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

WWDC 2021 - Would You Consider a 17" M1X/ M2 MBP?

Would you revisit an Apple Silicon 17" / 18" MBP?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
groove-agent

groove-agent

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jan 13, 2006
1,925
1,820
I remember having a 17" MBP and at the time thought it was a little on the heavy side to carry around. However, In the light of WWDC 2021 and the new Silicon Macs, I was wondering about the possibility of them revisiting the 17" (18"?) MBP?

I think the weight would be quite a bit less and my eyes aren't getting better so I think I would be into getting a 17/18". How about the rest of you?
 
I have a 17" Late 2011 MBP.

While I generally like to only use desktops, and my laptops are mostly used in clamshell mode with an external keyboard, mouse, and monitor, the time using my 17" MBP is by far the best experience I have had with a laptop.

It still isn't a desktop, but the large screen almost made it feel like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: groove-agent and rpmurray
Really nothing keeping them from going bezel-less, keeping same form factor, and bumping both 13 >> 14 & 16 >>17.

Not putting my money on it, but that would likely be the move if it ever happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerryk
Spanther said:
Really nothing keeping them from going bezel-less, keeping same form factor, and bumping both 13 >> 14 & 16 >>17.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they did with 15" to 16". There is simply not enough laptop there to make the display even larger, the bezel is already less than 5mm...
 
No, the 16-inch is already a brick with a big footprint. Using more efficient silicon means less cooling, but you still need a big battery to power a 17-inch display.
 
I saw a 17” Dell XPS with the infinity edge screen and it looked amazing. I guess it depends on how much portability you need. Before I used to take my laptop everywhere I went in a bag - that got tiring. These days I work from home and take the laptop from room to room so a 17” would be more practical for me now.
 
Why not? More options for the consumer the better. If you use your laptop primarily as a desktop replacement than going with a larger screen would be a great idea. It's not optimal for mobility but a 17" would have mobile capabilities, which is all that counts for some users. For infrequent travelers or work commute people, such an option would be great. After all, one cannot travel with an iMac to work and back.
 
Never mind said:
This question is mute. Apple will not do this. 😜
Click to expand...
moot

JPack said:
No, the 16-inch is already a brick with a big footprint. Using more efficient silicon means less cooling, but you still need a big battery to power a 17-inch display.
Click to expand...
16" is 24% lighter than the 15" of the last generation of 17" MBP's. A current 17" with a similar weight loss would be right at 5 lb. And there's nothing stopping Apple from shaving more weight with a revised chassis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DesertDrummer
15"-16" seems to be the best compromise for a travel laptop. The screen is almost large enough that you can use the laptop productively without an external monitor. At the same time, the laptop is almost small enough that you can use it comfortably on a plane.

17"-18" would probably be nicer on extended trips, but the laptop would be too big to use in a typical long haul premium economy seat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falhófnir
I saw the new m1 iMac at the Apple store today and it almost feels like a cardboard prop. It’s so lite weight that my dog could knock it off the table
 
  • Like
Reactions: baypharm
right now I use a 13-inch M1 air as my main portable device for everyday use. But as Netflix/YouTube/Garageband and storage device I still prefer my maxed out (16GB ram/2TB SSD/ i7 2,4) 17-inch pro from 2011. So I would definitely consider a new 17-18 pro.
 
Never mind said:
This question is mute. Apple will not do this. 😜
Click to expand...
MedRed said:
moot
Click to expand...
You're both wrong.

It's a moo point.

1622989616089.png
 
leman said:
Apple is now building faster hardware that allows it to improve performance while making things smaller. Why would they introduce larger laptops?
Click to expand...

The benefit of the 17" was never "performance". It was mostly the same options as the 15", but with a bigger screen, and slightly more/different ports (i.e. 3x USB2 over 2x, and ExpressCard slot over SDXC)


Spanther said:
Really nothing keeping them from going bezel-less, keeping same form factor, and bumping both 13 >> 14 & 16 >>17.

Not putting my money on it, but that would likely be the move if it ever happened.
Click to expand...

I mean.. nothing except physics. The 15" that became the 16" was in fact a 15.4". It used some of the existing 'bezel' space to increase by .6" / 15mm. While there may be additional bezel space around it, I don't imagine there's enough to increase by another inch diagonally.

JouniS said:
17"-18" would probably be nicer on extended trips, but the laptop would be too big to use in a typical long haul premium economy seat.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure "is this usable on an airplane" is the only factor that decides what size laptops a vendor makes.
 
If they could create a minimal footprint/weight 17" and sit it alongside a similar 15" that, along with a 13" Air, would probably be the ideal streamlined Apple Silicon lineup. A 17" would basically become a portable in a pinch desktop replacement, while the 15" would regain the size/weight benefits that were shed when it moved to 16". The 13" Air would be the ultimate portable and still have more power than an Intel MBP.
 
PeterJP said:
No, the 16" is already too big to haul to work and back. And anyway, 16 to 17 inch is only the same as 13 to 14 inch so for Apple, they'll consider that base covered.
Click to expand...
I do not agree. 16 to 17 inch is 20% more screen area! I would love it and replace my (maxed out – yes 8 TB) 16 inch with no hesitance.
 
Eliott69 said:
I do not agree. 16 to 17 inch is 20% more screen area! I would love it and replace my (maxed out – yes 8 TB) 16 inch with no hesitance.
Click to expand...
To be precise, it's 15%. Here's the calculations, assuming all 16:10 screens:
13.3” diagonal = 28.6x17.9cm = 513cm2
14” diagonal = 30.2x18.8cm = 568cm2
So the 14” is almost 11% larger in surface area.

16.1” diagonal = 34.7x21.7cm = 752cm2
17.3” diagonal = 37.3x23.3cm = 868cm2
So the 17” is just over 15% larger in surface area.

Of course, you're right that an inch extra makes more difference with bigger screens. But nobody will ever notice a difference of 4% extra gain in screen space.

Anyway, good for you that a big laptop works for you. What I would love is the 16” but with a reduced weight. The screen size is very nice to work with. It's the general bulk of having to carry it around...
 
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