Previous 1 12 13 14 15 16 Next 383 Replies Latest reply: Oct 18, 2014 11:25 AM by Infaustus Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
  • applesarefruit Level 1 (0 points)

    Yes! That is why a lot of non-creatives want the 17".


    The issue is not number of pixels or pixels per inch. The issue is purely an eye sight issue.

  • da bishop Level 1 (0 points)

    Not many people seem to have recalled that when apple went over to Intel chips, the 17 inch was gone for a while.


    Apple could release a 20 inch laptop with a quad-HD screen, though. That would rule. Red Camera owners would buy nothing else.

  • jpongin Level 1 (0 points)

    I will throw BOATLOADS of money at Apple if they release a 17" MBP Retina.  I build software for a living, and I cannot do it on any other screen size.  I don't use external monitors, I don't use a mouse - I just use my 17" MBP with its awesome screen and amazing touchpad.  That's it.  I don't need or want anything else.  The 17" 1920 x 1200 is *perfect*.  I was fortunate enough to nab the last late 2011 2.4 Quad model, threw in 16GB of ram, and an 512GB OCZ Vertex 4 SSD... so far so good, but this probably has about another 2 years left in her before she starts showing her wrinkles.

  • Gavin Olukoju Level 1 (0 points)

    Just browsing the web today searching for info on OS X 10.9 and interestingly it would appear that apple may still be using 17" Macbook Pro's for development activity! if this is true and they still see it as a useful machine maybe they will see fit to update it and bring it back, albeit with a form factor (thinness) & retina screen to match the rest of the macbook pro range...


  • tejotajunior Level 1 (0 points)

    Okay there was a reason that I preferred the 17" laptop over the 15" laptop: better viewing from a distance. Among other things, this was definately the biggest reason that I invested in a 17" laptop. Because the screen was bigger, it enabled me to be able to see an entire image, not just part of one. This was really irritating for me: I'm a professional graphic art designer and that being said, I just felt like I didn't see enough on the 15" screen––I had to zoom in. Seeing as Apple eliminated my option to buy a 17" MacBook Pro with Retina Display, I of course, settled with the 15".


    Despite my un-wanting such a "small" computer, I have come to like the 15" computer and I realize that there are certainly some technical disadvantages for having such a large computer. For one, if you have a "retina display" stretched over 15 inches, then it looks great, but if you have a "retina display" stretched over a 17" screen, then you are sacrificing a greater ppi (pixels per inch) (bigger screens have lower ppi), for a lower ppi. Also, I read that some people thought that you might also be able to have "a longer battery life," but what they fail to realize is the fact that having such a high resolution (and large) screen would suck up all the power in the battery, so it would probably end up having the same 7 hour battery life as the 15". In addition, I also read that some people think the 15" comes with a 1920 by 1200, but that's actually not really true. The 15" has a scaled resolution of 1440 by 900, exactly half of the "actual" resolution of the "retina display. In addition to that, they also said something along the lines of there needing to be 4 times the amount of pixels with the 1920 by 1200 "retina display" 17" MacBook Pro. Theoretically speaking, having 4 times the amounts of pixels on such a small screen is impossible: it would have ppi of over 500, which is unspeakable. I mean Apple is great, but come on!––it isn't that great!


    So, in conclusion, I feel that a 17" laptop with "retina display" would be great. In fact, if it had 4k resolution, it would be nothing short of a miracle, but it's just not going to happen. The entire reason that the 17" computer was canceled was because so few people were actually buying it. I liked the extra space, but now that I have the 15" MacBook Pro, I realize that it was unneeded, and I actually like the weight difference a lot. A "retina" 17" MacBook Pro will probably never happen, but if you would just take the time and try to use a 15", I think you would realize that it is just as great (if not overall greater) experience, than a 17" computer.

  • Nevering Level 1 (0 points)

    With an aging population, eye sight not what it use to be. I think that 17 inch is mandatory. Bad move on Apple's part to get rid of the 17 inch.

