DailyTech - Apple Launches 17" MacBook Pro

Submit News

Hardware Apple Launches 17" MacBook Pro
Brandon Hill (Blog) - April 24, 2006 1:32 PM

11 comment(s) - last by jkresh.. on Apr 26 at 12:45 AM

Apple's new 17" model offers a 2.16GHz Core Duo processor and a 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon X1600

Three months after the initial launch of Apple's Intel-based MacBook Pro, the Cupertino-based company is at it again. Apple has just announced its 17" MacBook Pro which is priced at $2,799. As is the usual case with a new product offering from Apple, they are touting the performance benefits over previous models. In the case of the 17" MacBook Pro, Apple cites a 5.1x increase in integer performance and a 5.5x increase in floating-point performance over the PowerBook G4.

The 17" MacBook Pro measures 15.4" x 10.4" x 1" and weighs in at 6.8 pounds compared to 5.6 pounds for the 15.4" model. Whereas the 15.4" MacBook Pros are available with 1.83GHz, 2.0GHz and 2.16GHz Core Duo processors, the 17" model some with just the 2.16GHz processor. 1GB of 667MHz DDR2 memory is included as is a 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 which powers the 17" (1680x1050) display.

Other changes worth noting include a new 8x dual-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW) in place of the 4x SuperDrive. Also included are three USB 2.0 ports, one FireWire 400 port and one FireWire 800 port. Storage duties are handled by a 120GB 5400RPM Serial-ATA hard drive.

All of the usual features that you've come to expect from the MacBook Pro model range are still there including the built-in iSight camera, Apple Remote, built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR (Enhanced Data Rate), integrated AirPort Extreme 54 Mbps 802.11g WiFi wireless networking and the MagSafe power adapter port.

So what's next for Apple on the notebook front? Rumor has it that a 13" widescreen model may be fast approaching. Other than new products launching from Apple, MacMall has announced that it is now shipping Intel-based Macs with Windows XP pre-loaded as an option. DailyTech previously reported that Apple was attempting to address issues with its current 15" MacBook Pros. It will be interesting to see whether the new 17" has similar issues.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No 1900x1200?

By mb on 4/24/2006 4:22:10 PM , Rating: 2

Even though I personally prefer 1680x1050 over 1900x1200, I find it odd that they don't even offer it as a choice.

RE: No 1900x1200?

By DigitalFreak on 4/24/2006 4:27:54 PM , Rating: 2

C'mon, it's Apple. Form over function.

Parent

RE: No 1900x1200?

By shuttleboi on 4/24/2006 5:21:52 PM , Rating: 2

Geez. I'm not an Apple user, but comments like yours really are irritating. Let me guess: you're very happy with your Dell. If you can't afford an Apple, just admit it rather than bash it.

Parent

RE: No 1900x1200?

By headbox on 4/24/2006 8:12:56 PM , Rating: 2

if someone can afford it isn't the point- the fact that Apple charges $1,000 for brand name and cult membership is the problem.

Parent

RE: No 1900x1200?

By caboosemoose on 4/24/2006 9:04:18 PM , Rating: 1

Umm,that's nonsense. Apple notebooks are far, far better engineered than nearly every PC notebook.

That said, I agree that Apple should offer higher DPI displays as an option. 1,680 x 1,050 on the 15.4-incher and 1,920 x 1,200 on the 17-incher would be nice.

The lowish res of the 15.4-incher is a real shame. If it weren't for that, it would be the default option in the 15.4-inch space, now that dual booting is officially supported.

Parent

RE: No 1900x1200?

By michael2k on 4/24/2006 9:37:41 PM , Rating: 2

You know that isn't true.

Apple sells iBooks, iMacs, and Mac minis which do not carry a $1k premium.

Otherwise you'd find -$1 laptops, $300 AIO desktops, and -$300 desktops from Dell.

Apple does charge a premium, but it's much closer to 10% ($250 for their MBP, $100 for their Mac mini) than such a hyperbolic value as $1,000.

Parent

RE: No 1900x1200?

By iamright on 4/24/2006 10:06:32 PM , Rating: 3

I bought my Inspiron 9300 for a thousand less than a powerbook with similar specs at the time. I used a coupon for $850 off. Even after all that, and having used my Inspiron for 8 months or so I still find myself wanting a new apple 17 inch macbook pro. I don't think that dell could make a laptop with the same specs and same design and same form factor and offer it at the same price not to mention a price that is $1000 less. If they could, don't you think they would be doing it now? I get bothered by people who keep comparing specs and benchmarks without looking at the whole picture. There is a premium to be paid for the "little subtle extras" in a mac. Again, if dell could make the same laptop and offer it at the same or lower price, why is dell not doing it? Why am I still wanting an apple after having all that dell can offer? Because the best that dell can offer is not as good as what apple offers. It seems like some people never wonder why apple doesn't make clunky cheap laptops like my Inspiron and instead chose to make nicer looking, sleek, lighter, aluminum laptops. People question why apple doesn't offer wuxga screens simply because dell does. I have a wuxga screen on my Inspiron and I know that apple doesn't offer it because it wouldn't be as bright as the wsxga they offer. It's not like their engineers can't figure out how to put one in or they just don't know that dell and hp have been doing for years and they are “behind”. It's obvious that there is a reason for it, a good one. People should look for answers instead of ignorantly criticizing and comparing.

Parent

RE: No 1900x1200?

By rqle on 4/25/2006 7:01:07 AM , Rating: 2

comparison from both side are usually crap when it comes to what side of the fence your on. Mac user like to bash and use dell as a comparison, would deck out the system to compare prices and claim its about the same. PC users like to used Dell super cheap/good days sale where XPS 17inch system w/7800 is half the price of this as a comparison.

Parent

RE: No 1900x1200?

By jkresh on 4/26/2006 12:45:16 AM , Rating: 2

I agree, both the 15 and 17 should have 1900x1200 as an option, how many of these will be bought to use finalcut... and over the next few years start working in hd, while its true that for hd editing the replacements for the desktops (dual processor Conroe?) will be better some might want to use these notebooks and not having 1080p as at least an option on the 17 makes that difficult without an external display.

Parent

Pricing?

By dcollins on 4/24/2006 2:53:40 PM , Rating: 2

Wow, this is awesome in my book, I'm definately getting one this summer, but i'm really confused as to one thing.

17" 2.16ghz, 120GB HD = $2799 ($2599 student!)
15.4" 2.16ghz, 120GB HD = $2899

These things are 100 bucks cheaper than the 15 in models plus they have the firewire 800 and the superior super drive. And, if the trend holds true from the powerbook family, they'll probably have better battery life! Really seems like a win win to me.

I'm not surprised by the cost similarities

By hmurchison on 4/24/2006 4:03:46 PM , Rating: 2

Portability is the thing here. Regardless of price some people simply are not going to purchase a 17in laptop. I doubt the panels really are that different in cost.

If i'm looking for a desktop replacement with a bit of portability I'm looking 17in. If I know I'm a road warrior i'm going 15.4 at the largest.

13.3in Macbook just may be the perfect liteweight Mac portable. Hope the keyboard doesn't suck.

Parent

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer