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

Would you get a MBP if it's thicker, but more powerful?

Would you buy a thicker MBP if it's more powerful

  • Yes. I want more power than portability.

    Votes: 26 28.9%

  • No. I prefer portability over power.

    Votes: 64 71.1%
  • Total voters
    90
D

DivineEvil

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 7, 2009
202
0
I have a 13" MBP, and I love it.

I ordered a 2nd HDD caddy. This made me think.

What if the MBPs were let's say 1cm more thicker, but had more raw power in them. There will be more room for better cooling system hence, better CPU & GPU (dedicated perhaps), 2 or even 3 HDD bays, bigger built-in battery, more I/O ports (eSata, ExpressCard, TV tuners)... etc.

I personally would buy one, even if it weights 1-2 kg more.

So what do you think?
 
No, that'd be going backwards. The 13" MBP is perfect portability right now as it is. If it was 2kg heavier, carrying around on a 9 to 5 day would certainly not be a nice experience.
 
I'd have to say no too. One of the main reason people go to Macs is aesthetics. The iMac on the other hand.. i'd definitely trade a CM or two for quad-core all 'round.
 
Nope, I bought the MBP for its portability (and of course the OS). I could have gotten an Alienware for the same price with slightly better specs, but it was too bulky for my needs.
 
To a point. I'm planning to buy a 15" MBP in the spring. Would love the extra screen resolution on the 17", but it would probably never leave my desk. I could skip the drive bays and most of the extra ports, but more USB ports wouldn't hurt, and faster processors / better graphics cards would be sweet.
 
I guess it depends on how thick. I could live with a thickness up to the size of the aluminum Powerbook G4 to gain a few more ports or better GPU. But overall, no, I like the less-than-a-inch form factor.
 
bsamcash said:
I guess it depends on how thick. I could live with a thickness up to the size of the aluminum Powerbook G4 to gain a few more ports or better GPU. But overall, no, I like the less-than-a-inch form factor.
Click to expand...

The thickness I ment is 1 cm more... That is about the height if a 2.5" HDD.

Edit: 1cm=0.39"
 
The only thing I would change within reason is round off the sharp edges of the palm rest a bit...otherwise I am loving it. The 15" 2.53 is great for my needs and honestly probably more than I need but I bought it hoping it would be useful for a long time. I can totally see how others would need more however.

If I had to transport it a lot I'd have gone with an Air as I hate carrying heavy stuff.
 
DivineEvil said:
The thickness I ment is 1 cm more... That is about the height if a 2.5" HDD.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry. I didn't see that. I'm in class so I'm just overviewing. Haha.

But yeah, I wouldn't mind the option, though I don't personally need it.
 
Thickness wouldn't matter (within reason), esp if it gave even more battery time, but weight definitely matters. I don't see how you could make something bigger without weighing more.
 
No, the current crop of MacBook Pros are plenty powerful for my needs. adding weight/size for a faster computer would be a waste as I'd not really be taking advantage of the speed but I'll be saddled with the weight.
 
I was debating between an M17x and a Macbook Pro for a new laptop(needed one good enough to play games and record them) but when I saw that the M17x was 11lbs and 2" thick...no thanks.
 
Eddyisgreat said:
Can I see your schematics and renderings of such a feat?
Click to expand...

Just look at most notebooks of comparable prices from other brands.


This poll is definitely suffering from the inexplicable move by Apple to call the 13" alu MacBooks "MacBook Pros" - make no mistake, the 13"ers are simply MacBooks with nicer cases and are not "Pro" anything, so I'd agree that they shouldn't need to be any thicker.


But the 15" and 17" MBPs castrate themselves with their ridiculous thinness, there's absolutely no need for a Pro computer to be 1" thick when for a few more mm you can seriously increase performance.
 
Yixian said:
Just look at most notebooks of comparable prices from other brands.


This poll is definitely suffering from the inexplicable move by Apple to call the 13" alu MacBooks "MacBook Pros" - make no mistake, the 13"ers are simply MacBooks with nicer cases and are not "Pro" anything, so I'd agree that they shouldn't need to be any thicker.


But the 15" and 17" MBPs castrate themselves with their ridiculous thinness, there's absolutely no need for a Pro computer to be 1" thick when for a few more mm you can seriously increase performance.
Click to expand...
Definitely agree there, I also would prefer a thicker notebook with higher performance, but if you ask me, I would remove the optical drive and replace it with better components.
 
Yixian said:
Just look at most notebooks of comparable prices from other brands.


This poll is definitely suffering from the inexplicable move by Apple to call the 13" alu MacBooks "MacBook Pros" - make no mistake, the 13"ers are simply MacBooks with nicer cases and are not "Pro" anything, so I'd agree that they shouldn't need to be any thicker.


But the 15" and 17" MBPs castrate themselves with their ridiculous thinness, there's absolutely no need for a Pro computer to be 1" thick when for a few more mm you can seriously increase performance.
Click to expand...

What's your idea of "pro?" Does it have to fit any and all needs to be pro? It definitely has a pro LCD panel, and not many machines have FireWire 800 (no doubt a pro feature). Optical audio sure sounds "pro" to me.

So, what isn't "pro?" That lack of discrete graphics? Most pros who need those use desktops anyway.
 
If Toshiba of all people can squeeze a NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250M with 1GB GDDR5 and an Intel Core i7-720QM (with a Blu-Ray player btw, not that I'd care for one) into a 1.6" thick case...

I think Apple can deliver a lot more than the 4670 et al in a 1.3 or 1.4" MBP.

And before anyone mentions power consumption, the GTS 250M requires only 4 - 5W more than the 9600M GT, and is oh... 3x more powerful?

It's all about heat, somewhere between 1" and 1.3/1.4" you suddenly exclude all high end portable GPUs.

It really is a toss up purely between those 3 or 4 mm and 3x faster graphics.
 
Yixian said:
If Toshiba of all people can squeeze a NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250M with 1GB GDDR5 and an Intel Core i7-720QM (with a Blu-Ray player btw, not that I'd care for one) into a 1.6" thick case...

It really is a toss up purely between those 3 or 4 mm and 3x faster graphics.
Click to expand...

Who needs the power in a portable computer?
1GB VRAM in a notebook? I don't even have that much in my MacPro!

I understand that lot's of people use their laptops as a desktop computer (I myself did it for about a year), but the majority uses their laptop as a portable, which they are intended to be! I don't want to play Crysis in the train, but what I definitely need is a lightweight computer with a long lasting battery.

But that's just my two cents.

BTW:
What makes the 15/17" more a Pro than the 13"? The additional audio in?
People should stop calling themselves Pro just because their computer has such a label on it.
What you do with your computer is what makes you a Pro or not, not the name of your computer.
 
Transporteur, you're right, 1gb vram isn't necessary and I'm not asking for that, I'm asking for 512 rather than 256, I'm asking for current gen graphics capabilities, not last gens.

We pay more than enough for this and yet at the expense of a few mm we lack it.

If this is the way it's going to be, neither the 15" or 17" should be called "Pro", their priority clearly isn't performance.
 
I'm not familiar with the current generation notebooks of Apple, but I got a 4.1 in, I guess it was 2008, the last one before the unibody's, and even that had 512MB VRAM.

Did they reduce it to 256?
 
Yixian said:
Transporteur, you're right, 1gb vram isn't necessary and I'm not asking for that, I'm asking for 512 rather than 256, I'm asking for current gen graphics capabilities, not last gens.

We pay more than enough for this and yet at the expense of a few mm we lack it.

If this is the way it's going to be, neither the 15" or 17" should be called "Pro", their priority clearly isn't performance.
Click to expand...

Pro laptop =/= Gaming laptop.
 
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