Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Sijmen · Jan 30, 2006, 08:14 AM

I've been doingsome thinking. with the 15" being so thin, the 17" couldn't possible be any thinner. So with the width of that machine, could it be possible that they can fit two dual core processors in there? Battery life will probably be so bad you can't even unplug it, but they've got to use the extra space for something right?

Big Mac · Jan 30, 2006, 08:29 AM

Nope, sorry, at least not in this generation. Even if it were technically possible to put two dual cores in the 17" system, Yonah does not support SMP.

Sijmen · 08:47 AM

Bummer, so what is going to make the 17 incher special and not just a 15" system with a 17" screen?

EDIT: Not that the 17" screen isn't worth it(that's why I bought the 17" G4 over the 15"), I'm just wondering if they are going to do add something extra.

Eug Wanker · Jan 30, 2006, 08:47 AM

What makes the 17 incher special is the 17" screen.

If you don't need it, get the 15". The 17" is way too big for my tastes anyway.

John123 · Jan 30, 2006, 10:28 AM

Seriously - it is ridiculous that the 17" has been the flagship model from time to time in the past. There are many people (me included) who don't want a laptop that big, and we shouldn't lose out on CPU cycles or frills hardware just because we want a 15" screen.

Eug Wanker · Jan 30, 2006, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by John123

Seriously - it is ridiculous that the 17" has been the flagship model from time to time in the past. There are many people (me included) who don't want a laptop that big, and we shouldn't lose out on CPU cycles or frills hardware just because we want a 15" screen.

The specs differences between the 15" and 17" have never been significant, aside from the screen.

eg. September 2003: The difference between 1.25 GHz (15") and 1.33 GHz (17") is essentially irrelevant.

ibook_steve · Jan 30, 2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by John123

Seriously - it is ridiculous that the 17" has been the flagship model from time to time in the past. There are many people (me included) who don't want a laptop that big, and we shouldn't lose out on CPU cycles or frills hardware just because we want a 15" screen.

Hate to tell you, but it's the large screen that lets you get the extra "CPU cycles and frills hardware." There's simply more space in the 17" to put stuff and more room for a better cooling system. The 15" has always been a true challenge to design because of lack of space. Why do you think the 12" and 17" were the first to go aluminum with the 15" lagging by like 9 or 10 months? Designing a 15" with decent battery life with all that it has was extremely difficult. So you can get the bigger screen with the extra stuff or get the smaller screen with less stuff because that stuff just won't fit in there.

Steve

Zyphere · Jan 30, 2006, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

Hate to tell you, but it's the large screen that lets you get the extra "CPU cycles and frills hardware." There's simply more space in the 17" to put stuff and more room for a better cooling system. The 15" has always been a true challenge to design because of lack of space. Why do you think the 12" and 17" were the first to go aluminum with the 15" lagging by like 9 or 10 months? Designing a 15" with decent battery life with all that it has was extremely difficult. So you can get the bigger screen with the extra stuff or get the smaller screen with less stuff because that stuff just won't fit in there.

Steve

Yeah, which sucks, really. Having a large screen is clumsy for portability but it's appealing because of the better hardware.

I'm hoping to pick up the 12/13" MacBook Pro whenever it releases, just because I need the portability, but I may change that decision depending on the type of hardware Apple is able to squeeze into it. I want the portability, but at the same time, I'd like for as-close-to-maximum-as-possible performance when I have it plugged into an external display at home.

Eug Wanker · Jan 30, 2006, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

Why do you think the 12" and 17" were the first to go aluminum with the 15" lagging by like 9 or 10 months?

Because Apple needed a laptop that booted OS 9. The aluBooks could not.

Also remember that when the 17" arrived, it was only 1 GHz, 2 months after the 15" had already been at 1 GHz.

ibook_steve · Jan 30, 2006, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Because Apple needed a laptop that booted OS 9. The aluBooks could not.

Also remember that when the 17" arrived, it was only 1 GHz, 2 months after the 15" had already been at 1 GHz.

Wrong. Remember, I was there. The 15" was a huge engineering challenge. It had nothing to do with OS 9 booting. If all three sizes had been available at the same time, they would have been. Remember, Steve wanted to kill OS 9 as soon as possible.

Steve

icruise · Jan 30, 2006, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

There's simply more space in the 17" to put stuff and more room for a better cooling system. The 15" has always been a true challenge to design because of lack of space. Why do you think the 12" and 17" were the first to go aluminum with the 15" lagging by like 9 or 10 months?

