15 or 17 inch

TriedandTested

TriedandTested

TriedandTested

Soldato
Joined
11 Jul 2004
Posts
16,116
Location
Neptune
I currently use a Mac Book at but will be upgrading to a Pro very soon.

Would you go for the biggest screen possible, or is 17" too large for a portable?

In an ideal world what would you buy? And why?

Thanks.
 
15". Well actually 15.4"

Don't bother with the 17" unless you need the optional 1920x1080 screen. It's a beast and too big to carry around.
 
It's not too big to carry at all. In fact there is very little between the two. Get the hi-def upgrade on the 17" and be a very happy chappy.

Panzer
 
There is not a lot between them size wise compared to the 15" one the 17" is only 3.5cm wider and 2cm deaper, I was comparing the 17" one to my trusty 4 year old Dell 15.4" Laptop that I have happily carried around and it was give or take identical in size. The MBP was still a little heavier though and it certainly likes to run hot even when not doing much.

Still undecided on buying one but chances are will be getting a 17" MBP with the high res screen and 7,200rpm drive. Guy in the shop said this is the most popular combination for the 17" model and I could have walked away with one there and then.
 
My sentiments exactly, the 15.4" models should be 1680x1050. My Acer Travelmate 8202 does it, why can't Apple? I'm also disappointed because even the 17" only has 3 USB ports. I realise FireWire is Apple's thing, but the majority of us use a lot of USB devices, and having to get the 17" just to have one less port than I already have on my Acer is a bit daft. I'm getting one too so it's one of the things I have to think about; is it worth spending about £200 getting 1680x1050 over 1440x900 and having 3 USB ports instead of 2.
 
AJUK said:
I love my 17 incher. :)

It's only too heavy if you are a girly girl.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

2cm is each direction is hardly a deal breaker, unless you like men.

If you need more USB ports, use a hub :p
 
I have the 17", it is my primary desktop computer.

I think it's great having the 17", it's great but may be a bit on the heavy size. The only downsides are the weight and if your using it on a train/plane etc...

Josh
 
Never had a problem with only 3 USB plugs but then I'm using Firewire for my External HDD. How many peripherals do you need at any one time?

I've got:

Mouse
Scanner
Printer

I'm struggling to think of anything else that you would need in there most of the time it's on a desk (bar an external HDD for which USB is slow anyway). I guess iPod would be useful but I just juggle the scanner and printer with other bits. It's not like I need everything plugged in at once. If I did I would do just as EVH suggested and get a hub...


Panzer
 
I have my keyboard plugged into one, my mouse goes in the keyboard. The other one leads to a hub which my hard drives, printer, iphone dock and so on are plugged into. Works for me :)

My macbook's either out and about, in which case all I have is the mouse, or on my desk in which case I can plug all my gumpf in easily.
 
Draeconis said:
My sentiments exactly, the 15.4" models should be 1680x1050. My Acer Travelmate 8202 does it, why can't Apple? I'm also disappointed because even the 17" only has 3 USB ports. I realise FireWire is Apple's thing, but the majority of us use a lot of USB devices, and having to get the 17" just to have one less port than I already have on my Acer is a bit daft. I'm getting one too so it's one of the things I have to think about; is it worth spending about £200 getting 1680x1050 over 1440x900 and having 3 USB ports instead of 2.
Click to expand...

One must assume that Apple have a reason for keeping the screen resolution down (other that cost cutting, of course :rolleyes: :D )

However, I agree with them not festooning their laptops with all sorts of ports like the land of PC laptops do. I lose count of how many PC laptops are ruined, at least atheistically, by ports seemingly in random locations. Never had a problem with shortage of USB on my MacBook.

Comparing the crap that is Acer against Apple, did you not check what forum you posted that in? ;) :p
 
LordSplodge said:
Exactly. A 17" laptop defeats the purpose. If you need that res buy an external monitor.
Click to expand...

I disagree as I need the res even when I'm out and about. No point carrying a 1920x1200 monitor with me in the field unless it's attached to the laptop. ;)

Bolted on to that is the fact that it acts as a desktop replacement when I'm at home and the 17" just makes sense.

The OP might not need the full res screen for what he's doing but I'm of the opinion that if the price difference isn't a problem, why settle for anything but the best?

Panzer
 
Panzerbjorn said:
why settle for anything but the best?
Click to expand...

The best in this instance isn't necessarily the most expensive option though, especially when portability is in question from the op.

I don't think 1900x1200 in a MBP is a waste, I'd love to have one, but I already find my 15" to be less than portable.
 
Fair point about most expensive not being the best depending on the circumstances.

I would still disagree that the 17" isn't portable. The only thing I would say is that it's bad for your back if you have a courier bag or sling-satchel, but that's easy to get around with a proper backpack.

Panzer
 
Slogan said:
I don't think 1900x1200 in a MBP is a waste, I'd love to have one, but I already find my 15" to be less than portable.
Click to expand...

13" or less seems to be portable for me. Anything else I find annoying. However, you have to compromise on screen size and resolution for portability.

If it doesn't need to move too much a 17" laptop is easier to move than a desktop!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom