Done for 2009: The Holiday MacBook Pro Roundup
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 10, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
And The Story Begins
Traditionally the notebooks with the largest screens are the least attractive, have the worst battery life and are heavy. They're also usually cheaper than their smaller brethren to give people a reason to buy them.
Take a look at what Dell and HP offer with a 17-inch screensize:
| 17.3-inch Notebooks | Dell Studio 17 | HP Pavillion dv7t Quad Edition |
| CPU | Intel Core i7 720QM (1.6GHz, up to 2.8GHz Turbo) | Intel Core i7 720QM (1.6GHz, up to 2.8GHz Turbo) |
| Memory | 4GB DDR3-1066 | 4GB DDR3-1066 |
| HDD | 250GB 7200RPM | 320GB 7200RPM |
| Video | ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650 1GB | NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M 1GB |
| Optical Drive | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R |
| Screen Resolution | 1600 x 900 | 1600 x 900 |
| Battery | 9-cell 85Whr | 8-cell ??WHr |
| Dimensions (W x D x H) | 16.28" x 11.04" x 1.1" - 1.54" | 16.2" x 10.9" x 1.37" - 1.70" |
| Weight | 7.08 lbs (6-cell battery) | 7.74 lbs |
| Price | $1099 | $1069.99 |
In both cases you're looking at over 1" thick at the thinnest point, and in the case of the HP system it goes up to 1.7" thick. Both machines start at 7 lbs and don't offer higher than 1080p resolutions. In fact, all the larger screen is useful for is reducing DPI as you can get the same resolution screen in 15-inch and 16" models. The hardware is usually fast and affordable, both machines cost less than $1000.
The 17-inch MacBook Pro is a bit different.
At 0.98" thick, it's only 0.03" thicker than the 13-inch or 15-inch MacBook Pro. And that's a constant thickness from front to back. The impact on how it feels is tremendous. It's the first 17-inch notebook I've used that doesn't make me want to laugh at first sight. It honestly just looks and feels like a slightly bigger 15-inch machine.
| 17.3-inch Notebooks | Apple 17-inch MacBook Pro | HP Pavillion dv7t Quad Edition |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz | Intel Core i7 720QM (1.6GHz, up to 2.8GHz Turbo) |
| Memory | 4GB DDR3-1066 | 4GB DDR3-1066 |
| HDD | 500GB 5400RPM | 320GB 7200RPM |
| Video | NVIDIA GeForce 9400M (integrated) + NVIDIA GeForce 9600M 512MB (discrete) | NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M 1GB |
| Optical Drive | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R | 8X Slot Load DL DVD +/-R |
| Screen Resolution | 1920 x 1200 | 1600 x 900 |
| Battery | 95Whr | 8-cell ??WHr |
| Dimensions (W x D x H) | 15.47" x 10.51" x 0.98" | 16.2" x 10.9" x 1.37" - 1.70" |
| Weight | 6.6 lbs | 7.74 lbs |
| Price | $2499 | $1069.99 |
It’s also Apple’s most expensive notebook. Starting at $2499, it’s more expensive than the 27” iMac and doesn’t even come with a quad-core processor. You’re paying for the screen size, as you can get the same hardware in the 15” MacBook Pro.
The added size is used for one purpose: a higher screen resolution. Apple offers a single display option with the 17-inch machine: a native 1920 x 1200 panel. It's a 16:10 aspect ratio panel, measuring 17-inch on the diagonal, resulting in a pixel density of 133.2 pixels per inch (PPI).
| 17.3-inch Notebooks | Pixels per Inch |
| Apple 13-inch MacBook Pro | 113.5 |
| Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro | 101.6 |
| Apple 17-inch MacBook Pro | 133.2 |
| Apple 27-inch iMac | 108.8 |
| Apple 30-inch Cinema Display | 101.6 |
| 15-inch 1080p Panel | 141.2 |
That’s more than a 30” display. That's more than the 27" iMac. That's more than any other 17-inch notebook on the market today. Only the 15-inch 1080p panels offer a higher pixel density at 141.2 PPI. It's sharp.
