Most reliable 17" MacBook Pro 2007-2011

[Fozziebear40]

I am looking for a 17" MacBook Pro, reliable, that runs Snow Leopard.

I have a piece of software that I use regularly along with a paid up version of Photoshop that works for me (don't need updates or subscribe for life to Adobe) that won't run on anything higher than Snow Leopard. I currently use a 2011 iMac for just this and it works great, but I would like a big screen laptop to use it on so I can move around at home and work in different rooms. I have ran it in a virtual machine on a modern Mac but it is slow. I can even run it on an old 15" 2006 MacBook Pro I have but the backlight is fading. I have even screen shared from the iMac to my modern Mac but it has a bit of lag drawing.

An option is spending £2,500 on a new 16" MacBook Pro and running Snow Leopard as a virtual machine, but as they seem to be going on eBay for £150 I thought I'd have a try first with an old 17". I know a lot have the graphic card problems, what about 2009 ones? Would have to be led backlit as the older backlights are dull being over 14 years old.

Thanks.

 

[Amethyst1]

2007 and 2008 MBPs are well known for defective NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT GPUs (which can be replaced with a revised variant).

2010 MBPs are known for crashes when switching GPUs due to a faulty capacitor (which can be replaced).

2011 MBPs are well known for defective AMD Radeon HD 6xxx GPUs (which can't be fixed).

So, I'd say your safest bet is a 2009 with the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and 9600M GT dual-GPU setup, followed by a 2010 since the capacitor is "easy" to replace if you know what you're doing ( ).

 

[Fozziebear40]

Thank you Amethyst1 for clarifying all the various graphic cards defects, I'll have a search for a 2009 one.

 

[eyoungren]

I know you said 2007 to 2011, but what about 2006?

I've had my 2006 17" MBP since around 2015 or so. Runs a max of Snow Leopard and because of the processor it can never run anything higher - even a patched version. It's the A1151 model.

 

[Amethyst1]

I know you said 2007 to 2011, but what about 2006?

These don't have the LED-backlit screen the OP wants and have a "grainy" anti-reflective coating. The early 2006 Core Duo models top out at Snow Leopard indeed (I don't count the hacked copy of Lion you can coax onto them); the late 2006 Core 2 Duo models top out at Lion or a patched Mountain Lion or Mavericks installation.

 

[ScreenSavers]

I’ve had a handful of the 2010 17” models and have had very few issues with them. Like mentioned above the ‘09 model is also quite reliable.

 

[Fozziebear40]

I know you said 2007 to 2011, but what about 2006?

I've had my 2006 17" MBP since around 2015 or so. Runs a max of Snow Leopard and because of the processor it can never run anything higher - even a patched version. It's the A1151 model.

I've got a 2006 15" MacBook Pro, and you are right, still runs great apart from the dark screen. I could get a new back light or whatever but that investment I thought I would try 17". I presume LED back light doesn't degrade as much.

Thanks to the mods as well for putting it in the right forum I never thought of that one. Lot's to read, that is my first Mac in my sig!

 

[eyoungren]

These don't have the LED-backlit screen the OP wants and have a "grainy" anti-reflective coating. The early 2006 Core Duo models top out at Snow Leopard indeed (I don't count the hacked copy of Lion you can coax onto them); the late 2006 Core 2 Duo models top out at Lion or a patched Mountain Lion or Mavericks installation.

OK, I guess I have an 'analog' backlit screen then?

And as far as 'grainy' anti-reflective coating, I'm not quite sure I understand. My screen looks matte. Maybe this grainy thing is what makes it look matte?

 

[eyoungren]

I've got a 2006 15" MacBook Pro, and you are right, still runs great apart from the dark screen. I could get a new back light or whatever but that investment I thought I would try 17". I presume LED back light doesn't degrade as much.

Thanks to the mods as well for putting it in the right forum I never thought of that one. Lot's to read, that is my first Mac in my sig!

OK. Can't really argue that. Now that it's been pointed out I do recall it not being as bright as I'd like. I have not used it in some time so there are things I've forgotten.

 

[rampancy]

So, I'd say your safest bet is a 2009 with the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and 9600M GT dual-GPU setup.

Weren't those the generation of MacBook Pros where the 9600M GT would fail, necessitating a hardware hack to completely disable it?

I've got a 2006 15" MacBook Pro, and you are right, still runs great apart from the dark screen. I could get a new back light or whatever but that investment I thought I would try 17". I presume LED back light doesn't degrade as much.

I have several 15" MacBook Pros in my collection (some A1150s and the A1151 that was my daily driver back in grad school) and they still run great. (Especially my A1151 - it's a miracle the GPU didn't fail considering how I used it for a lot of heavy gaming.) I just wish it was accessible as my A1181. (Especially for replacing the LCD when the backlight fails.)

 

[Amethyst1]

OK, I guess I have an 'analog' backlit screen then?

You have a CCFL-backlit screen. These are not as bright as LEDs, consume more power and their brightness degrades with age.

I have a 15" 2007 MBP with a glossy LED-backlit screen and a 17" 2007 MBP with a matte CCFL-backlit screen. The difference between the two is huge, although luckily the matte screen isn't "grainy".

And as far as 'grainy' anti-reflective coating, I'm not quite sure I understand. My screen looks matte. Maybe this grainy thing is what makes it look matte?

Anti-reflective coating makes the screen look matte, yep. But on the 2006 MBPs, it goes a bit over the top and also makes the picture look a bit "grainy".

Weren't those the generation of MacBook Pros where the 9600M GT would fail, necessitating a hardware hack to completely disable it?

