Apple officially axes 17-inch MacBook Pro from notebook lineup

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 156
    dempsondempson Posts: 62member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    The PSU has gone from 65W to 85W (same as the 17"). That's massive change that makes me think a 17" MBP Retina Display with a 105W+ PSU just wouldn't work [...]


     


    The 15" MacBook Pro has always had an 85W adapter. The 13" model uses a 60W adapter.


     


    15" and 17" PowerBook G4 models used to have a 65W adapter, but both switched to 85W with the first MacBook Pro.

  • Reply 22 of 156
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    I won that bet.
  • Reply 23 of 156
    nceencee Posts: 857member


    With 4 (yes only 4) 17" laptops here, we'll be looking at other options. If we wanted smaller, we'd all have iPads … we want our 17" back!


     


    Skip


     


    Office has 23" & 30" monitors, 17" laptops, and small just doesn't work for us here. Of course if we're forced to go small -?

  • Reply 24 of 156
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


     


    Have you actually used a retina display, like on the iPad 3? A retina display is not about making text smaller or cramming more things on the desktop. A retina display is about making things look better, from text characters to pictures to whatever.


     


    And if I wanted a large screen size, I'd just hook up a macbook or even a tiny macbook air to a huge external monitor. To be honest, 17" is not all that big to begin with, when comparing it to external monitors.



     


    I've seen the new iPad. It shows exactly the same amount of information as the iPad 2 just sharper. If the MBP retina display will only be used to make existing stuff sharper and clearer then there's a huge loss of screen real estate. If you use all the new resolution just to make the old 1440x900 content look nicer then you're still looking at just 1440x900 worth of stuff on your screen. With just 1.6" more physical screen size, I've got 1920x1200 quite comfortably displayed.


     


    If a "desktop replacement" is supposed to free you from your desk, then it needs to offer sufficient screen real estate to make that a practical option. If you have to plug in a large external display then you you're tied to a desk. I can't take my 23" external display with me to meetings.


     


    I'm still disappointed that Apple didn't introduce a MacBook Pro with a small SSD boot drive and a traditional HD for affordable, high capacity storage.

  • Reply 25 of 156
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,389member


    First, the 17" usually took 2-3 months later than the rest to be updated.  15" first, 17" later.  No one knows if it will be killed for good.


     


    Second, if they didn't sell enough to exist, too bad.  It must be the screen size that the pros (both of them) like about the 17" because the retina 15" obviously has more pixels.  My guess is Apple is testing the HiDPI market to see if it should develop Retina displays for its other machines.  That or it just takes time to make those suckers.


     


    Third, screen real estate is pixels, not size.  The pixels are still tiny and there.  Why do people keep saying it isn't actual screen real estate?  Updated apps will take full advantage of every pixel the Retina display has.  If you want to view a 12pixel font at 1x it will be effing TINY (TINY?), not "the same size" as a non-retina display.  Icons will be bigger so you can see them and use them.  The user interface will be bigger so you can use it, but a pixel is still a pixel (again, for updated apps only).


     


    Fourth: Stop whining!

  • Reply 26 of 156
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member


    I'm over 40. EVERYTHING is a retina display for me :-\


     


    I don't know what I'll do without a 17" model in the lineup... except hang onto my current 17" MBP longer. Surely *THAT* isn't what Apple wants. Oh well. Saves money, I suppose.

  • Reply 27 of 156
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,389member


    Let the 1.7% of people who supposedly bought this start bitching up a storm....I personally would rather have one of the new 15" MBP's (next gen). 

  • Reply 28 of 156
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    <p>
    The title of this thread is misleading and false. The facts as stated imply that Apple has unofficially dropped the 17" MacBook Pro. To officially drop the its top-of-the-line laptop, Apple would have to announce that it was doing so.</p>
  • Reply 29 of 156


    I can foresee a 20" flexible rubber magnifying glass to expand the 15" monitor -- seems like the retrofitting we saw in Terry Gilliam's dystopian film "Brazil" is going to be prophetic.


     


    Apple: "No, you don't really want 17" so you have enough screen real estate to do FCP or After Effects without a projector..."


     


    Hopefully, portable monitors are going to get ultra thin as well. I can use 15" when I'm not doing anything intensive -- but I this isn't putting the "Pro" in pro user.

  • Reply 30 of 156


    All of you people who love your 17" Mac Books do have an option to extend the useful lives of them. Buy more RAM and a good solid state drive. Your machine will seem newer and it will work just as well as one update cycle. When components start to fail you'll just have to find a suitable replacement or keep your older software and fix your hardware. You could do research and create a Hackintosh with a different brand or perhaps switch to a different OS that isn't Windows (Linux) and see what you can do.

  • Reply 31 of 156
    tommcintommcin Posts: 108member


    I bought my 17" to get the screen size when working away from my dual screen desktop system.  The pixel density is more than enough and retina would be nice but far from essential.  The 15" retina will look sharp but are there enough square inches to support all the great image editing software.  Only time will tell.  An upgrade of the existing model would have been my preferred choice until the resources can support a 17" retina.

