Which top end Mac laptop?

timbob

timbob

timbob

Soldato
Joined
27 Nov 2002
Posts
3,121
Question for a friend really, they're after a top spec mac laptop - but I've never been really into apple hardware...

What's top end, top spec, "the one to have" these days in the world of Mac Books?
 
I'm going to say that the 15.4" is excluded from being a top-end laptop for having such a sorry screen resolution (and pixel density as follows) for 2009.
 
wush said:
I'm going to say that the 15.4" is excluded from being a top-end laptop for having such a sorry screen resolution (and pixel density as follows) for 2009.
Click to expand...

Not an issue! Its certainly not a deal breaker.

If you have enough money to spend on a £1500 Laptop if you need more desktop space then you get a 1920x1200 24" or greater.

Having used a 1680x1050 laptop and a 1440x900 laptop its in no shame or form a deal breaker.
 
Not worth paying the extra going for a 3.06 over a 2.8 either.
I'd get the 17" macbook pro. better screen and higher res. Also comes with the Express card slot. Very handy if you want to add an eSata adaptor. Great battery life too. Over 8 hours just browsing.
 
Well worth it. Get a 24" LED Cinema display as well when you have the cash. Don't forget the aluminium mStand for your pro either, a wireless mac keyboard and mighty mouse, and of course a set of Bose Companion 3 Series II speaker :) And for storage, I recommend the 4tb WD Mybook Studio. Runs really nice over Firewire 800 and you can daisy chain additional drives off it too.
 
Concorde Rules said:
Not an issue! Its certainly not a deal breaker.
Click to expand...
It is an issue. The 15.4" MBP is an expensive, premium laptop and it has an unnecessary deficiency.

It can't be put down to "things would appear too small", since even if it had its rightful 1680x1050 resolution, the pixel density would still be (slightly) less than on the 17".

Concorde Rules said:
If you have enough money to spend on a £1500 Laptop if you need more desktop space then you get a 1920x1200 24" or greater.
Click to expand...
It's a bit of a stretch to assume a mains socket, desk and external monitor will always be at hand..
 
wush said:
It is an issue. The 15.4" MBP is an expensive, premium laptop and it has an unnecessary deficiency.

It can't be put down to "things would appear too small", since even if it had its rightful 1680x1050 resolution, the pixel density would still be (slightly) less than on the 17".

It's a bit of a stretch to assume a mains socket, desk and external monitor will always be at hand..
Click to expand...

Well seeing as I do in the field photography with 4000x3000 images etc it hasn't bothered me.

I never think "Sod this, I'll do it at home..."

Anyway, what is this person going to be using it for.

Edit: However been using a basic 17" recently and it seems much sharper which would make sense...

Humm... im starting to agree with you :p I would like to see a 1680x1050 MBP 15"
 
Last edited:
You don't need that sort of resolution on a 15.4" screen, the screen is physically too small to yield the benefits. There have been article after article after article explaining this but still people scrutinize the "On paper" specs. It's precisely why Apple make their iPhone specs ellusive, because they don't want a battle of geeks saying what's better, what's better is based entirely on the experience it provides. It's also why HD is irrelevant on smaller TVs unless you are sitting very close.
 
scott212 said:
You don't need that sort of resolution on a 15.4" screen, the screen is physically too small to yield the benefits.
Click to expand...
The 17" is only 1.6" diagonally larger, yet has 77% more pixels on display. It works brilliantly. Explain?

Things as mundane as trying to view two <documents|source-files|webpages|whatever> side by side immediately show the shortcomings of the underspecced screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom