4 ms·

Ok I'll bite. I'd like the power of the 15" MBP, but after having the 15" in 2008 which I found to be too heavy to carry with me in my bag constantly, I've alwa

Ok I'll bite. I'd like the power of the 15" MBP, but after having the 15" in 2008 which I found to be too heavy to carry with me in my bag constantly, I've always bought the 13" Mac laptop (had a 2011 Air, now a 2015 Pro). I find the current 13" Pro to be about as heavy as I would like to comfortable carry in my backpack for hours at a time. I appreciate that the new 15" MBP is only .5 lbs heaver than the current 13" Pro which makes it a real option for me.

adamors 10y ago
Yeah, I agree. I have a 15" MBP from 2008 and that thing is heavy. Was eyeing the 13" only for the weight.
bennyg 10y ago
The real question: If the new 15" MBP was the same weight as last generation and included the new Kaby Lake processor, more RAM, better battery, etc. would you pass on it for the weight?
- lmm 10y ago
  You could say that about every feature though. If they hadn't bothered improving the battery but had refreshed the processor, RAM, and dropped the weight, would you pass on that just for the battery? Each individual feature is going to be marginal for most users, but together they add up to making the upgrade worthwhile.
et-al 10y ago
That's why there used to be two lines: the Air and the Pro. The new MBPs announced the past week feel more like ultraportable machines versus potential desktop-replacement workhouses. If Apple had the same announcement last week, but instead of calling MBP and calling it just the MacBook, people wouldn't be in as much of an uproar (aside from the fact that the MBPs are delayed yet again). USB-C and thinness are great--no one is arguing against that--but for a Pro line, to sacrifice utility and power is foolhardy. However it seems like Apple is going down some path of convergence, which doesn't look good for many professionals.
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
>> I just want to meet the consumer who looked at the old MBP and thought, "wow this is far too thick!". And the same goes for cell phones. Thinner is better, but only to a certain point and certainly not at the expense of battery life and features. > Ok I'll bite. I'd like the power of the 15" MBP, but after having the 15" in 2008 which I found to be too heavy to carry with me in my bag constantly He was talking about thickness, not weight. Those are correlated, to a degree, but it seems like Apple has compromised on things in its quest for thinness that it wouldn't have had to in a quest for lightness.

adamors 10y ago

Yeah, I agree. I have a 15" MBP from 2008 and that thing is heavy. Was eyeing the 13" only for the weight.

bennyg 10y ago

The real question: If the new 15" MBP was the same weight as last generation and included the new Kaby Lake processor, more RAM, better battery, etc. would you pass on it for the weight?

lmm 10y ago
You could say that about every feature though. If they hadn't bothered improving the battery but had refreshed the processor, RAM, and dropped the weight, would you pass on that just for the battery? Each individual feature is going to be marginal for most users, but together they add up to making the upgrade worthwhile.

et-al 10y ago

That's why there used to be two lines: the Air and the Pro. The new MBPs announced the past week feel more like ultraportable machines versus potential desktop-replacement workhouses. If Apple had the same announcement last week, but instead of calling MBP and calling it just the MacBook, people wouldn't be in as much of an uproar (aside from the fact that the MBPs are delayed yet again). USB-C and thinness are great--no one is arguing against that--but for a Pro line, to sacrifice utility and power is foolhardy. However it seems like Apple is going down some path of convergence, which doesn't look good for many professionals.

DashRattlesnake 10y ago

>> I just want to meet the consumer who looked at the old MBP and thought, "wow this is far too thick!". And the same goes for cell phones. Thinner is better, but only to a certain point and certainly not at the expense of battery life and features. > Ok I'll bite. I'd like the power of the 15" MBP, but after having the 15" in 2008 which I found to be too heavy to carry with me in my bag constantly He was talking about thickness, not weight. Those are correlated, to a degree, but it seems like Apple has compromised on things in its quest for thinness that it wouldn't have had to in a quest for lightness.