Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by maratus, Jun 19, 2009.
Would you buy 17" uMBP if 15" had 1680x1050 anti-glare screen?
No, but then I'd not buy a 17" MBP regardless because I think its a huge machine.
btw, I own a 15" uMBP and the screen is awesome. While I was prejudiced against glossy screens, the beautiful MBP display won me over and I've not regretted going from matte to glossy one bit.
I've seen some non-Apple laptops with 17" displays with 1440x900 max resolutions. Crazy.
I have a new MBP 13" and MBP 17"...and I came from a non-uni MBP 15". The 15" doesn't offer much more than the 13" in terms of resolution, but the 17" is saweet with it's 1920x1200 resolution.
IMHO I have the best of both worlds as I use the 13" for traveling, but can carry the 17" just about anywhere. My 13" has a glassy display while my 17" has the matte...both are great.
Besides, what's the point of the question? MBP 15s don't have that resolution.
That would definitely make the choice a bit harder. However, I would still go 17". I'm loving the matte screen on mine, and it feels like the perfect size now. The 15" MBP seems kinda small to me, and even on a 15" laptop with 1900 x 1200 resolution, it is still nowhere near as nice and useful as the 1900 x 1200 on this 17" screen.
I have a mid 2007 17" MBP | high res | matt screen. I did a comparison to the new 17" matt finish; the colors on the new MBP were richer/brighter but not over saturated. I then did the same comparison to the glossy 17" MBP, more or less the same conclusion.
However when comparing the 15" vs 17" glossy new MBPs, I noticed that the colors on the 15" were way too oversaturated and un-natural to me. I was in the market to potentialy downsize to more of a commuter notebook now that I recently purchased a 24" iMac. I just can't do it given the 15" display vs. what I currently have. The new mbp 17" high res display is outstanding!
Yes every time. I went from a 20" iMac to a 17" MBP last week and I couldn't go any smaller to be honest. I know it's not much but it still is bigger regardless of screen res. of either. Plus the 17" has 3 USB and the express slot so that adds to everything if things can down to more than the screen.
I'm sure most people that have a 15" MBP would say no but they don't or didn't need a 17" to begin with.
Yes. I did.
The 15 inch MBP is no larger than the previous gen and not that much smaller than the 17.
I sold my unibody 15 for the 17 because really its not that much larger in size.
That being said, I mainly use the 13 macbook when I travel.
Apple wasn't kidding when they said they made the thinnest, lightest 17-inch notebook on the market. The 17" not only weighs slightly less than my current 1-year old 15" Asus notebook, but is only an inch wider. The 17" is only 15.5" x 10.5" x .98", compared to my friend's 17" Dell which is 16" x 11.5" x 1.7"(almost twice as thick as the MBP!), not to mention it weighs more than EIGHT pounds.
You won't regret it. I was really close to getting the 15" because I was intimidated by the seemingly massive screen on the 17", only to realize that when it comes to desk space the 17" doesn't take up that much more than the 15", and is just as portable.
Only to go Surfing
The only thing I'd use a 17" laptop for would be to go surfing
No way. Macs are garbage and overpriced. I would never own one.
I'm moving from a 15" MBP to a 17" MBP once Snow Leopard is released.