Seems silly to buy a 15" now...

Question

Level 2

155 points

Seems silly to buy a 15" now...

Looking at these posts about 17" machines being whine-free and free of heat problems, it almost seems stupid to buy a 15" now.

Let's see...$250 more gets me:
Pro:
+ A bigger 17" screen
+ Bigger hard drive (120GB)
+ Another USB port
+ A FW800 port (not really useful to me, but why not...)
+ Faster processor @ 2.16GHz
+ 8x dual-layer SuperDrive
+ No whine (has anyone reported problems with this yet?)
+ Less chance of a heat problem
+ Much better battery life (someone reported 4-5 hours with normal usage)
Con:
- A bigger 17" screen
- More weight

I'm torn between getting the product that will fit my needs just fine (the 15") or getting the bigger one that looks like a much better value, has fewer bugs, and seems way too HUGE for my needs. This seems like a sad state of affairs. I hope they fix the 15" models soon. I really don't want to wait til the fall, because once Merom ("Core 2 Duo") comes out, Windows XP won't work anymore 😟

/rant

Mac mini 1.42GHz, Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Posted on May 10, 2006 7:10 AM

Reply

Answer 1

syntrak

Level 2

175 points

May 10, 2006 7:13 AM in response to David Ceddia

What do you mean Windows will not work anymore ?

Reply

Answer 2

deflator

Level 1

5 points

May 10, 2006 7:15 AM in response to David Ceddia

The 17" has also better sound I think.

Reply

Answer 3

kkapoor

Level 1

80 points

May 10, 2006 7:16 AM in response to David Ceddia

It is a sad state of affairs. The 17" is obviously a better value and seems to have fewer bugs. However, there is no way I can lug around a 17" machine. It's just too big for me. Heck even the 15" is a little big. Ideally I would like a 13.3" widescreen MBP with the same specs as the 15".

Reply

Answer 4

Toyer

Level 1

10 points

May 10, 2006 7:22 AM in response to David Ceddia

Why do you think XP will not work anymore?

Reply

Answer 5

May 10, 2006 7:27 AM in response to David Ceddia

Iam still waiting for my 17" should be with me about the 24th. But just to confirm so far there have been no reports of any whine or major heat issues ? If thats the case i cant wait for it to come.

Reply

Answer 6

May 10, 2006 8:20 AM in response to weatherman

Why buy the 15?

Because the 17 is way to big. The 15 is even a bit to much, but I'll deal with it for now. I don't care that the 17 is only 250 more, it really does nothing more for me than the 15.

Reply

Answer 7

May 10, 2006 8:26 AM in response to David Ceddia

Seems silly to buy a 17" if you don't need it.

I would have to:
Buy a new Backpack. the one I have now cost me $100
Buy a new iLap. There's another $60
Carry around a heavier, bulkier piece of equipment (size matters).

As far as I am concerned, that's three stikes. It's gonna take some balls in order for me to exchange my 15" for a 17".

Wait that sounded wrong.

Reply

Answer 8

David Ceddia Author

Level 2

155 points

May 10, 2006 5:29 PM in response to Toyer

My thought is that with a move to 64-bit processors, the 32-bit version of Windows XP (the normal one most people use) will not run on a 64-bit machine. And if we instead opt for Windows XP 64-bit, I fear that there will be software and hardware incompatibilities...

Reply

Answer 9

May 10, 2006 5:33 PM in response to David Ceddia

backwards compatible?

Reply

Answer 10

May 10, 2006 5:34 PM in response to Done With Power

Seems silly to buy a 17" if you don't need it.

Exactly. The argument from the original poster is along the lines of supersizing a meal for just another $1.

Reply

Answer 11

May 10, 2006 5:36 PM in response to syntrak

the bootcamp driver cd seems to have problems with 17"

Reply

Answer 12

iVmichael

Level 6

13,740 points

May 10, 2006 5:37 PM in response to kkapoor

I would like a 13.3" widescreen MBP with the same specs as the 15"

Within a week you will probably have a 13.4 MacBook option, in white or black, pretty close to that but I'd guess they will have a slower CPU, or even a single core ...

Reply

Answer 13

May 10, 2006 5:55 PM in response to iVmichael

Only $250?? I thought a base 17" sells for $2799. If my math is correct, that's $800 more than a base 15". What am I missing here? Are you comparing a fully loaded 15" with a base 17" model?

Reply

Answer 14

May 10, 2006 6:03 PM in response to new_mac_fan

That's right! Contrary to popular opinion, the 17" isn't around the same price as the 15", it's around the same price as a fully loaded 15"!

For all those people who have already justified the cost of the high-end 15" (I couldn't see the value compared to the base model), yes, the 17" seems cheap.

I think that the strange thing about MBP pricing is that the upgraded 15" costs so much more than the base model, not that the 17" is cheap.

Reply

Answer 15

May 10, 2006 6:19 PM in response to spikyturtle

Given that a 17" weighs more and is less portable, which means most of the time it is going to be lying on a desk, I wonder if a 20" iMac is a better investment. At $1699 (Less than the price of a base 15"), you get a pretty kick ***, pretty looking machine that takes up very less space. What does a 17" Macbook Pro give you that a top-of-the line iMac doesn't? Of course, it could be a matter of personal preference, but for a difference of $1000, I would be willing to let my preference take a walk! Thoughts??

Reply