Apple's next-gen 17-inch MacBook Pro due in a few months

[AppleInsider]

Apple on Tuesday introduced its next-generation 13-inch MacBooks and 15-inch MacBook Pros but was unable to ramp production of its new 17-inch model, which is now expected to make an appearance by early next year.

In a series of last minute reports received by AppleInsider leading up to Tuesday's events, people now proven to be familiar with the matter had attempted to reset expectations for the 15-inch model's larger cousin by explaining that it would take Apple "several months" to release the systems to manufacturing.

While those people provided little color on the issue, a report published by MacNN earlier this week noted two problems that appear to have plagued the new notebook. Specifically, the site reported that the "initial run of 17-inch models have both optical drive and display issues, which will delay shipments."

Since then, AppleInsider has received corroborating reports that there was some form of delay affecting the new 17-inch models, which would have ideally made their debut this week had matters played out differently. Those people reported sightings of the larger model undergoing tests in Apple's labs, and as would be expected, they resemble a slightly larger version of the new 15-inch MacBook Pro.

As avid readers may recall, this isn't the first time that a 17-inch MacBook Pro missed the first boat out of China. The situation was nearly identical back in 2006 when Apple introduced its first ever MacBook Pro at the Macworld Expo in January.

Like this week's introductions, the 2006 MacBook Pro represented a major architectural design overhaul that delivered the first Intel processors in an Apple notebook. The Mac maker elected to focus its resources on completing the higher volume 15-inch model, which it began shipping with faster processors than initially announced a little over a month later. In late April, about three months after the 15-inch MacBook Pro made its debut, Apple introduced the first 17-inch MacBook Pro.

In the meantime, Apple has refreshed its existing 17-inch MacBook Pro, which now comes standard with a high resolution 1920 x 1200 LED-backlit display and a larger 320GB hard drive or an optional 128GB solid state drive. The model includes a 2.5 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 6MB shared L2 cache and retails for $2799.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Strawberry]

I was hoping this was the case. I'll keep my notes in my wallet for the moment as I need a bigger screen.

[retroneo]

They upgraded the display to be LED and 1920 x 1200 standard. You also still have the choice of an antiglare display.

It's the only choice for people who need an antiglare display.

[sigs21]

Originally Posted by retroneo

They upgraded the display to be LED and 1920 x 1200 standard. You also still have the choice of an antiglare display.

It's the only choice for people who need an antiglare display.

I work with Photoshop and edited all day long.. with a glossy mac.. why would anyone require a antiglare display.. subdues the colors... PS I am a professional sports photographer.

[kjacobi]

Just in time to sell everything I own!

[jawporta]

My last chance for an anti-glair screen, I better save up quick.

[Alonso Perez]

I don't believe the current white MacBook will sell for that much longer. I'd guess that by around February or so it will be replaced by an aluminum MacBook, perhaps with black plastic top and/or bottom covers, but with the same aluminum structure (this would be the reported "two-tone" model). The 17" might be introduced at this same time, and at that point all MacBook lines would be "brick" based. Some minor uprates might occur at this point to the CPU, disks, included RAM, and so forth, especially to the $1299 MacBook. Or if the recession starts to hammer, sales prices might downtick by $100 or $200 for some models.

The entry level brick MacBook would be $999, I would guess, with roughly the same specs as the current $1299 model, perhaps less disk space (120?), and minus the superdrive? Or the others get bluray? Anyway, I just don't see the MacBook lines remaining split for very long. It's not cool. It makes sense that they are starting with the more expensive models, to recoup their investment, and while unit prices with the new process are at the beginning of their manufacturing curve. Over time the process will get cheaper.

I think prices were kept high on this intro because of the holiday season and because the decision was probably made a few weeks ago. Jobs isn't one to go by the stock market. They will probably wait for an actual retail impact before they get aggressive on prices. Even then, they are likely to use rebates or combos rather than price drops.

What I'd really, really like is a $1599, 15" MacBook. No independent GPU, no FireWire, no backlit keyboard, but 15". I don't need the screaming 3D speed or other Pro features. It's an eyesight issue. Small screens are too much strain. Honestly though, I doubt this will ever happen. They'd sell a ton of them though.