  • Reply 32 of 156
    gustavgustav Posts: 826member
    bregalad wrote: »
    I've seen the new iPad. It shows exactly the same amount of information as the iPad 2 just sharper. If the MBP retina display will only be used to make existing stuff sharper and clearer then there's a huge loss of screen real estate.

    That's only true for text. FCP X, for example, can show full pixel-for-pixel 1080p video and still only use 40% of the screen. For graphics, it shows more information. For text, it shows sharper information.
  • Reply 33 of 156
    onglongl Posts: 4member


    It almost burnt me once last year where I thought 17" was killed only to surface a couple months later.  Honestly, Screen is one of the most imporant elements in a (portable computer). I have both 17" and MBA.  MBA is light and super portable but I only use it for emails and browsing as the screen is less desirable to do serious work.


     


    Given the MBP is shrinking to Air-like model, a 17" would be perfect for those who value screen.

  • Reply 34 of 156
    aestivalaestival Posts: 69member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post


    All of you people who love your 17" Mac Books do have an option to extend the useful lives of them. Buy more RAM and a good solid state drive. Your machine will seem newer and it will work just as well as one update cycle. When components start to fail you'll just have to find a suitable replacement or keep your older software and fix your hardware. You could do research and create a Hackintosh with a different brand or perhaps switch to a different OS that isn't Windows (Linux) and see what you can do.



    Or I could just use my brand new 17" MacBook Pro for the blistering fast machine that it is. You're right about more RAM (16GB) and a good solid state drive (bought one of OWC's fastest), but I fully expect it to be running OS X for several years to come. Heck, I still have my decade-old third-to-last Mac laptop here in the office running OS X (and more importantly some ancient legacy stuff in OS9), only somewhat slow and ragged in its titanium case (definitely not a high-res screen though).


     


    I'm just glad I got one before they stopped selling them; I definitely called that one right.

  • Reply 35 of 156
    misamisa Posts: 827member


    I'm personally waiting for a new Mac Pro.


     


    However I always consider the laptops, mac mini's etc, but I'm waiting for USB3+TB+PCIe3 before I consider the Pro. There's no PCIe3 in the mini, so it' drops down the list of what I want to buy, and that leaves the MacBook Pro.


     


    I have never considered the MacBook Pro before because it didn't beat what my old 2004 Laptop had, a 1920x1200 screen in a 15" laptop. This was only available in the 17" and ... no, I won't consider a 17" laptop. So no loss here.


     


    But I think Apple made a mistake with removing the Ethernet port and not adding another TB port at least. If you're capturing video you're going to have some combination of monitors, cameras and hard drives, and not all of those are going to run on the same bus and play nice. 

  • Reply 36 of 156
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member


    It has the screen resolution required to show everything required in enhanced apps.  For many pros that's good enough...1080p native in a window for FCP or larger images in Photoshop etc.  For us old blind guys it's no worse than the current 15" MBP for the UI and text.


     


    The big thing that was in the 17" MBP that wasn't in the 15" MBP (aside from the screen rez) was expandability.  That 2nd TB port is hugely valuable for many pros over the non-retina MBP.  It means less of a slowdown when using multiple offboard cards...like a Rocket card.  And 16GB of RAM is a great bump...I really need this.


     


    A retina 17" MBP would be doubly awesome.  So would a 13" retina MBP with a discrete GPU.  I expect the latter (including the GPU part) and hope for the former. 

  • Reply 37 of 156
    superdxsuperdx Posts: 67member


    I have a 17" MB Pro. Bought it sometime last year, put gobs of RAM and upgraded the HDD to a screaming fast SSD. It's probably the smoothest laptop I've ever owned. But I find I don't use it much at all. When I'm out, I usually carry my 13" MBA instead. The thing is pretty darn heavy, it's got its uses but the cost was fairly high. 

  • Reply 38 of 156
    drekkadrekka Posts: 3member


    I remember reading that Apple only sold around 50,000 unit per year of the 17". I don't know the profit margin, but it must be small enough that once R&D production costs, etc are factored out, there is not much left. 


     


    Will miss the 17". I've had two now and despite the trouble of finding a suitable backpack for carting it to work everyday, I'd buy another. That extra screen space is worth every cent. 

  • Reply 39 of 156


    Aww crap. I sure hope they will just wait a few months before introducing the 'new' 17"er like they did in the past.


    One thought, is the Retina display one available in a matte finish? Hmmmmmmm...... I need the matte finish! And the Express Card slot is a great feature.


    I guess it's a good thing Apple replaced my 2010 17" model with the latest/greatest because of a graphics problem last month. Should last me a few years.


    Now, what's with the Mac Pro?!?!


    PLEASE DON'T KILL THE REAL PRO COMPUTERS APPLE!!

  • Reply 40 of 156
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    I do wonder how useful the retina display will be for current video projects.


    I doubt it will be but it will sure be nice to have.
Sign In or Register to comment.