Why Do People Still Buy 17" Macbook Pros

I'm curious, why do people still buy 17" Macbook Pros and pay just as much as the new Macbook Pro 15 Retinas?

 

Supply and demand dictate the price of the 17" MBP.

Just my guess, but maybe the keyboard on the 17" MBP is better than the island-style keyboards on the current (or near-current) models.

 

The late model 17" MBPs have island style keyboards too.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

Ah, all I remembered were the older models. Nvm then.

 

There's probably several reasons. One, although the display is lower in resolution compared with the 15" MBPr model, it is still two inches bigger. To many people, they value the size of a display over the pixel density. Second, the 17" MBP can be upgraded with all sorts of aftermarket options. You don't have to pay Apple's high fees to upgrade the RAM to 16GB, you can slap an SSD or SSHD in there, and you can even swap out the optical drive for more storage. All of that now comes in a package that costs less than even a new 13" MBPr. To most people, if they can get a system with a much larger display, quad-core processor, and have options for upgrading parts for less than $1500, they will take the offer even if it means buying a system with slightly older hardware.

Apple no longer makes the 17" MBP though so you might see their values increase on eBay and other markets. As of now, the only regular MBP that Apple still sells is the 13" model. The largest notebook they sell is the 15" MBPr. If Apple continued to offer it, I likely would have gone with a 17" MBP with Ivy Bridge hardware. They didn't upgrade the 17" MBP beyond Sandy Bridge though so I didn't really want it. That and I really wanted a MBP with USB 3.0.

 

I wouldnt mind them bringing back the 17 with the slimmer design of the retina's, but without a retina display. They could keep an anti-glare screen in it for all I'd care.

 

I'm in the same boat & would love it if they were to bring it back but in a thinner shell w/ the latest hardware.

 

And I would go the other way, give me a second hard drive bay, 4 DIMM slots and a quadro card .... maybe better cooling and a high gamut screen.

hence why I still run FCP-S / FCP-X on an Elitebook hackintosh

 

I have never owned a MacBook Pro and when I was finally seriously thinking of purchasing the 17" MacBook Pro they discontinued it. I wanted the Retina Display 17" inch, they could have offered it with or without the Retina Display as a option. I would like for them to bring it back slimmer and with the latest hardware also however, I for doubt they will bring it back.

From what I heard the 17" models were not selling well (not sure if that's why they discontinued or not). If that was the case what I have said is they could have (and still could) offer the 17" for those who would purchase one. By that I mean if you want a 17" retina (or non-retina) you could order one over the phone, on the apple website or at an apple store. then Apple would ONLY have to make/produce them on request. That means they don't have to mass produce them or the screens and lose money just produce upon order of the customers who want them.

Now I am not sure if that scenerio could be done am I missing something? Anyone else see why that could not be done?

 

Because there is absolutely no business case to be made for it. Those wanting a thin 17-inch notebook of any stripe are a subset of a subset. You have to take into account the time and costs of research and development, find suppliers for the parts, and so forth. If making them on a custom/case-by-case basis were possible, the final price to the end user would be astronomically high.

 

ok that makes sense, I didn't think about it like that however I guess if it were possible and I see your point its not the end user (who requests the 17") would be made aware of the astronomical price I mean there should be something or someone the could say hey the price of the notebook could be X amount of dollors. I wouldn't pay it but maybe someone would.

btw - any estimates how much that price would be?

 

there seems to be a case for it actually, many gamers / on the go with larger units, are pretty fond of the Microstar GS-70 which is a 17" thin and light ( 1080/.85"/ under 6lb/765m etc.) as for astronomically high? I am not sure some of the previous 17" units could actually use the 15" motherboard and many components so the differences would be the panel ( which to my knowledge would almost have to shift to 16 X 9 ) and the actual chasis. with the extra space you could design to use the 15" motherboards ( your biggest engineering cost ) and have a little space to play with

I can see a market for it, however Apple seems to be much more content shooting for the 90% of people whom want the 11-15" market segment and not trying to compete in the workstation department in which to be honest ..... they have had their rear ends handed to them for a few years. and outside of gamers and designers / etc there is not normally a large call for 17"+ laptops normally.