Apple makes the 17-inch MacBook Pro very work-focused, you get a ton of desktop space in a package that's honestly not bulky. I can't stress how pleasant it is to carry around; at a constant thickness of less than 1" it really feels a lot smaller than it is. It's the only 17-inch notebook I'd be willing to take with me.
From left to right: 13-inch, 15-inch, 17-inch MacBook Pro. Note the constant height.
The 17-inch MacBook Pro was the first to use Apple's integrated batteries out of necessity. Apple wanted to build a slim, attractive 17-inch MacBook Pro, and cutting down on battery volume enabled that. A side effect was that the 17-inch model has impressive battery life.
Paired with a 95Whr battery, Apple promised up to 8 hours of battery life - a realistically attainable figure as you'll soon see.
From a hardware perspective the 17” isn’t that much different from the rest of the lineup. The system starts with a NVIDIA GeForce 9400M chipset, adds a separate GeForce 9600M for GPU intensive workloads (3D games, OpenCL apps, etc...) and gives you the option of either a 2.8GHz or 3.06GHz 45nm Core 2 Duo with a 6MB L2 cache. The vast majority of users will find the 9400M is sufficient for their needs. And paired with Snow Leopard, the 9600M in the off state doesn’t sap as much battery power as it did under Leopard.
The machine starts with 4GB of memory, expandable up to 8, and comes with a 500GB 5400RPM SATA drive. SSDs are still only optional from Apple.
The 17” system doesn’t come with an integrated SD card reader but it is the only MacBook Pro to ship with an ExpressCard/34 slot.
From left to right: Power input, Ethernet, FireWire 800, 3 USB, Mini DisplayPort, Line In, Headphone Out, ExpressCard/34
Mini DisplayPort is the only way to connect to an external display, and unfortunately Apple cheeps out and doesn't supply any adapters with the machine. With a 17-inch 1920 x 1200 panel, you'll probably be fine without one though.
About the only thing that the machine is missing is Nehalem, but that won't come until next year.
From left to right: 13-inch, 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro
The 17” MacBook Pro started a new trend within Apple. Integrate the battery, offer longer battery life and no one will complain. The technology soon waterfalled down to the 15” and 13” models.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
115 Comments
View All Comments
The0ne - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
I read the article.The battery life is amazing and I like the uni-design. This is however, not worth the $2500 that "I'm" willing to pay for it compare to my Vostro 17". It does what I need. Stating that Anand is a writer and assuming he has to use the laptop without the PS is at most ludicrous. Even on travels I will be able to find an outlet to plug in. Would I want to not have to plug in all the time, sure...but that's a luxury you're paying for.
Here's what I find humorous of this particular statement by most laptop users. The user gets it into their head that they don't need to plug in even if the environment has the outlets. Do you know how stupid this person looks to me. There are those that don't even bother looking for an outlet when there is one right next to them. I'm not saying you are or Anand is.
We are talking about 7-8 hrs here. This many hours on battery alone requires a person to be in a specific situation where an outlet is non-existent. Not many people are going to run into these situation. That is unless you do all your "writing" at the beach.
Exelius - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Sometimes it can be very difficult to find an outlet; namely while traveling. Even now, many airports do not have easy to access outlets. Most airplanes don't either unless you're in first class. Given that the average flight is 2-3 hours and the average laptop battery lasts 1-2 hours, that's not very convenient.Ideally, you would be able to treat your laptop like your cell phone: run it all day, plug it in overnight.
But as for the cost... yeah, it is a bit high. But OS X on a mobile computer is really, really good. This OS is wired tight and performs *extremely* well on a 2 year old laptop with 4 GB RAM, even while punishing the CPU by running Windows 7 in VMware, Firefox with 20 tabs open and a Citrix session in another space (spaces, btw, is the single greatest implementation of virtual desktops I've ever used. It's one of those amazing productivity boosters that you wondered how you ever lived without.)
