Logic Pro Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Only difference is the size and video card right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Kanning Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Actually, if you're comparing the 2.4GHz machines, the only difference is screen size, and the 17" has three USB ports, the 15" has two. If you go with he 2.2 GHz 15" - it has two USB ports and a smaller video card. Let me be the first to say the 17" is smokin' fast, and beautiful to look at! I just got mine a couple days ago and am thoroughly impressed. I maxed mine out with 4 gigs of RAM from Other World Computing for only $239 w/ shipping. Sweet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Pro Posted July 11, 2007 Author Share Posted July 11, 2007 Actually, if you're comparing the 2.4GHz machines, the only difference is screen size, and the 17" has three USB ports, the 15" has two. If you go with he 2.2 GHz 15" - it has two USB ports and a smaller video card. Let me be the first to say the 17" is smokin' fast, and beautiful to look at! I just got mine a couple days ago and am thoroughly impressed. I maxed mine out with 4 gigs of RAM from Other World Computing for only $239 w/ shipping. Sweet! You know what, i just ordered a 15" at this place where i am at the moment, but they don't have them in stock yet and i am wondering if i should go 17" when they do, I never had a 17" but when i did use one i liked it, only one thing that scared me is that the one i used was banged up by its owner just from carrying it in the bag, and he said it is very common and hard to resell the 17" due to this all the time, he said that after owning a 17" and getting used to the monitor there was no going back to a 13" or 15", and he sees it more less like a portable studio or art portfolio rather then a portable computer. P.S. your avatar is a 15" model btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Kanning Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Actually, if you're comparing the 2.4GHz machines, the only difference is screen size, and the 17" has three USB ports, the 15" has two. If you go with he 2.2 GHz 15" - it has two USB ports and a smaller video card. Let me be the first to say the 17" is smokin' fast, and beautiful to look at! I just got mine a couple days ago and am thoroughly impressed. I maxed mine out with 4 gigs of RAM from Other World Computing for only $239 w/ shipping. Sweet! You know what, i just ordered a 15" at this place where i am at the moment, but they don't have them in stock yet and i am wondering if i should go 17" when they do, I never had a 17" but when i did use one i liked it, only one thing that scared me is that the one i used was banged up by its owner just from carrying it in the bag, and he said it is very common and hard to resell the 17" due to this all the time, he said that after owning a 17" and getting used to the monitor there was no going back to a 13" or 15", and he sees it more less like a portable studio or art portfolio rather then a portable computer. P.S. your avatar is a 15" model btw I went with the 17" for the very reason that it is replacing my old desktop system. I honestly don't see how much more portable 15 is as opposed to 17, but I guess I don't travel in sardine cans, either.... P.S. My avatar is the 17" model, based off of this from the Apple website ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Pro Posted July 11, 2007 Author Share Posted July 11, 2007 I am starting to agree with you as well now. I have a older 15" and would love a bit more room to see, i use 32" and 40 " screens with a iMac as well as a MB and MBP from time to time, but when i do use more then one computer i ignore the 13" MB or MBP 15" screens, simply too small. I still ask if there is any other difference besides 3 USB ports, a screen 2" larger with a decent video card with better resolution, i guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Kanning Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html Take a look at the Configurations chart on the bottom of this page. You'll see that in the 2.4 GHz 15" and 17" the only difference is the USB port and the larger screen size. Well, also in the 17" you can upgrade to the high-resolution display, but that's it. I'm telling you, once you see the 17" you won't want the 15"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Pro Posted July 11, 2007 Author Share Posted July 11, 2007 http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html Take a look at the Configurations chart on the bottom of this page. You'll see that in the 2.4 GHz 15" and 17" the only difference is the USB port and the larger screen size. Well, also in the 17" you can upgrade to the high-resolution display, but that's it. I'm telling you, once you see the 17" you won't want the 15"... i seen the older 17" for sure, Thanks for your opinion, Like i mentioned above about the 17" i used years ago, the guy who owned it told me he really had a hard time trying to sell it, not only based on a dent off the corner while simply during transporting it, but that 17" cost more and most people seek a 15" for a decent price ratio. But i am gonna get a 17" and connect it to my huge screens too worth it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prospect Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 Since you've probably done the numbers, what is the monetary difference between the two you've been looking at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Pro Posted July 15, 2007 Author Share Posted July 15, 2007 Since you've probably done the numbers, what is the monetary difference between the two you've been looking at?hmmm Well, funny you ask., cause i am about to make a thread asking people which gear does not depreciate can you tell me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Pro Posted July 18, 2007 Author Share Posted July 18, 2007 Ok i got my 17", The 15" looked allot nicer then the 17" at first, but after a few minutes of working with it i felt like i had a nice screen in my bare hands, with out all the USB or fire ports plugged in of course. BUT, i asked for a 1920 Resolution model, not the 1620 which is what i got ;( Other wise it made no sense in getting a 17" powerbook which is not portable at all in the first place, i mean all the hype about extra USB ports made me sick with cables hanging out of the thing, no way portable or even comfortable to take from the studio into the bedroom., the screen itself falls over from the weight, like those mouse trap joke where they are placed inside spearmint bubble gum case, your finger reaches and it snaps, imagine a 17" screen biting you when you tilt the Mac-Book Pro. And the bags i seem to find so far look like mountain hiking trash. i did find some cool DJ like bag that fit well into the office environment, but for a 15" ! , what is new, they are the popular models. i feel this heavy lump in my heart for getting it now, can anyone convince me why i should keep it? I do have a older 15" macbook pro round here and the only reason i would rather use a 17" is to replace the iMac so to make moving around studios easier since we use 42" screens at the big rooms (HDMi), who needs to drag a iMac with a keyboard around, maybe the mighty mouse but the rest can stay or go. Just a "UPDATE" for this post; i got to exchange the 17" with the 1620 res for the 1920! and 160GB 7200RPM drive, not bad, but i have to wait for it a few weeks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.