Just my $0.02

 

Eh, for me at least, the resolution counts a lot more than the physical size. If I had to choose anything in Apple's laptop lineup, it'd have to be one of the rMBP models over the 17" MBP.

 

I see what you're saying. However, gamers definitely aren't going to purchase an Apple system and gaming consumers represent a minority in terms of notebook sales. You're right in that Apple is aiming for the majority market and I think that is one of the reasons why the 17" model was taken off the market. saturnotaku's comment about the high price came from them referring to notebook's post about making custom orders. If Apple offered a custom-only 17", on order basis notebook, the price would be astonishingly high. The 17" MBP was already high enough in terms of price. A custom made (only) option would at least add $1000 to that price.

The market for 17" notebooks seems about as small as the market for gaming notebooks. Sure, it's there but it isn't large enough for Apple to support. Some companies (like Dell and Razer) continue to support this market but the costs are really high. The baseline 14" Razer Blade starts at $2000 with the 17" Razer Blade Pro demanding an astonishing $2500 starting price. Alienware charges $1000+ for their 14" notebook which really has no business being a gaming machine (the CPU starts at a dual-core Core i5, 8GB of RAM, and the GT750M should be a free option) while their 17" system starts at $1500 with, again, an underpowered GPU. So yeah, the market is there for gaming systems with higher displays but the costs put them in an extreme niche market. Factor in OS X and the market for a 17" MBP with that type of performance would be even less. I really don't think it was enough for Apple to continue investing in that market. Even the 15" MBP was discontinued and that was, really, the perfect notebook for my needs. I could upgrade the hardware using aftermarket parts for less than paying Apple's upgrade fees, it is thin and light enough for me while being more powerful than all of the desktop systems I use at work, and the battery life is great. I am in a niche market though and, whenever the time comes to buy a new notebook, I will likely have to change my outlook whether I'm buying Apple or a Wintel machine (unless I want to pay $2000).

 

We'll if not Apple does any think we will see a thin 17" with a 2k or 4k screen resolution? I think that will happen (not sure when). The reason is last year there were screen resolutions with the Dell XPS 15 and, Precision Notebook and I believe MSI have a 15" or two. I know they 15" inch screens but someone Razer? Alienware, Asus? MSI will have a 17". Razer started the thin 17" last year, then MSI followed that and this year at CES Maingear, did I miss any?

 

You do realize that 2K =~ FHD right? 4K is the "Retina" version of 1080p, which is 3840x2160 to be exact. However Apple won't be pioneering 4K notebooks, Lenovo (Ideapad Y50) and Toshiba (Tecra W50) will.

This being said, i would personally pick a 1900x1200 MBP 17 over a rMBP 15. Especially if the 17 can fit 2 hard drives.

 

Yes, 2k is FHD sorry about the confusion of my wording. I'm hoping Lenovo, Toshiba will support a 17" a 3840x2160 or 3,200x1,800 like the Dell XPS. As far as 1900x1200 MBP 17 I might go for that with the lastest specs but since that's been discontinued we won't see it.

 

That's exactly why. Even if you don't study Apple's marketing strategy, you can find similarities if you what long enough.

Apple simply gets rid of anything that's not efficient and the they can't capitalize on. Workstation laptops are a small market for any laptop manufacturer.

When you pick a 17" notebook you usually do so because you need a workstation. Apple no longer does 17", and was very limited with, even when they did offer it. Apple's sealed designed makes theirs even less lucrative than they are at other manufacturers.

Especially since most folks are convinced they can't carry any computer over 6lbs. Funny, they still carry other heavier items without hesitation. Anyway, 17" laptops simply aren't nor have they ever been big sellers.

Apples only produces unit when they can be exclusive and win. Not when they're at the bottom of the barrel. The worst type of advertising they certainly don't need.

 

I've seen some of the older crowd hovering towards the larger screens and less interested in the resolution.

 

Too many apps/games (Unity3D being one I'm sure of) still don't play nice with HiDPI displays. I can understand why some people would rather have a lower native resolution display.