  • North Pole Level 1 (0 points)

    Yes , I must repeat... being 45 my close vision is not what it used to be.. the twenty somethings here my think I'm old, but I'm not retiring any time soon & I'm sure I got another 30 years of computer use ahead of me..  So I still have several laptops to buy.

    I bet they don't have a retina display in 17" size & I also heard that driving the 15" retina takes up massive graphics processing..   Meaning they would need an all new retina that is 2 inches bigger but would display the same amount of Pixes, which would mean massive re-tooling....  Just like I use a 28" workstation screen, but going to a 30 makes everything too small in the closest corresponding resolution.... so I stick with 28"  If that makes sense...    

  • pc2k5 Level 1 (0 points)

    If you read about the upcoming Intel CPU, Haswell, around Q2 of 2013, you will read it has support for 4K screens. It also has really good power management and a new "active" sleep state. From the PC World article:


    "The solution in Haswell is to add a third power state, something Intel designers call "Active Idle." Active Idle, also labeled SOix, is an extremely low-power active state that uses 20 times less power than Ivy Bridge. The PC system itself thinks it's awake, but the CPU is still mostly asleep. This trick translates into wake times of, at worst, a few hundred milliseconds. A worst-case wake up time of a half second is considerably better from the user perspective than the several seconds current CPUs take to wake up. Haswell is almost always in this "instant resume" state when running. Much of the tech was borrowed directly from Intel's Atom processor power management."



    So perhaps we might see something 2-3 months from Haswell release date, June, hence, Aug-Sep 2013?

    More like after Sept 2013, as in Dec 2013 as there is a lot of stuff for Apple engineers to do for a retina display, as well as new power states and a host of new things that Haswell can do and Mac OS needs to program and test for.


    I do still think something like a 17.9" screen and/or a numeric keyboard could be in the works. That is, something to differentiate it outwardly and inwardly from the 15" MBP to the general public is needed if it is to get past 1% of all MacBook sales.


    If potential new customers can't readily and easily tell the difference between a 17"MBP and a 15"MBP at a coffee shop (or even inside a the Apple store), how can one even know to ask about it? or sell it?



  • Nevering Level 1 (0 points)

    Knock Knock Apple wake up, 14 pages of 17 inch Laptop talk.  These are your dedicated users.

  • tejotajunior Level 1 (0 points)

         Okay, you failed to see my point. There is not going to be a 4k resolution 17" Retina MacBook Pro. That was the point I was making. Perhaps I was too vague? Even if the processor has support for 4k video, it does not mean that there is going to be a 17" screen. I wrote it once and I will write it again (okay technically it is typing, but you know what I mean): if there is a 17" screen with 4k resolution, the ppi (pixels per inch) would be over five-hundred, more than any other display––ever (and Apple may own the highest notebook display for its size, but they are nowhere near ready for such an advanced display).


         That being said, for the average consumer, 15" is enough. I don't think that it is Apple's fault for cutting their 17" models because, after all, there really was not much money in it. At the same time, however, I feel that there is a market for it, no matter how small it is. Maybe Apple could adjust their production rate so they are making less 17" models, or perhaps they only make one on demand (this is hypothetical if Apple really was making a 17" Retina MacBook Pro)? That being said, I don't understand people saying that they need a larger computer because their eye sight is bad. I mean, after all, you can always change the scaled resolution so the text (and everything in general) is larger. Though, I have a feeling that the reason they say that is because it is simpler just to have a larger computer than to have to scale everything. It would be great to have a larger computer, but if a 17" retina is ever released, I will probably keep my 15" because my eyesight isn't bad (I'm not trying to be rude, I just have better vision than 20/20) so I can see things really far away, but I think all of Apple's customers need to be happy––and though that 2% is small, it doesn't mean that it is nonexistent. If people say they want a 17" screen for whatever reason, I think it's a company's responsibility to give it to them.