Why would the 15" be harder to design because of "lack of space" than the 12"?

Eug Wanker · Jan 30, 2006, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

Wrong. Remember, I was there.

You were there what?

The 15" was a huge engineering challenge. It had nothing to do with OS 9 booting. If all three sizes had been available at the same time, they would have been. Remember, Steve wanted to kill OS 9 as soon as possible.

That makes no sense at all. Like I said, the 15" was at 1 GHz in November 2002. And then 2 months later the so-much-easier-to-design-because-it-had-lots-of-space 17" was released... at 1 GHz.

And I still don't understand how a 12" aluBook is easier to design than a 15", seeing as you're arguing space as the issue.

Commodus · Jan 30, 2006, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Icruise

Why would the 15" be harder to design because of "lack of space" than the 12"?

The 12" is considered a lower-end model, so they can use slower CPUs and GPUs. Apple has also made the 12" thicker than the 15" and 17", so it's possible to use cooling that is more vertical than horizontal.

toneloco28 · Jan 30, 2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

Wrong. Remember, I was there. The 15" was a huge engineering challenge. It had nothing to do with OS 9 booting. If all three sizes had been available at the same time, they would have been. Remember, Steve wanted to kill OS 9 as soon as possible.

Steve

Man, In every other post your telling someone how you worked at apple, and designed Blah Blah. WE GET IT ALREADY!

ibook_steve · Jan 30, 2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Commodus

The 12" is considered a lower-end model, so they can use slower CPUs and GPUs. Apple has also made the 12" thicker than the 15" and 17", so it's possible to use cooling that is more vertical than horizontal.

Exactly.

Steve

P.S. Sorry if my time working at Apple bothers some. I just thought you might be interested in hearing some of my experiences which I couldn't relate while I was there.

Eug Wanker · Jan 30, 2006, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

Exactly.

Steve

P.S. Sorry if my time working at Apple bothers some. I just thought you might be interested in hearing some of my experiences which I couldn't relate while I was there.

From what I gathered, you were not involved with the design (or project management) of the 15" aluBook. Is that correct?

jocker · Jan 30, 2006, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

Exactly.

Steve

P.S. Sorry if my time working at Apple bothers some. I just thought you might be interested in hearing some of my experiences which I couldn't relate while I was there.

Doesn't bother the majority - its interesting reading, rather than pure conjecture which is what many post on these boards. Don't stop it just because of a few envious people.

ibook_steve · Jan 30, 2006, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

From what I gathered, you were not involved with the design (or project management) of the 15" aluBook. Is that correct?

No, I was not. I worked on the 12". But I worked extensively with the people who worked on the 15" and the 17" because the components used and the designs were so similar. Obviously, the 15" and the 17" have much more in common than they do with the 12", but the collaboration was there.

Steve

ibook_steve · Jan 30, 2006, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by jocker

Doesn't bother the majority - its interesting reading, rather than pure conjecture which is what many post on these boards. Don't stop it just because of a few envious people.

Thanks. I didn't want people to think I was being snobby or anything.

Steve

Eug Wanker · Jan 30, 2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

No, I was not. I worked on the 12". But I worked extensively with the people who worked on the 15" and the 17" because the components used and the designs were so similar. Obviously, the 15" and the 17" have much more in common than they do with the 12", but the collaboration was there.

Are you claiming the people who designed the last 15" TiBook (which was the first SuperDrive TiBook) and the first 15" aluBook were completely independent?

Cuz if they weren't, then it sounds like it could be more of a case than resource allocation than specific design difficulties. Sure, certain problems would have to be licked, and would be problematic with limited resources, but that's a different argument. ie. Post most of the effort into developing the last OS 9-capable TiBook (with SuperDrive and the 1 GHz G4), in parallel with the 17", and then shift more resources to getting the 15" aluBook done once the 15" TiBook is actually finalized and released.

True? Not true? Don't know?

John123 · Jan 30, 2006, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

Hate to tell you, but it's the large screen that lets you get the extra "CPU cycles and frills hardware." There's simply more space in the 17" to put stuff and more room for a better cooling system. The 15" has always been a true challenge to design because of lack of space. Why do you think the 12" and 17" were the first to go aluminum with the 15" lagging by like 9 or 10 months? Designing a 15" with decent battery life with all that it has was extremely difficult. So you can get the bigger screen with the extra stuff or get the smaller screen with less stuff because that stuff just won't fit in there.