 

I have a 2008 17 inch MBP with the Penryn processor and use it daily at work. I added a 1 TB WD drive and an ExpressCard SSD and it has 4 GB of RAM. I have considered upgrading to 6 GB of RAM to go to Mavericks. I've also considered going all SSD. The screen is great as is the keyboard. I much prefer the rounded full-size keys to chiclet keys. My home keyboard has Cherry-MX switches and I love the feel of that - I like the extra travel-length of the old MBP keys.

That said, I'd be happy with a 15 inch screen too; I could always hook it up to an external monitor if I wanted a bigger display.

I'm rather amazed at the longevity of the notebook - I didn't expect to keep it that long but I don't have a big enough reason to upgrade it and it does what I need it to do quite well. I think that these run about $600 on Craigslist these days.

 

Yes, that's funny and I don’t understand that argument either. If someone does not want to carry a 17” laptop because its to “heavy” to carry then there are a plethera/ plenty of other size / lighter laptops infact a overwelming about of them.

Most people I know want the 17” inch as a Desktop replacement they don’t carry it around outside the HOUSE they have other devices for that (see above)

I know some will say buy a desktop we’ll you may not want carry a Desktop around even though theses days we have all-in-ones. Also, Desktops seem to be more of an endangered species then 17” inch notebooks.

Also, in regards to the weight of a 17” There seems to be a bit of a trend (at least as far as 17” gaming notebooks of producing thin/light 17” notebooks side and I would think this could be the case for any new non-gaming 17” notebooks also. First there was Razer then MSI brought out a thin 17” and recently Maingear so it’s not like it’s the year 2000 or 2005 or even 2010 when 17” notebooks weighed 8, 9, 10lbs or more it's 2014.

I think the MSI 17” (the new thin gaming one that was introduced last Aug/Sept? is less than 6lbs I could be mistaken though and I ‘m not sure how light/thin they could go with a 17” but anything is possible I guess. Even though the 17” notebook will probably remain a small notebook market I just hope they don’t go way entirely anytime soon.

 

I use my laptop as an editing platform and anything smaller than 17" would make the interface virtually useless. That's why I chose my 18" HDX. Since Dell didn't offer an 18" machine, I had to settle for 17".

 

I never had a problem with carrying my 17" around. I'd even put it in my bookbag and jump on my motorcycle and head to work with it.

 

I usually carry about 30-35 pounds of gear with me to the office - so it would be nice to have something lighter but 3 pounds wouldn't matter that much.

 

The Razer Blade (2013) is just 0.66 inch thin and 4.1 pounds.

the MSI GS70 (2013) weighs a hair less than six pounds. And instead of nearly two inches thick, it's a slim 0.85 inch.

Maingear Pulse 17 laptop weight is less than six pounds and 0.85-inch thick I believe this notebook was introduced in November.

The Aorus X7, sporting a 17.3-inch a 0.9-inch thick, 6.4-pound case I think this was introduced last month (thisis the heavy one

This is why I am curious if this part of a trend in 17 inch notebooks. Keep in mind I am just emphasizing the thickness and weight not whether these are good notebooks to purchase or not.

 

Who was it who told us our laptop were too thick and heavy? Mac? And its not like they accomplished that through technology. They just began the trend of leaving stuff off. Where were they all those years I've had to lug big thick text books around with me all day?

Remember when cars went form full-size spare tires to space save spares? Then run flat and no spare at all?

Plastic bumpers replaced metal ones and cars got lighter still. Really? Didn't bumper impact standards also go down too? Along with more expensive repairs?

Pity ten pounds is beyond most peoples lift capacity these days. One has to wonder how they would have fared through daily life a century ago?

 

Yes, I know and some people lift capacity is anything less then 7lbs can't figure that also. I also don't understand when people complain about 17 inch notebooks size I'm like nobody is forcing them to purchase one.

 

Exactly. They complain that it's too big so they get a smaller model. It's that easy. Some people don't have the space to carry a notebook that is over 1 ft wide or they may not need such a large display. Others prefer to have the same power as a 17" notebook but in a smaller 15" form factor. Current technology makes that possible. What I'm more curious about is how all of that baffles you. Nobody is forcing you to buy an 11" ultrabook so why complain about the people picking those up instead of a 17" notebook?

