Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Who now thinks they should've waited for 17"?

peskaa said:
I'm happy with the size of my 15" - 17" is simply too big. However, I am envious of the new battery (don't care about not being able to take it out) and the screen (1680x1050 on the 15" would be perfect).

Instead, I'll pick up a second battery and live with the lower resolution.
Click to expand...

Depends what you use it for. If you need occasional portability then the 17 inch does not seem cumbersome particularly as it's great as a "main" machine on the desktop. If you do a lot of travel, the size and weight become more noticeable - I have a 17 inch and am happy with it. However, if I had to transport it around every day, I would be more inclined to the 15
 
proc said:
Has it been confirmed (in one way or another) that there is indeed a firmware restriction on the 15" MBP? Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

I read it on here, can't remember which post it was sorry. Given the physical hardware of the 15" and 17" are identical, it is going to be something as simple as a firmware update that will give 8gb to the 15" users.
 
jjahshik32 said:
I'm glad that I didnt wait. Only thing the 17" mbp has that I want is the ability to address 8gb of ram.
Click to expand...
That would be HUGE for me. I'd love to be able to address 8GB of ram in my Macbook (2.0Ghz glassbook). I do a TON of virtualization. I need all the ram I can get!
 
Not me. I need portability, and the few friends of mine who had the 17" said it was too big to carry around. I'm sure the new 17" is great, but it's just not portable enough for me.
 
Not me. Like others have said 17" is just not portable (I own a 17" Dell). The 15" with the 24" LED when I am at home is preferable to me. I would like the new battery, the 256GB SSD and the 8GB of RAM. I am sure the last two will eventually be available for self upgrade on the 15", but the cost will be painful :(
 
I think its waaay overpriced...at that price just get a MacPro+Display. the stock 17" costs £1949/$2917...excl tax :eek:...daylight robbery whilst a stock Mac Pro is £1712/$2562 (2799) excl tax.

Just get a MacPro and use the remaining £237/$355 to get a display.
 
I had a 15" Powerbook in 2005, but I upgraded to a 17" MacBook Pro in 2006. I would never go back to a 15" screen after having the 17. It's just so much nicer. I'm one of those people that have a video playing, an IM session and surfing the web all at once. I do that regulary and infact I'm doing it even now as I'm posting this message. And although you can do these things on a 15" screen everything is just a little to squished.

The webpage requires much more scrolling and images may make you have to scroll sideways aswell as up and down. The chat your having will be condensed in to showing only very recent communications back and forth instead of a larger history. And the video well its either overlapping on the web page or so tiny that its not worth watching.

A lot of people say the 17" is 'Too Big' but its only 2 inches larger then the 15" but has a massive increase in resolution as a result. I personally feel if you find the 15" comfortable to lug around then you won't have any trouble with a 17" but if you already find a 15" MacBook Pro large and difficult to take with you then obviously a 17" MBP will be worse.

For me the choice of a 17" Model is obvious. However I feel Apple are missing a key configuration. At the moment you have two default configs of the 15" a Lower end and a Higher end. one with 2GB vs 4GB, slower CPU 2.4GHz vs 2.53GHz with 3MB L2 Cache vs 6MB and a 250GB HD vs 320GB. I feel they should do the same with the 17" and have it match the price of the 15"

So in an ideal world there would be four configs as follows:

15" Low-End: 2.4GHz 3Mb L2 Cache, 250GB HD, 2GB RAM = £1,369.00
15" High-End: 2.53GHz 6Mb L2 Cache, 320GB HD, 4GB RAM = £1,712.00
17" Low-End 2.4GHz 3Mb L2 Cache, 250GB HD, 2GB RAM = £1,712.00
17" High-End: 2.6GHz 6Mb L2 Cache, 320GB HD, 4GB RAM = £1,949.00

So as you can see the Low-End 17" would match the high-end 15" in price so users can choose if they want the faster speed on a 15" or the higher res screen + 8 Hour Battery with lower specs on a 17" I think Apple should do this as I know people who just want the larger screen without requiring the extra speed over the 15" model. What are your thoughts?

I'll be buying a 17" once the early adopters buy some and the bugs get ironed out but I still think Apple should invest in a lower entry price for the 17" Not everyone needs all the performance that Apple are selling in that model.
 
allanibanez said:
I read it on here, can't remember which post it was sorry. Given the physical hardware of the 15" and 17" are identical, it is going to be something as simple as a firmware update that will give 8gb to the 15" users.
Click to expand...

God forbid Apple would do anything like intentionally limit the amount of ram that the 15" can handle so people would be steered toward buying the 17"... Guess we should know within a month or two.
 
semitry said:
Can OS X even address 4GB of ram let alone 8GB?
Click to expand...

Yes. Mac Pros have been able to use 32 GB of RAM for a long time. MBPs and iMacs have been able to use 6 GB since 2007 (I'm actually typing this from a 6 GB Early 2008 MBP).
 
clyde2801 said:
God forbid Apple would do anything like intentionally limit the amount of ram that the 15" can handle so people would be steered toward buying the 17"... Guess we should know within a month or two.
Click to expand...

Given that Apple has done it before, I'm a bit worried to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back