Steve

The example later cited of a processor speed difference, even if small, is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. The big one shouldn't be the "fastest" one -- they should be equal. If the argument is that the heat difference...well, ack.

Sijmen · Jan 30, 2006, 06:04 PM

On the other hand, if the 15" needs such a long time to design why is it the first to be released?

I think it was released because they needed to show the world they did something wonderful with the intel chips. Just an iMac wasn't enough. So that must've been an easy job or they rushed it to produce at least something(with faults or, hopefully, not).

b11051973 · Jan 31, 2006, 03:04 PM

Well, there is a 2.0 Ghz Yonah processor out there. Maybe Apple will put that in the 17".

I think a 17" laptop is way too big for portability reasons. I like my little 12" PowerBook.

Sijmen · Jan 31, 2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by b11051973

Well, there is a 2.0 Ghz Yonah processor out there. Maybe Apple will put that in the 17".

I think a 17" laptop is way too big for portability reasons. I like my little 12" PowerBook.

Well, that is all a matter of opinion. I carry my 17" around every day and I don't have any problem with the weight or the size. I need the screen space and that makes for some compromises I guess. Never had a 15" or a 12" so can't really say I ever used a lighter machine, it's my first laptop

mdc · Jan 31, 2006, 04:18 PM

I agree. I carry my 17" around all the time. All you need is a nice backpack. I can't tell the difference in weight between it and the 15" it replaced.

shabbasuraj · Feb 1, 2006, 05:51 PM

forget 17" .. so yesterday....

19" wide PB all the way baby...

b11051973 · Feb 2, 2006, 10:51 AM

I don't care about transporting a 17" PowerBook. I'm always carrying my 12" PB around at home. Like sitting in my La-Z-Boy and then moving to my bed. I used to do this with a IBM Thinkpad, and was in bliss when I got my little 12" PB. I really like the small package for my PB.

I really want a dual core MacBook Pro. If they don't offer that in a 12"(or 13.3" or whatever), I'll get a 15" MBP.

Mister Elf · Feb 2, 2006, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

No, I was not. I worked on the 12". But I worked extensively with the people who worked on the 15" and the 17" because the components used and the designs were so similar. Obviously, the 15" and the 17" have much more in common than they do with the 12", but the collaboration was there.

Steve

Are you really saying that it was THAT difficult to adapt the TiBook motherboard to the AlBook chassis? The AlBook is even a bit thicker than the Ti if I remember correctly...what was the main problem?

ibook_steve · Feb 2, 2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Elf

Are you really saying that it was THAT difficult to adapt the TiBook motherboard to the AlBook chassis? The AlBook is even a bit thicker than the Ti if I remember correctly...what was the main problem?

I didn't work on the 15", but for all three, the processor, core chipset (Apple custom ASIC called Intrepid), and graphics chips were all new. It's not even close to the Titanium main logic board. So it was like designing three brand new machines.

Steve

slffl · Feb 2, 2006, 04:42 PM

Obviously people who keep saying the 17" is too big have never used one for any period of time. It's easy to carry to and from work and around at home. I much prefer the thickness of it to the 15 and 12" PBs.

And yes the 17" should have more features because it does have more room. Why waste any bit of space in any of these laptops?

Eug Wanker · Feb 2, 2006, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by slffl

Obviously people who keep saying the 17" is too big have never used one for any period of time. It's easy to carry to and from work and around at home. I much prefer the thickness of it to the 15 and 12" PBs.

I went with the iBook 12" because I found the 15" TiBook I owned too bulky. The 17" wasn't even a remote consideration for me. It's WAY too unwieldy for my preferences.

NightEyes · Feb 3, 2006, 11:03 AM

I've had my 17" for almost two years now and it's been nothing short of wonderful, but I use it mainly as a desktop. I have a 12" PB for travel and more mobile needs. Tell you the truth though, when transporting both, it really does depend on the case/bag setup you have. I've been on cross country treks where I didn't really notice the difference between the two when it came to lugging them around. I've a brain cell for the 17" and a sleeve and cargo bag for the 12".

If I could only have one computer and it was a laptop that I needed to travel about with I'd prolly go with the 15", but that said, my 17" has been trouble free whereas the 15" I owned before it was far from it.