Is this as well-known/widespread as the 8600M GT failure in the 2007/2008 MBPs? I mean, here we have a machine with seemingly this exact problem...

 

[eyoungren]

You have a CCFL-backlit screen. These are not as bright as LEDs, consume more power and their brightness degrades with age.

I have a 15" 2007 MBP with a glossy LED-backlit screen and a 17" 2007 MBP with a matte CCFL-backlit screen. The difference between the two is huge, although luckily the matte screen isn't "grainy".

Ah, yes, that is what I was looking for, CCFL. It's early here and I still haven't had my coffee.

Anti-reflective coating makes the screen look matte, yep. But on the 2006 MBPs, it goes a bit over the top and also makes the picture look a bit "grainy".

LOL. I have a desktop background on this Mac that itself has a 'grainy' background, so I guess it 'helps'.

 

[Mactech20]

2009 is the most reliable but 2010 GPU issues from what I have seen is pretty darn rare. I think you would be fine with either. Avoid 2011 at all costs. Any of the GPU's in those models are just absolute trash. I have never had one that didn't fail in time.

 

[rampancy]

Is this as well-known/widespread as the 8600M GT failure in the 2007/2008 MBPs? I mean, here we have a machine with seemingly this exact problem...

Like the RM X1600 failiures on the 2006/2007 MBPs, it seemed to have fallen into this liminal space where it was common enough to not be simply dismissed out of hand as random hardware failures or one-off manufacturing defects, but not common enough (or vocal enough?) to be acknowledged by Apple with an official repair program. (AFAIK.)

I did unearth a thread linking to an Inquirer article, that implies that early batch 9600M GTs "might" (?) have been produced with the same problematic materials as the infamous batch of 8600M GTs.

Edit: Oh yeah, I think the hardware hack I was thinking of was to disable the GT 750M in the 2011 MBP.

 

[Fozziebear40]

Thank you for all your help. The search is on for a 2009 model, maybe 2010 and not 2011 ☺️

 

[Spock]

2011 MBPs are well known for defective AMD Radeon HD 6xxx GPUs (which can't be fixed).

The Radeon graphics can be disabled so that it defaults to the Intel graphics but it's still not 100% reliable. I have also heard that you can take the logic board out and bake it in the oven for a short amount of time to reflow the bad solder joints that cause the failure. And if you are REALLY adventurous, you can actually disable the on board graphics permanently with a little micro soldering.

 

[Amethyst1]

The Radeon graphics can be disabled so that it defaults to the Intel graphics but it's still not 100% reliable.

Right.

Spoiler

Despite this, 2011 17" MBPs still command a substantial price at least in my part of the world; substantially more than I'd be willing to pay for a crippled eleven-year-old machine. But that's beside the point.

I have also heard that you can take the logic board out and bake it in the oven for a short amount of time to reflow the bad solder joints that cause the failure.

That's not a permanent fix though. The only permanent "fix" is to disable the AMD GPU.

 

[Fozziebear40]

The only permanent "fix" is to disable the AMD GPU.

Wow, that looks like some delicate soldering, my 60 year old eyes wouldn't manage 😂

 

[Amethyst1]

Wow, that looks like some delicate soldering, my 60 year old eyes wouldn't manage 😂

You can also "soft-disable" it with some EFI firmware magic.

 

[dz330]

I think I've had at least one of each year at some point. My most reliable was a 2010 17" that I passed on and still gets used daily. 2006 was also a reliable year if you're a fan of the pre-unibody Pros. It's funny how everyone is saying 2009 was the most reliable (and maybe it's true) but I have one in mint physical condition and it won't power on. 🤷‍♂️

 

[Fozziebear40]

The Unibody MacBook Pro's 17" from 2009 - 2011 are identical on the outside. Do you think parts are interchangeable between them? Case in point, a pristine bodied 2011 not working, could that take the working motherboard of a beat up 2009 model?

 

[weckart]

And as far as 'grainy' anti-reflective coating, I'm not quite sure I understand. My screen looks matte. Maybe this grainy thing is what makes it look matte?

I had a 15" late 2006/early 2007 15" MBP with the X1600 GPU. It was the worst display I ever had on any notebook. There was so much anti-glare trowelled onto the screen that whites appeared like a twinkling silver/grey and small fonts were hard to make out. When I booted into Windows, the fonts and widgets compared with OS X were small and impossible to read or make out, making Windows at default resolution nigh on impossible to use.

It was the only notebook of mine I ever hated and I barely cared when it was stolen. My only regret was that I didn't take it straight back.

 

[eyoungren]

I had a 15" late 2006/early 2007 15" MBP with the X1600 GPU. It was the worst display I ever had on any notebook. There was so much anti-glare trowelled onto the screen that whites appeared like a twinkling silver/grey and small fonts were hard to make out. When I booted into Windows, the fonts and widgets compared with OS X were small and impossible to read or make out, making Windows at default resolution nigh on impossible to use.

It was the only notebook of mine I ever hated and I barely cared when it was stolen. My only regret was that I didn't take it straight back.

Yeah, I've never had that kind of a problem. With my 17" MBP, it looks just like the matte screen on my PowerBook. I've never detected any problems.

That would have bugged the heck out of me.

 

[Amethyst1]

[...] I barely cared when it was stolen.

Despite the financial loss? Or was it covered by insurance?

 

[weckart]

Despite the financial loss? Or was it covered by insurance?

No insurance at the time. I was renting and the house as it was probably wouldn't have met the standards for insurance anyway. It was laughably easy to break into. I lost about £5k worth of Apple stuff and just had to write it down to experience.

Basically, they took everything except my Mac Mini G4. That kept me going until I got my Santa Rosa MBP.