thinking that a 17" is less pleasant to use than a 15" because of its size is asinine, with the possible exception of a coach-class airline seat. anyone who has seen them next to each other and used them knows that the difference in overall size footprint is marginal.
is it going to be "harder" to hike a 17 across the tundra than a 15? maybe by about 1lb. is it going to be less pleasant to hike it across town the starbuks? nope.
one thing i will agree with is that its tougher to find a bag, but ironically all the bags ALMOST fit it, but not quite.
It's asinine for me to think that? Give me a break.
As it is there's a lot of people who don't even like the 15" MBP and want something as small as the 12" PowerBook G4.
The 17" MBP is an inherently large laptop; it's certainly more manageable than 17" PC DTR's like the Dell Insprison E1705, but it's still pretty big.
I'm talking more about general use, having it in front of you on a desk, carrying it around, etc. There is a noticeable difference, and it isn't the best option for everyone. Especially for people who do use it in other scenarios, such as on their lap while sitting in a chair or on a couch or in bed or whatever.
You're acting like anyone who wants something smaller than the 17" MBP is asinine for that, and that's ridiculous.
Seriously, just because something doesn't make a difference to you doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference to others.
Small differences in footprint CAN make a difference. The actual footprint of the 15" MBP compared to a 13.3" MacBook isn't that big either, but there are plenty of people who have chosen MacBooks just for the smaller size alone.
It all depends on how someone uses it.
-Zadillo
