Hard Choice, help please

[RhineOnline]

Hi guys,

After my dilemma last week over if i should pick the 2.4 15" or 17" i find myself facing another one today, which i hope you can help me with.

I purchased the 15" 2.4 but had to return it due to there being 7 dead pixels in various places on the screen.

This is where the new problem occurs, the retailer (not apple, a electrical goods store) wont give me a refund and they have no more 15" 2.4 Macbook Pro's Available. So i have a few options, im hoping you can help me decide.

They can get me either the 15" 2.2 or the 17" 2.4.

Here are the prices and difference so you get a understanding of the position im in.

I had a 20% off voucher for this retailer and i claim VAT back with my business, so i haven't included that in the prices.

The Macbook Pro 15" 2.4 cost me £1088 ( $2184 )

If i go for the Macbook Pro 17" 2.4 i have to add £136 ( $272 )

If i go for the Macbook Pro 15" 2.2 i will save £204 ( $409 )

If i go for the 13" regular Black Macbook i will save £442 ( $887 )

I will be using the laptop for...

website and graphic production
video editing and to create flash documents
internet and casual music production

Please advice me on what you think would be the best choice.

Many Thanks

 

[lofight]

i think website and graphic production you should best have a big enough screen and a fast processor so i think the 17" with 2.4 is a good deal!

 

[Sesshi]

Depends on the horsepower you think you'll need for video production, and whether your use is primarily portable or primarily 'desktop replacement'.

The 17" is obviously ideal if you want one single almost-desktop machine to carry around and to work on all the time.

And if it's a fixed budget, a Macbook or 2.2 with an external monitor might be a better compromise if you plan to spend a good deal of your time on a desk. The power difference between the 2.2 and the 17" for example would not be huge in the overall scheme of things and yet an external display would have a greater impact on your everyday productivity while at home or at the office.

If your use is majority deskbound and your budget is fixed, I'd say go for the 2.2 and if the retailer sells decent large monitors, try and push them to fit your choice in the overall price. If you want to hedge your bets on a do-it-all (after all you can always buy an external monitor later) at the expense of portability (the extra 700g or so is noticeable), go for the 2.4 17".

 

[xpovos]

First things first, I don't think you'll find yourself satisfied with the regular 13" MacBook for your stated purposes, due to the comparatively low screen resolution. I've done all three of those things on a black MacBook and constantly found myself frustrated by screen resolution---especially for web development and graphic/video work. Furthermore, while you didn't state your preference for matte or glossy displays, folks doing the kind of work you're doing tend to prefer matte screens, and the MacBook only comes in glossy.

The 15" models right now are more likely to have screen defects of any kind than either of the other two models. While there are tons of good 15-inch screens out there, there are also way too many bad ones. While discussion forums like this one always present a biased view of defect rates, notice that the vast majority of MBP complaints on ALL of the Internet forums right now center on the 15" model. In short, buying a 15" MBP right now is more of a gamble (as regards quality control) than with the other models.

Since the price difference is not that large and there are far, far fewer complaints lodged against the 17" models---and given the type of work you want to do with the machine---I'd have to say this is the one for you, in my opinion. While the 17-inch model's CCFL screen isn't as brilliant as the LED-backlit 15" screens, it's also relatively defect-free (by all anecdotal accounts). You get the higher resolution (1680x1050, or 1920x1200 if you pay for the hi-res option) and sacrifice only a little in portability. I own both a 15" and a 17" MBP, and while the 17" is definitely not quite as portable, the difference is minimal.

Go for the 17".

 

[RhineOnline]

The main reason i got the laptop is so i could sit around the house doing work (producing graphics and websites etc) and not be sat at my desktop all day long.

Im afraid the 17" wont be portable and will be too large to use on my lap downstairs and when im laying in bed on the mornings.

So basically if i go for the other 15" screen i could get more deadpixels that doesn't sound good at all.

 

[flopticalcube]

F
The 15" models right now are more likely to have screen defects of any kind than either of the other two models. While there are tons of good 15-inch screens out there, there are also way too many bad ones. While discussion forums like this one always present a biased view of defect rates, notice that the vast majority of MBP complaints on ALL of the Internet forums right now center on the 15" model. In short, buying a 15" MBP right now is more of a gamble (as regards quality control) than with the other models.

That's probably because the 15" outsells the 17" by a wide margin. More of them out there to go wrong. Having said that, the MBP seems to be taking the brunt of the complaints for Apple recently, although the new iMac is giving it a run for its money.

 

[Sesshi]

The main reason i got the laptop is so i could sit around the house doing work (producing graphics and websites etc) and not be sat at my desktop all day long.

Im afraid the 17" wont be portable and will be too large to use on my lap downstairs and when im laying in bed on the mornings.

So basically if i go for the other 15" screen i could get more deadpixels that doesn't sound good at all.

I don't really have a problem with the 17-inchers in terms of what you say above.

There's the size difference. If you're familiar with the on-lap nature of the 15", then the size difference should be very clear. And the only issue with the weight is if you carry it around with you as part of your daily work - then it will surely tax your shoulder.

If your need isn't for regular portability but for one thing to look at while doing work - if you want everything self contained, then the 17" MBP is your thing. Unless you want to move towards more stable, better performance or better made Windows desktop replacements of course...

And I'd rule out on-bed use unless a) your duvet is fire retardant and b) you have an iLap or similar.

 

[Cybergypsy]

MBP 15'' all the way

 

[xpovos]

That's probably because the 15" outsells the 17" by a wide margin. More of them out there to go wrong.

Very true, and I'm sure that accounts for a lot of the difference in the number of complaints. But I also think that in a sense we can consider the new 15" models to be "rev A", at least in terms of their screens---and I've learned the hard way, over the past two years, what more seasoned users already knew: buying rev A Apple products is always a huge gamble.

 

[xpovos]

Im afraid the 17" wont be portable and will be too large to use on my lap downstairs and when im laying in bed on the mornings.

For bed use, you may be right. For everything else, the actual physical size difference between the 15" and 17" is really pretty negligible. It's the difference in weight that you notice most, and it seems like more than the (approx.) 1.5 pounds it actually is.

That said, I stand by my original opinion. I've owned all three of these models and done that type of work on all of them, and I definitely prefer the 17"---but I don't do a lot of work in bed.

 

[Veritas&Equitas]

MBP 15'' all the way

x2.