Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

muchachotron · Apr 28, 2004, 09:47 AM

are there any differences that anyone has noticed, or discovered, between the new 1.5 ghz powerbooks? it looks like the "top of the line" 15 inch and 17 inch are exactly the same, even as far as BTO upgrade options, besides the size of the screen. would ithe 17" perhaps run less hot, since it has more internal space and surface area? perhaps the speakers on the 17 inch are a little bigger/better (which is not something i'm concerned about, but i'd really like to know any and all differences that people are aware of before a purchase). one thing that i've seen that could be significant, and which i find really strange, is that the 15" audio input is rated at 24 bit, 44.1 khz (http://developer.apple.com/documenta...kG4/index.html), while the 17" is rated at 16 bit, 44.1 khz (http://developer.apple.com/documenta...kG4/index.html).

i am trying to decide between one of these. i've had (and sold) a 17 inch before, and i really liked the screen, but i don't know if its worth the extra cash just for the extra screen space alone on the 17" this time. on the previous iterations of the 17" it was more powerful and feature rich than the other models, so the decision was not as difficult.

baglunch · Apr 28, 2004, 10:09 AM

I think it depends on the purpose of your laptop. If you're doing a lot of video editing, or motion graphics then what seems like a little extra space could feel like miles of space. Personally I couldn't live without the extra 2", besides that, the laptop actually feels more confortable for me to work on. The 15 just felt too cramped for "me". Another factor for you could be the size and weight when traveling. If you intend on carrying your laptop around with you a lot then the 15" may be a better choice because it's lighter, and likely to fit better on smaller tables you squat on.

good luck.

bcaslis · Apr 28, 2004, 01:15 PM

Also keep in mind the speakers on the 17" are much better than any other laptop. Not as good as a stereo system, but certainly great for listening to music or a DVD in a hotel room when travelling.

I have a rev a 17" and sold it also for a rev a 15". The screen on the rev wasn't as bright or colors as good as the 15", but the new rev c screens are just as good if not slightly better than the 15" screens now.

BRussell · Apr 28, 2004, 07:24 PM

I've been pricing a 17" vs. 15" and one thing I noticed is that the 512MB RAM in the 15" consists of two 256 modules, whereas the 17" has one 512 module. If you want to order the 15" with one 512 instead, which you would if you want more RAM, it costs $90 extra. For me (edu pricing), that brought the difference between the two machines down to around $100.

arekkusu · Apr 29, 2004, 06:24 AM

The 15" sound system is different. 24 bit as you noticed (although only 16 bit appears as a supported option in Audio/MIDI Setup as of 10.3.3) and there is a 3rd speaker under the keyboard which the 17" does not have.

The 15" has a 50 W-hour battery (up from Rev A 15" AlBook's 46 W-hour), the 17" has a 58 W-hour battery.

As noted, the stock memory configuration is different (this was the ONLY reason I had to BTO my Rev A 15"!!!)

Otherwise, except for the display (and the bevy of early production issues with the 15" display) they are pretty much the same machine.

muchachotron · Apr 30, 2004, 11:53 AM

very good responses! thanks, all!

the ram configuration is a very good point.

i already have a pc2700 512 dimm lying around, so i want to be sure its already got the 512 and an empty slot. otherwise i'd have to mess around with removing/selling the 256 dimms, etc, or do the BTO thing.

the extra watt hours on the 17" are good too, but i imagine that it evens out, since its got the extra screen space suckin' juice.

are the newest 17" screens any better/different than the newest 15" ones? bcaslis mentioned that the new screens are better than his/her rev A 15".

can anyone answer the cooling question? it would seem that, running at the same speed, the 17" machine would run cooler/fan would activate less often, since it might have more internal space and surface area to wick the heat out. maybe i should just make a separate post about this.

iREZ · Apr 30, 2004, 12:16 PM

I dont think heat should be an issue between the two. Although there is more surface area on the 17" the 15" is still thicker so there isn't much of a difference in heat between the two. The 17" screens are awesome for the sheer fact that it's truely widescreen and has a higher resolution if I'm not mistaken, thats a huge plus for programs like illustratror and photoshop that have panes that you could throw aside, and not to mention Final Cut. If portability is not a determining factor get the 17" but if your going to want to lug the thing around with you (and if this is your first PB, you will) then get the 15", simple as that.

Michel_80 · Apr 30, 2004, 12:56 PM

So, doews the 15 sound better than the 17 because of the third speaker?

bcaslis · Apr 30, 2004, 01:32 PM

Absolutely not. I have both and I can tell you that the 17" blows away the 15" in terms of sound quality through the speakers. It doesn't matter what the specs are, the 15" sounds like a typical laptop speaker system while the 17" sounds like almost real speakers.

Originally posted by Michel_80:
So, doews the 15 sound better than the 17 because of the third speaker?

bcaslis · Apr 30, 2004, 01:35 PM

You are correct in that there isn't a huge difference in heat, but the 17" is definitely cooler to the touch than the 15". Also none of the temperature programs work yet with the rev c models, but on the rev b, the fan on my 17" came on 10F sooner than the 15" but ran much less. For whatever reason, the 17" is a cooler machine (temperature wise).

Originally posted by iREZ:
I dont think heat should be an issue between the two. Although there is more surface area on the 17" the 15" is still thicker so there isn't much of a difference in heat between the two. The 17" screens are awesome for the sheer fact that it's truely widescreen and has a higher resolution if I'm not mistaken, thats a huge plus for programs like illustratror and photoshop that have panes that you could throw aside, and not to mention Final Cut. If portability is not a determining factor get the 17" but if your going to want to lug the thing around with you (and if this is your first PB, you will) then get the 15", simple as that.

yticolev · Apr 30, 2004, 07:12 PM

I'd also like to point out that battery life is much better, perhaps 50%, on the 17. I have the Al15 revision A and it kind of sucks after using the titanium.

Michel_80 · Apr 30, 2004, 07:38 PM

How can it be? 50 watt on the 15 and then 58 watt on the 17".

And this with the larger screen.

bcaslis · Apr 30, 2004, 07:54 PM

I believe the comparison was between the rev a 15" and rev b 17". In that case it's 46W versus 58W (they only changed it to 50W on the 15" with the latest revision) and I can tell you from personal experience in that case it's true. While the actual numbers change depending on your usage, I would get 2 hours 45 minutes on the 15" and 3 hours 15" on the 17" doing the same things. I don't know how it will be on the rev b 15" versus the rev c 17" but I wouldn't assume the 15" will win.

Originally posted by Michel_80:
How can it be? 50 watt on the 15 and then 58 watt on the 17".

And this with the larger screen.

arekkusu · May 1, 2004, 05:50 AM

re: 15" speakers, they still sound like tinny laptop speakers. In addition, I'd prefer the 17" WITHOUT the third speaker even ignoring any imagined improvement due to speaker size, because the third speaker in the 15" IS NOT CENTERED and so everything is slightly off balance to the left.

A decent set of headphones will sound better than either laptop, in any case.

I can't speak for the 17" battery but my Rev A 15" also gets around 2:45 in common (web, Xcode) tasks.