Apple MacBook Pro 17" Widescreen Model Released

Apple today released a new product in the MacBook Pro series, a 17" widescreen configuration with a greater offering of ports than the 15.4" version.

Apple MacBook Pro 17-inch model as seen on Apple.com (view large image)

Specs for 17-inch MacBook Pro:

• Screen: 17-inch widescreen1680x1050
• Processor: 2.16GHz Core Duo model
• RAM: 1GB of RAM (Max 2GB)
• Optical Drive: 8X dual-layer burner
• Hard Drive: 120GB 5400 RPM hard drive
• Ports: FireWire 800 port, 3 USB 2.0 ports, FireWire 400, Headphone, Mic, Dual link DVI
• Built-in webcam
• Weight: 6.8lbs
• Graphics: ATI X1600 256MB
• ExpressCard 34 Slot
• Wireless: Apple Airport Extreme (802.11 b/g)
• OS: Mac OS X Tiger (can boot Windows XP if Boot Camp is downloaded and valid copy of Windows XP is owned)
• Price:$2,799

The 17-inch MacBook Pro is about .8 lbs more in weight than the 15.4 inch version but still maintains about 1-inch thickness, which is really thin for this sized laptop. The 17-inch version gains an extra USB port, has FireWire 800 and a better optical drive in the form of an 8x SuperDrive DL (fast dual layer DVD burner). The 17-inch version comes standard with 1GB of RAM, ATI X1600 256MB graphics card and of course the Intel Core Duo 2.16GHz processor. The MacBook Pro 17-inch is available now at Apple.com.

Above: Apple MacBook Pro 17-inch features

Above: Apple MacBook Pro 15.4-inch features

The next Apple laptop release should be in June for the new iBooks with an Intel Core Duo processor, rumor has it they will be 13.3" widescreen laptops.

 

6.8 lbs for a 17"! Look that is cool! Now with Windows Bootcamp this notebook is very interesting for most of us I think.

Charlie-Peru

 

i think it's really sad that i'm considering this solely based on the fact that is has a Firewire 800 port. I think this might be the only PC laptop on the planet with a FW800 port. Insane.

What do you think the chances are of them eventually offering a 1900x1200 display on this guy? 1680x1050 is a okay for a 15" display, but...

 

Why couldn't they put the extra ports like the Firewire 800 on the 15" version? Or will they in newer models?

 

mintarinan,

At this point you can forget higher res. Apple is not known for doing things like that. the added cost probably not too good either when this notebook is $2800.

Weight is good though for a 17". Guess this is truly a portable 17" unlike PC DTRs. Overall though is a eh' release. Nothing to get excited about. Probably still an underclock X1600 too.

Ya know its funny, it seems that it is the Windows notebook users who seem to pick first on the technicall issues with the MBP. Where as the devoted Mac people are initially resigned to accept the flaws (heat, underclock GPU). Now this may not apply here, but it does seem this way.

 

Apple has done such a good job with their marketing. Normally when a new laptop comes out I'm just like "meh, whatever", but when an Apple product comes out I'm like "woah!!". Anyone else get that impression also?

Oh yeah, and the macbook is cool too!

 

Is keypad any better on this one than on 15" MBP?

 

apple's fatal flaw. how can they try to tie themselves to things like graphic design and movie editing and not offer highres displays. that fact alone makes me not take them seriously.

 

i read somewhere that it's the same res for their 20" display

 

Disapointing GPU

 

apple has philosophy about optimal DPI, i was curious if they were at least going to offer a 1920x1200 display as an option since they dropped this at NAB, but i guess their philosophy about offering less features in a pretty package for more money is also consistent. I am not hating on apple, but you dont get alot of options, so love or not.

The x1600 in $3k laptop? The jury is still out.

 

Nice.

Does this thing run any cooler than the 15.4" model?

 

how can you expect more than a x1600 in a laptop so thin? you know apples run hot as it is. as for the 1920 x 1200 personaly i think thats to high and that 1680 x 1050 is perfect for a 17in how sharp do people really need a display? Oh course everyone has their preference but im guessing most people would never want that resolution.

 

Wxga is just fine in 17" , I wouldnt mind wsxga but anything more is too much , I use wxga and web sites fonts are barely readable .

Brightness and contrast is much more important to me then res .

I have a 9300 , does it weight much more then 7lbs ? It seems as light as the mac but admittingly not as thin . 2K will get you much more powerfull 9400 .

 

1680x1050 or whatever it is is hardly a low-resolution display, in fact it is perfect for a 17" display, 1920x1200 is just to much for a 17" it really is.

but what Apple finally realized is that they are now direct compotition to other PC manufacturers and their prices are pretty rediculous for the hardware you get.

there are better value for money PC options but being able to run both OS's is a pretty golden feature for some people.

 

Hmm.. no offense, but why do people always say that? The ASUS W2 is the exact same price and I don't see people complaining it's too expensive.

 

Because people who want to run Windows XP don't need to spend that amount, but people who want Mac OSX and an intel processor in a notebook have two options: 15 & 17 Macbook Pro.

However, for the engineering and design, I don't find the (US) prices that bad. Take a look at the UK prices hahaha *laughs to the bank*