread starter tubeexperience
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I prefer the 13". It allows me to have the portability if desired and the screen screen size is more than enough for my uses.
Strictly speaking about Macs here... I find the form factor and portability of the 13" rMBP to be ideal; however, my vote goes to 15" only because of the massive increase in performance (quad-core CPU/ dGPU). The extra screen real-estate isn't a bad thing either...
13" feels like the perfect compromise while mobile and at my desk I just plug into a 24" monitor for extra space.
If I could, I would totally have a 17" rMBP. (Maybe not, since I know the base price would cost a leg, arm, and a kidney) However, I have to settle with 15" and that is where my vote lies.
I just like having the biggest screen possible; nothing beats max screen real estate.
I just like having the biggest screen possible; nothing beats max screen real estate.
For me I need a bit more space, but do not want to lug around a brick, so the 15" is a good compromise.
17" 16:10 for me is just about perfect. Can do just about anything with it.
I'd love if Apple released a new 17" MBP with thin bezels, retina display (3840x2400) in the thin, lightweight body of the current MBPs.
Until then, I'm keeping my 2010 17" as long as I can. It certainly runs Windows better than OS X and supports 16 GB of RAM on the Windows side (but not OS X for some reason) so that might be how it lives out its days.
I find for 90% of what I do, having the extra screen real estate is more important than having more CPU performance.
I'd love if Apple released a new 17" MBP with thin bezels, retina display (3840x2400) in the thin, lightweight body of the current MBPs.
Until then, I'm keeping my 2010 17" as long as I can. It certainly runs Windows better than OS X and supports 16 GB of RAM on the Windows side (but not OS X for some reason) so that might be how it lives out its days.
I find for 90% of what I do, having the extra screen real estate is more important than having more CPU performance.
I really like my Late 2011 MBP 17".
It has almost everything I can ask for: quad-core Intel Core i7, support for 16 GB RAM, SATA 3.0.
About the only thing missing is USB 3.0.
--
What worries me most is the GPU issue with is always the achilles' heel.
Coming from a 15" dell then a 13" rMBP (returned for current 15" rMBP) I prefer the 15" as my screen of choice.
13" is best for everyday use but once you continue to use a 15" it starts to get to you.
13" is best for everyday use but once you continue to use a 15" it starts to get to you.
I want a 50 inch laptop. Nice big screen and big keys. Be like typing on a piano. I'll never accidentally hit the wrong key again.
I can't wait to take it on an airplane. Watch the people on either side of me try to sleep
I'd buy a 17" rMBP if one were available, hopped up with a Xeon processor and 32GB RAM. I still miss my old 17" MBP, dealing with a small 15" rMBP. Being 6'7", a 17" laptop is just right...
It's a compromise. I'd love to pick up a 13" and would be OK running non HiDPI but more usable workspace on it + 2 external displays, but - I need the horsepower from the 15"/quad core + max RAM.
I'd be hard-pressed to not bite if the next MBP refresh made a 32GB, i7 or Mobile Xeon quad-core CPU, 13" MBP available...just have doubts based on the whole 'thinner and lighter' mantra, so will likely stick with 15" until they sort out thermals for a quad core CPU, etc.
I'd be hard-pressed to not bite if the next MBP refresh made a 32GB, i7 or Mobile Xeon quad-core CPU, 13" MBP available...just have doubts based on the whole 'thinner and lighter' mantra, so will likely stick with 15" until they sort out thermals for a quad core CPU, etc.
What they need is a dynamically adjusting screen. You start with a 9 inch screen, and then pull it out to any dimension you like up to 100 inches. The screen stretches, and the graphics display detects the new dimensions, while dynamically and automatically self adjusting resolution and size.
Apple, could you make a 15" macbook air like people have been wanting for the last 6 years?
Now that you have a 12" macbook, why not make a 15" macbook retina and sell it in droves? You have a misguided notion of purity and simplicity when the models you do make, though they are few in number, are still baffling choices to consumers. You have few models to choose from yet still have managed to have force weird tradeoffs with last generation parts in your high end and the coolest designs, best screens, portability and thinness and designs in your low end (12" macbook).
You have a macbook. Make it in 12, 13, 15. Period, end of story.
Now make your macbook pro in all 3 screen sizes. Done.
How hard is this? Seriously there's something weird going on over there where common sense is taking a back seat to overanalyzing people's perceived needs. We can be trusted to choose our own screen size, Apple and then choose if we want the "regular" or the "pro" models.
We get confused when the regular models seem kind of better than the pro models in some respects, yet the pro models have a sane number of ports and better processors, yet inferior portability (by alot) and haven't been updated in years. It's just odd.
Now that you have a 12" macbook, why not make a 15" macbook retina and sell it in droves? You have a misguided notion of purity and simplicity when the models you do make, though they are few in number, are still baffling choices to consumers. You have few models to choose from yet still have managed to have force weird tradeoffs with last generation parts in your high end and the coolest designs, best screens, portability and thinness and designs in your low end (12" macbook).
You have a macbook. Make it in 12, 13, 15. Period, end of story.
Now make your macbook pro in all 3 screen sizes. Done.
How hard is this? Seriously there's something weird going on over there where common sense is taking a back seat to overanalyzing people's perceived needs. We can be trusted to choose our own screen size, Apple and then choose if we want the "regular" or the "pro" models.
We get confused when the regular models seem kind of better than the pro models in some respects, yet the pro models have a sane number of ports and better processors, yet inferior portability (by alot) and haven't been updated in years. It's just odd.
Last edited:
What? Apple already makes that - you want a small screen, put it across the room! For a much larger screen, put your chin on the laptop! QED!
13" is my ideal size...it's the perfect all-rounder. I had an iPad and mainly used that for lounging and watching YouTube and such, but got rid of it after I found that my laptop was better in every way (except heat and bulk).
BUT, coming from a desktop, it's tough to swallow the performance hit. I'll probably go 15" once Apple finally updates the MBP line.
BUT, coming from a desktop, it's tough to swallow the performance hit. I'll probably go 15" once Apple finally updates the MBP line.
13" gets my vote. Nice and portable to carry around (it's a laptop after all..) while still offering enough real estate. I use my Retina MBP at the scaled resolution 1650x1080.
Now as for desktops on the other hand I'd just go as big as possible.
Now as for desktops on the other hand I'd just go as big as possible.