[EauVive]

I wonder if these "optical drive" and "display" issues can really be real?

Optical drive issue? What could be wrong with 17" that is okay with 15" and 13"? Unless Apple wanted to offer BlueRay drives, and they backed off due to some unexpected behaviour???

Display issue makes me perplex too. Either they have problems producing the glass cover of that size, or they wanted to increase the resolution and hit a point where the defect rate is still too high. I don't think the graphics processor is buggy, so I am at a loss figuring out something else.

Strange.

[robb01]

Originally Posted by kjacobi

Just in time to sell everything I own!

same here

_______________

[Alonso Perez]

Originally Posted by EauVive

I wonder if these "optical drive" and "display" issues can really be real?

Optical drive issue? What could be wrong with 17" that is okay with 15" and 13"? ...

Display issue makes me perplex too...

Strange.

Now that you raise this, it does sound bogus to me. Probably a manufacturing ramp issue. They might be saving a lot of money by staging rather than going whole hog from the get go. Or maybe they have a lot of 17" parts in their inventory.

[MacTel]

Originally Posted by Strawberry

I was hoping this was the case. I'll keep my notes in my wallet for the moment as I need a bigger screen.

I thought that was it too.

It would be nice if they surprised everyone and came out with an 18" one instead of 17".

[JeffDM]

Now that it's not locked with the others, I would expect late March, early April. Apple has updated their 17" and other pro computer models a few times in the previous years in that time frame. It might be something new to show off at NAB. If they continue their previous 24 month product cycle on Final Cut, Final Cut Studio should be available at that time.

Apple didn't have a booth at this year's NAB, but I think that's in part because they didn't have anything new to show off, there's no point in spending millions to show off the previous year's products. But FCS 3, a new 17" pro notebook, maybe Final Cut Server 1.5 is probably enough to make it worth a booth there next year.

[EauVive]

Originally Posted by Alonso Perez

Now that you raise this, it does sound bogus to me. Probably a manufacturing ramp issue. They might be saving a lot of money by staging rather than going whole hog from the get go. Or maybe they have a lot of 17" parts in their inventory.

Maybe also their "brick" process is not yet mature for 17". It's difficult to figure out when you see the video, but maybe the final result exceeds their internal tolerancies. Who knows?

[aaarrrgggh]

I'll stick with my netbook fanboism:
Any chance at a 8" brick laptop with the same design concept for MWSF? Looking at the logic board size, skipping the optical drive would give you plenty of space to make it work, but I'd guess you would be down to a single USB port, mag safe, ethernet, and mini display port if they kept everything on one side.

[dwcarrigan]

I noticed on Apple's website that the 17" Macbook Pro has theNVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 512MB and the 15" has the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT with 512MB. What's the difference? I use my laptop for my FCP edit and need any boost in performance I can get so I'm wondering should I forego the 17" screen for the more "robust" GFX performance in the 15"?

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by EauVive

Maybe also their "brick" process is not yet mature for 17". It's difficult to figure out when you see the video, but maybe the final result exceeds their internal tolerancies. Who knows?

It is a bigger part. It might be three different parts, I don't know if the base and the lid are also machined the same way. The same fixtures probably can't be used for the larger one. It may be that they felt they needed to focus their efforts on their two more popular sizes when the slightest hiccup came along.

[THT]

Originally Posted by dwcarrigan

I noticed on Apple's website that the 17" Macbook Pro has theNVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 512MB and the 15" has the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT with 512MB. What's the difference? I use my laptop for my FCP edit and need any boost in performance I can get so I'm wondering should I forego the 17" screen for the more "robust" GFX performance in the 15"?

The GeForce 9600M is about 40% faster than the GeForce 8600M. Currently, Mac OS X can only use one GPU at a time on the MBP. You either use the integrated 9400M (which is about 50% slower than the 8600M) or the 9600M. You have to log out and in to enact the change. Using the 9600M will cost you an hour of battery life.

Maybe when Snow Leopard comes out, Apple will enable people to use both CPUs in an SLI type mode.

[pixelcruncher]

Guess I'll wait and see if an anti-glare screen shows up. How about a little love for the pros, Apple?