No modern person, not me or you, would have been able to survive 100 years ago. That's why people live longer now, we have better medical services, technology has vastly improved, etc. It's not about "oh no, I can't lift 10 lbs, I'm going to die!" It's more about "why would I carry around a 10 lb notebook when there are models, which are just as powerful, that weigh half as much?" It has nothing to do with being able to lift 10 lbs and calling yourself a Man (or Wo-Man).

The truth is that many people carry their notebooks either under their arms or in a small over-the-shoulder bag. There is a comfort level to the weight of notebooks when doing this. I could easily carry around my 13" MBA under my arm all day. However, it gets uncomfortable doing that with my 15" MBP. Yes, I can still carry it but it becomes less comfortable. Instead I now have a messenger bag that I throw it into and I can carry that around all day. Either that or, when I really have to trek it long distances, I use my backpack. Flashback to 2005 with my 17" Dell Inspiron XPS Gen. 2 notebook and I wouldn't have dared to put that in a messenger bag. It was twice as thick as my current 2012 15" MBP, it weighed almost three times as much, and the power adapter alone weighed almost half as much as my MBP all together. That would have been extremely uncomfortable in a messenger bag and it would even weigh down a backpack when I had to travel across campus (about 5 miles down, 5 miles back up). Again, I could have carried it those distances but why go back to the stone ages there?

If notebooks can get thinner, lighter, last longer on a single charge, and either retain their current overall power or gain some, why should we even focus on going back to 2.5" thick notebooks that weigh 17 lbs? Just so we can have some slight interpretation that we aren't somehow weak or as "strong" as we were 100 years ago? No, that's just dumb.

 

too many people skipping leg day, sigh..

 

I am not complaining about people picking up an 11” ultrabook that’s fine if that’s what they want and I apologize if I gave anyone that impression. amI just saying there are a overwhelming amount of choices for portables smartphones, phablets (yes I include those because they get more power every year and the screens are getting bigger) tablets, Ultrabooks, Hybrids to other lightweight notebooks to the 15” which you eluded to and again that’s fine. I was talking about the people I hear who still complaining about 17” notebooks in spite of all the other portable choices to chose from to purchase that I mentioned. I just don’t want to see the 17” notebook market go away completely and with the rapid decline of pc/notebook sales as a whole and the (17” notebooks) already being a small market if there is a market that going to be shut out completely they could very well be it.

 

There will always be a market for 17-inch notebooks, but it will be limited to the desktop replacement segment, eg professional workstations and gaming. A niche product or two will pop up (Razer Blade) but eventually you'll see the elimination of this size of notebook from the general consumer space.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes, exactly I can see the way the 17" Notebook market is going now that will happen.

Thanks

 

Right. Those people are complaining so they get something else. It's no different than seeing a big H1 spewing black fumes and complaining about it while you're driving your Honda Civic. People are going to complain about a product that they don't want whether or not there are 3539457398457 other options.

As it stands, the 17" market was always a niche for gamers, people looking to replace entire desktop systems (monitors and all), or people who required workstations. Current models produced by Dell look like dinosaurs and many people, even those looking for a gaming machine or a workstation, will turn to something that's thinner like the Razer Blade. The 17" market was never mainstream to begin with. The only difference between 2005 and now is that less companies make 17" notebooks and, the ones that due, have made them thinner and lighter while still offering desktop replacement/gaming performance. I'm not sure it will ever completely go away but, as consumers start picking up more ultrabooks and tablets, it will definitely dwindle.

 

makes me wish I held on to the two I had in 2011 instead of selling them for cheap... who knew they'd become collectables?

 

3x usb ports, 1920x1200 display, upgradability, and the COOLNESS factor - this thing is sweet, currently using.

 

I literally got mine an hour ago. I have a Mac Mini (the last one with a real graphics card) and I was going to purchase a Macbook Air to go along with it for the few times I travel and need to do more than my iPad can. I ended up settling on replacing both with the 17 because I couldn't get over the screen. It is gorgeous. For the price I paid ($1100 at Microcenter) for a refurb, I can't think of anything else i'd rather have. Upgrades to come are a 1TB hybrid HD, a bluray drive, and a USB 3 express card.