Too often, Windows laptops suffer from a disconnect between software and hardware. The fact that you don't have to deal with this is why the MBP can continue to command such a price premium. It's fast, has great battery life, good graphics performance and an awesome keyboard. Good luck finding all of that elsewhere. The MBP is the laptop for users who don't want to compromise.
ssj4Gogeta - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link
Maybe Microsoft should start making laptops too. They can spend some extra resources in making a Windows version customized for the hardware that they use in it, then sell it for half the price of Macs.About the battery life difference when running Windows on Macbooks, I think Apple may be buying top-binned processors from Intel that can idle at very low voltages. The idle voltage may be implemented in software which would explain the difference. If that's the case, I wish they implement it in BIOS or something because I just can't sand OS X but I'd like to have a 7 hour battery-life.
pcfxer - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
Ppl don't get it and I understand. They are the same people who don't "get" why some people purchase Infiniti's, BMWs, Mercedes, etc."Why would you buy an Infiniti G37? I get 3-4 times better gas mileage and I drive around town like you do in my Ford Focus!"
Let's compare:
- BETTER build quality
- BETTER electrical components
- BETTER mechanical components
- Infiniti CARES about sound to let Bose take almost full control of the interior for sound quality and that's just the SOUND SYSTEM.
- BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICE (free oil changes, different experience at the dealership during maintenance, etc.)
- BETTER systems integration, HVAC, comfort and convenience, driving dynamics (steering, shifting, turn signals, lights, etc.)
THAT is why you pay "MORE" for an Apple. That is it, if you STILL don't get it then just accept that you never will and continue to enjoy your plasticky, flexible, bargain bin PCBs and PAY SO MUCH LESS FOR THE "same thing".
pl1n1 - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
yeah makes perfect sense to me, beautiful design and mediocre hardware. I get the part about design I really do,I just don't get the part about paying $1500 more for mediocre hardware. How about lower the profit margins a bit and try a current gen CPU & GPU in the mix.my 2c,
PS: yeah I run a WINDOWS 7 PC with 0S X running virtualized in VMWARE when I need a walk in the sterile garden of Apple, not that Micro$oft is so much better.
michael2k - Friday, November 13, 2009 - link
You get better battery life. It's like the Atom, right? Sacrifice a little performance, get a huge windfall on battery life.windspast - Thursday, April 1, 2010 - link
stop comparing Apple computers to luxury cars. They aren't. In cars, there's a reason why BMWs, Mercedes, Jaguars cost more. They're usually better. They have better horse power, more room or just better over all. That's why it costs more.Macs aren't even CLOSE to that.
macs cost more
-worse performance
-outdated hardware
-crappy ergonomics
-longer
-OOO SHINY SCREEN
That's it. It's not a luxury car at all. All of the important feature Mac lacks. Who cares about how it looks if it can't perform worth squat. I want a COMPUTER, not a damn coffee coaster. I don't need a computer to look good; I need one to perform good.
The i7 out performs the outdated core 2 duo in every way. I'm not paying twice as much for a crappier machine.
Macs aren't BMWs. Macs are beat up Hondas with a new paint job and a higher price tag.
darwinosx - Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - link
Hmm... that would be news to all of the people who own Apple products and love the personal attention and top quality support they get from Apple.SirKronan - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
I noticed a gain in battery performance when I upgraded to 4GB in my 13" MBP model. The HD and DVD drives seem to spend less time spinning, and the computer has more memory to do work with, rather than spinning mechanical parts.I also upgraded to a faster, larger 7200rpm 320GB drive. Performance did improve, but battery life went a little backwards. In real world usage, which involves typing, editing and printing documents most of the time, as well as a lot of web-browsing and emailing, I am consistently getting over 6 hours of usage, generally at 50-70% brightness.
I've NEVER had a laptop that I could take into a client's house with 10% of the battery left, and still know I had enough to get the job done. I also own an HP laptop, and it takes TWO much larger, thicker extended life batteries to even come close to matching the battery life of the Macbook Pro.
Seriously, though. Try the battery life tests with 4GB of RAM on the 13" and see if the times don't improve by at least 20-30 min. consistently.
omikun - Thursday, November 12, 2009 - link
One thing Snow Leopard botched was the screen brightness. At least in my case, turning the brightness all the way down wasn't even close to what half brightness used to be. 10.6.2 fixed that. I would think that would have an impact on battery life (maybe 10%)?