[StLBluesFan]

Originally Posted by sigs21

I work with Photoshop and edited all day long.. with a glossy mac.. why would anyone require a antiglare display.. subdues the colors... PS I am a professional sports photographer.

The whys have been convered ad naseum in other threads so I'll simply add;

There are anyones who use MBPs where lights or sun cause glare problems that can't be resolved by "readjusting" the MBP. Many anyones use MBs for other than graphics editing. As Apple is so fond of pointing out, there are many divergent uses of the MBP, including running Windows. We are not the Borg. Choice is a good thing.

[Skepicus]

"Apple's next-gen 17-inch MacBook Pro due in a few months"

Grrr....That sounds more like "Macworld" than this year.

I need a 17 for the video work I do, the HD native res and the screen real estate. I really can't see paying $3K for the current model, with its somewhat flimsy case, and old GPU, especially since the Pro apps use the GPU so much. And I'm hoping that Apple will wise up and make the 17 faster than the 15 inch, rather than just use the extra space for larger speakers

Oh, and please, keep the anti-glare. Glossy == evil.

[L255J]

Are there really that many people out there who need an anti-glare display?

[dahacouk]

Any idea if the MacBook Air will get the new glass trackpad any time soon?...

[pixelcruncher]

Are there really that many people out there who need an anti-glare display?

If your work requires you to sit in front of the computer for 12-hour stretches, it helps. If you take your laptop into your client's workspace where you have no control over your environment, it helps. If you work in a collaborative environment where others are trying to look at your screen off-axis, it helps. If you work on material that requires you to distinguish between very subtle shades of dark colors and black, it helps. In other words, if you work in design, illustration, photography, advertising, film and video production, it helps.

[Alonso Perez]

You can get by with a lot of things, like a two year old MBP, for example.

The question is whether the benefits of a new machine are compelling enough. There are pluses and minuses, and the fact that we can't opt out from glossy is a definite minus. So if you are iffy about upgrading, you won't, or you'll wait for some other feature to clinch the deal for you in the next update.

[jrui]

Based on this image:


By imm22 at 2008-10-15

I've made de following calculations, and conclude that in the first image we can see the future macbook 17" already in manufacturing


By imm22 at 2008-10-15

Please take in consideration that I only want to proof that a BIGGER MACBOOK pro in on the way. It can even be bigger that the 17" (Personally I don't think that), the only variable is the 100mm of the space bar key.

[dreamraj]

whoa!!

[jdmlight]

Originally Posted by Alonso Perez

What I'd really, really like is a $1599, 15" MacBook. No independent GPU, no FireWire, no backlit keyboard, but 15". I don't need the screaming 3D speed or other Pro features. It's an eyesight issue. Small screens are too much strain. Honestly though, I doubt this will ever happen. They'd sell a ton of them though.

Yes, sorta like I need the power of a MacBook Pro but would rather a smaller screen, so a 12" MacBook Pro would be perfect for me. They'd sell a ton of those too.

More choice is always a good thing...

Oh and my $.02 on glossy - the biggest problem with glossy is this quote from Apple: "You offset the reflection by the brightness." This DOES work; however, guess what part of a laptop sucks the most power? The display backlight is the main culprit. This is why you can get considerably longer battery life by turning down the backlight on your LCD. If Apple were to do extended-life batteries or something along those lines to compensate, it'd be fine. As it stands, I am happy with my last-gen non-glossy 15" MBP.

[digiology]

Originally Posted by Alonso Perez

What I'd really, really like is a $1599, 15" MacBook. No independent GPU, no FireWire, no backlit keyboard, but 15". I don't need the screaming 3D speed or other Pro features. It's an eyesight issue. Small screens are too much strain. Honestly though, I doubt this will ever happen. They'd sell a ton of them though.

I agree! Paying 2 grand for a reasonable sized screen is silly, my mom bought a pc with a 15" screen for $650, not a macbook pro but it goes to show that apple can afford it.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

As avid readers may recall, this isn't the first time that a 17-inch MacBook Pro missed the first boat out of China.

According to "Sir" Steve, they ship them here on planes. First Class, no doubt.

[ecking]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Now that it's not locked with the others, I would expect late March, early April. Apple has updated their 17" and other pro computer models a few times in the previous years in that time frame. It might be something new to show off at NAB. If they continue their previous 24 month product cycle on Final Cut, Final Cut Studio should be available at that time.

Apple didn't have a booth at this year's NAB, but I think that's in part because they didn't have anything new to show off, there's no point in spending millions to show off the previous year's products. But FCS 3, a new 17" pro notebook, maybe Final Cut Server 1.5 is probably enough to make it worth a booth there next year.

That's exactly what I'm thinking, it makes the most sense. Maybe by then the mac pro will have display port on it's stock card and the 20 and 30 inch displays will see a refresh to the new enclosure at the same time.

[TenoBell]

Originally Posted by Skepicus

"Apple's next-gen 17-inch MacBook Pro due in a few months"

Grrr....That sounds more like "Macworld" than this year.

I need a 17 for the video work I do, the HD native res and the screen real estate. I really can't see paying $3K for the current model, with its somewhat flimsy case, and old GPU, especially since the Pro apps use the GPU so much. And I'm hoping that Apple will wise up and make the 17 faster than the 15 inch, rather than just use the extra space for larger speakers

Oh, and please, keep the anti-glare. Glossy == evil.

You aren't really supposed to be doing crucial color work in a bright room any way. You are supposed to be in a low lit setting. So that the ambient light around you doesn't bias your eye.

The CPU is usually faster in the 17". But Intel won't have anything faster than 2.8GHz for mobile until late next year.

[Jaddie]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

But Intel won't have anything faster than 2.8GHz for mobile until late next year.

Dear TenoBell & Friends

I thought Intel was presently shipping 3.06GHz mobile processors. I'm certain those processors are being advertised on Lenovo's site.

I thought that if Intel was letting the other hardware vendors have 3.06, Apple would be the first to ship a notebook with something faster than that as part of an exclusive arrangement with Intel.

Believe it or not, I'm still getting by with my seven-year-old 1GHz 15" PowerBook G4, but I have a 3GHz dual-quad Mac Pro with 9GB of RAM and a 30" Cinema Display for editing images. I browse and write with the PowerBook and leave the heavy lifting to the Mac Pro.

But my wife and I plan to upgrade to the new 17" when it's available. John Gruber's hunch is that the 17" might be phased out, and that scared me. I'd like to have a 19" or 20" MacBook Pro if such existed.

--Jaddie

[Skepicus]

Originally Posted by Jaddie

But my wife and I plan to upgrade to the new 17" when it's available. John Gruber's hunch is that the 17" might be phased out, and that scared me. I'd like to have a 19" or 20" MacBook Pro if such existed.

Indeed, I was a tad worried that the 17" (or any larger laptop) was being End of Life'd altoghether, hence my avid interest in this thread. My 1 GHz TiBk still works fine, but it is PowerPC and the GPU doesn't work even with older versions of Motion, nor the CPU with newer Intel Only Mac Aps. A 17" is what I need, so the lack of one was a real disapointment, and we can expect that the won't be coming any earlier than December, since some products for November were announced on Tuesday. So, it seems highly possible they'll hold out until Macworld SF in January rather than a December release, but one can hope.

[jrui]

Originally Posted by Skepicus

Indeed, I was a tad worried that the 17" (or any larger laptop) was being End of Life'd altoghether, hence my avid interest in this thread. My 1 GHz TiBk still works fine, but it is PowerPC and the GPU doesn't work even with older versions of Motion, nor the CPU with newer Intel Only Mac Aps. A 17" is what I need, so the lack of one was a real disapointment, and we can expect that the won't be coming any earlier than December, since some products for November were announced on Tuesday. So, it seems highly possible they'll hold out until Macworld SF in January rather than a December release, but one can hope.

Take a look at this post
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=25

[stembridge]

I'm probably the lone voice crying in the wilderness here, but when I got my work MBP 17 two years ago, I decided to try the glossy screen, as I give a lot of presentations in addition to industrial and graphic design (often dealing with color for our product trade dress). I like the more vibrant color with the glossy screen, and there have only been a few times in two years that glare issues were bad enough that I had to physically relocate to address it.