 

You can find 17 inch MBPs on Craigslist in the Boston area from $500 - $1,500 depending on the year, condition and options. I still have mine and just bought an Intel SSD that I plan to put in and then upgrade to Mavericks. The 1920x1200 display is great for development. Yeah, these things are not light and the battery life is generally awful but they're great if you can put up with those other issues. I have a bunch of Mac power bricks so I leave one at the office, one at home and I can leave one in the car if I'm going to be working in a mobile setting for a while.

 

I have a 17", and I don't think I would call the screen "gorgeous." It's definitely nice, 1920x1200 spoils me, but I also have a 15" Retina, and that absolutely destroys the 17" in pure quality of image. The more I use the Retina, the more pixellated the 17" looks. The only benefit the 17" has is at 1920x1200 it's big enough to be usable comfortably, where the Retina is a bit too small at that size.

Once I get a decent monitor I won't have much reason to keep the 17" around. The ACD 30" I got is a bit too old to get the job done.

 

Let me qualify my use of gorgeous.... prior to the retina display models, this was considered a gorgeous screen. A 15" retina is outside of my budget (unless I wanted a beat up model from Cowboom), so I was looking at either an Air or a 13" retina, neither of which really had the storage I wanted. Compared to those models, this screen is simply fantastic. Given that it is faster than the Mac Mini I was using and the Air or Pro I was considering, and it can replace both for $1100 with a full warranty, it was kind of a no brainer.

 

Honestly, I was trying to find one on eBay, mainly because I'd like to use OS X at a true 1920x1200 resolution. Using a Retina Mac is awesome, but the resolution on the 15-inch ends up being 1440x900 with scaling, which is not much room. The 17" MBP is thin for a 17" laptop, it's powerful, nice screen, and now that they don't make it anymore, it's a collector's item So I still may end up getting one...

 

Try Microcenter, if you have one local. They apparently got shipments of the second to last models (video card is the only difference between these and the last 17s made) and are clearancing them for $1100-$1300 depending on the screen type. Full warranty applies.

 

You can simply adjust the scaling. I'd never use the 1440x900, I always have it set to 1680x1050. There is a 1920x1200 option also but on 15" it's very small.

System Preferences > Displays > Scaled.

 

if your adventerous find an old Alienware M9750 ... or better yet an old Elitebook 8740W and hackintosh them.

 

We used to have one here in Santa Clara until it disappeared last year. Too bad, since I liked it better than Fry's.

Unfortunately, adjusting the scaling leads to a drop in performance and blurriness. In order for things to be as sharp as possible, it needs to be set on the "best for Retina" setting.

 

The "blurriness" is slight if noticeable at all. A 15" Retina @ any resolution looks light years better than a 17" at 1920x1200.

The performance drop is there but in my 1680x1050 usage I rarely notice it. Besides, you can't buy a high res laptop from Apple anymore that isn't a Retina.

 

Good Lord. Talk about a blast from the past. I can't recall when I've last seen one of those in working condition...

No argument from me on 8740W...an impressive piece of engineering. HP's best ever in my book.

With all of that said...while I'm the farthest thing on planet from an Apple fanboi - not that I'm a hater either - I honestly wouldn't mind owning a 17" MBP.

Here, I've said it. Bring out the torches and pitchforks, tar and feathers...

 

I know, but that's the kind of thing I notice. But I'd be getting a 17" MBP as a hobby computer, not to replace my Retina Mac.

 

Nearly 2 ¹/[SUB]2[/SUB] years after getting my MacBook Pro and it still runs just as good as it did on day one. I also haven't been able to find a single computer that can rival my MacBook Pro in terms of build quality and performance. It probably doesn't help either that I've been spoiled by the massive 17" 1920x1200 display that she packs.

As for finding a 17" system these days, I'd suggest looking into the third-party reseller market. I know Mac of All Trades has some 17" systems available from time to time, but their cost is usually around the cost of a brand new 13" Retina MacBook Pro.

 

There are 8 17 inch MBPs in my area (Boston) for sale on craigslist from $300 to $1,400. Some need work, some appear to run fine. I've worked on mine before and it's a lot of work taking them apart but they are out there in major metros.