         I may no longer want a 17" Retina MacBook Pro, but the only reason for that is literally because Apple took away my choice in the matter. If they had initially released a 17" version with better tech specs, I would have gone with that computer undoubtedly. I think it's about time Apple puts out an option for a 17" Retina MacBook Pro, or at least a high resolution monitor with the same ppi. I am tired of Apple ignoring their customers, even if it is not all of them, doesn't mean that they are nonexistent. If they took the time to look on this discussion, they would see the full 2% is here in force!


         To make my point clear (to avoid any "vagueness"), I will say that I support there being a 17" Retina MacBook. Not because I want one, but because others do and I think they deserve to get what they want (and I had originally wanted one may add as justifiability). I still think that it is wildly unbelievable for a 17" computer to have a 4k display (it's not going to happen––sorry, but I'm pretty sure), but I would definitely like to see a 17" MacBook Pro with retina display. The line of MacBooks just seems incomplete; everything should come in small, medium, and large.

  • da bishop Level 1 (0 points)

    Back in 2004 nobody was doing 4k video on a laptop. No chance.


    moore's law say more memory, more Ccd sensors, more pixels on screen. More CPU gates.


    apple will have to get the screens from somebody. That oem part may or may not be available.


    there will be a 4k MacBook Pro. There is the need. However it may take a while.

  • tejotajunior Level 1 (0 points)

         I didn't say there wasn't going to be one, I said that they were nowhere ready to make one today (or tomorrow) ... just to get technical... I think we could see one in the future, but not in the near future. Give it a couple of years. Besides Samsung is also working on a flexible display so the possibilities are literally endless...

    (I'm not lying about the flexible screen. They really are working on it. Here's a link: ldable-amoled-too/)


         Also, I forgot to mention that one of the reasons I got the Retina MacBook Pro was because of the form factor––it's great! There's no other laptop that is 15" that has the specs the Retina MacBook, is as thin as it is, and weighs as much it does (ultrabooks do not count). That's another reason, I think, that people felt so betrayed by Apple about their discontinuing the 17" MacBook Pro: Not only is it a high resolution display, it is also a lightweight high performance laptop.

  • pc2k5 Level 1 (0 points)

    Probably not 500ppi like you said, but the same PPI of around 220ppi like the 15" retina display.


    So the last 17" was at 1920 x 1200 (132ppi). And to get to 220ppi for a 17" would be more than??


    I still think Apple might consider a 17.9" form factor, a little bigger than 17" to make it more distiguishable from the 15" and help sell more notebooks than the past 1% of all sales.


    Would a 17.9" form factor be a show stopper to those interested in buying a 17"?


    I would say "no way" as the past 17" size was often confused with the 15" size unless a side by side comparison was made.


    Let's say if it's a 17.9" display, what would the PPI be for a retina display? 4K or 220ppi?



    OR, working backwards, if Apple Marketing wanted to advertise this a new MPB that has a 4K display with

    a 220PPI like the 15" retina, how many inches would the laptop size have to

    be increased to? 17.9", 18", 18.5", 19"

  • tejotajunior Level 1 (0 points)

    They probably aren't going to be able to make it have 220ppi like the 15". Everytime you use a larger screen with a retina display, you are going to lose ppi. Example: iPhone's 336 ppi> iPad 264ppi> 13" Retina MacBook 227ppi> 15" Retina MacBook Pro 220ppi. Okay what type of 4k were you talking about? Was it Full Aperture, DCI, DCI (CinemaScope), Acadamy 4k? Because any of those would make sense, however they would still need to be scaled downwards. When I said 4k, I was talking about 4 times the amount of the 1920 by 1200 resolution which I assumed was 4k because aparently when people say 4k, they are referring to the horizontal pixels (which I didn't know was what they were referring to at the time).

  • da bishop Level 1 (0 points)

    Hxga is 4096 x 3072. I'd expect 16:9 maybe 16:10ish for some transport bars. Full hxga would show the various movie formats with bars.

Previous 1 12 13 14 15 16 Next