I guess it's not been a huge issue for me, certainly not anywhere near the problem everyone keeps griping about...

es

[Gucky]

Originally Posted by L255J

Are there really that many people out there who need an anti-glare display?

If you mean people that absolutely *hate* the glossy displays, then it sure sounds like it. What do you mean by "need" anyway? If you mean, they would be unable to get their work done, the answer is probably "no." OTOH, if you mean people that hate having to deal with excessive reflections and are sensitive to them, there are probably hordes. I am one of them. I want the choice and as a consumer it's an easy one for me. Even though I generally love Apple's hardware, the glossy-only choice is a showstopper for me. I also want 8 GiB of RAM and a 500+ GB hard drive. I have 4 GiB and 320 GB now. I would like to see a blu-ray drive, too. I further think that the new MacBook Pro models are much uglier than the old ones. I *hate* the black keyboard and the black border around the display. Fortunately I can hold off for now and if I don't like the 17" MacBook Pro early next year and it doesn't have a matte display I'll probably go with another 15" laptop that I can run Ubuntu Linux on. Yes, I am one of the tiny minority who, apart from the nice hardware, bought a Mac because I use and love Unix.

[mjteix]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

But Intel won't have anything faster than 2.8GHz for mobile until late next year.

There's a Core 2 Duo T9800 planned for Q1 2009 and it will run at 2.93GHz with FSB 1066 and 6MB cache, $530. T means 35W, cool enough for any MBP. There is also a 2.66 model planned as well as speedbumps/price cuts planned for Q1 2009 (which could mean late march 2009). There is aslo a 35W quad-core at 2.00GHz in the works ($530?).

So plenty of possible speedbump for a Spring update of all mobile/hybrid Macs.

[MuncyWeb]

Originally Posted by jdmlight

Yes, sorta like I need the power of a MacBook Pro but would rather a smaller screen, so a 12" MacBook Pro would be perfect for me. They'd sell a ton of those too.

More choice is always a good thing...

Oh and my $.02 on glossy - the biggest problem with glossy is this quote from Apple: "You offset the reflection by the brightness." This DOES work; however, guess what part of a laptop sucks the most power? The display backlight is the main culprit. This is why you can get considerably longer battery life by turning down the backlight on your LCD. If Apple were to do extended-life batteries or something along those lines to compensate, it'd be fine. As it stands, I am happy with my last-gen non-glossy 15" MBP.

Yes, I can just hear my grandmother now if she were to watch the MacBook video. "What's that little line across the screen?"



It's funny, the people that like the glossy screens say it's not a problem and usually reference ambient lighting as the culprit of glare. They often say, "move it, and you won't have a problem." But Apple, in it's advertisements with glossy screens does not make an effort to reduce the effect of the glare. Instead they make an effort to be SURE that you see that glare effect on the screen (above). They want to be sure we know that that screen is so shiny you can practically use it as a mirror. In fact, one could almost say that this is so important to Apple that they are willing to sacrifice the promotion of screen quality and clarity, just to show that the screen is shiny. As you can see, to the left of the "shine line" above we see clarity and to the right we see washed out color.

I really like these new MacBooks, but Apple still has some work to do. Just my thoughts.

[Jaddie]

Originally Posted by mjteix

There's a Core 2 Duo T9800 planned for Q1 2009 and it will run at 2.93GHz with FSB 1066 and 6MB cache, $530. T means 35W, cool enough for any MBP. There is also a 2.66 model planned as well as speedbumps/price cuts planned for Q1 2009 (which could mean late march 2009). There is aslo a 35W quad-core at 2.00GHz in the works ($530?).

Dear mjteix & Friends

What's the fastest processor available for mobile computers right now?

Here's a screenshot from Lenovo's site relating to a ThinkPad configuration. I thought 3.06GHz was the fastest available non-quad-core chip.



--Jaddie

[roehlstation]

Originally Posted by sigs21

I work with Photoshop and edited all day long.. with a glossy mac.. why would anyone require a antiglare display.. subdues the colors... PS I am a professional sports photographer.

To get a better representation of what the colors will look like when printed. Pantone colors look very different on the two displays, but the printer calibration is easier on the non glossy screen.