View Full Version : pb g4 15" vs. 17"
Hello everyone -
I've decided to buy a new powerbook g4, because I am a filmmaking student and I want to be able to edit on my own system, but I also need a portable (and I want the system asap, so I'm not going to wait until Intel powerbooks).
I'm having a really hard time deciding between the new 15" and the 17" though (w/ same internal specs - 1.67, 2 gb, 100 gig 7200). Is there anyone out there who uses FCP with a 17" pb and believes that the extra space is actually worth the extra 300 dollars (and size)? I am really not into ostentation, so the "wow" factor is even almost a negative for me, but the extra screen space might be the deciding factor. Alternately, has anyone edited on a 15", but deep-down wished they had the extra screen? Thanks!
(1) Wait 2 weeks just to be sure how things will play out.
(2) As well as screen real estate, consider what sort of portability you want - 15" is very portable, 17" less so; personally I wouldn't want to have to carry the 17" to work every day.
I would say the 15" is on the big side... it's not huge but it's not small either. You will have to get a dedicated carry bag for it. Apple's 12" notebooks all seem to fit well in bags designed to carry folders and regular notebook paper.
From a relative standpoint, neither the 15" nor the 17" is really that huge, but that's only when you compare them to cheap PC laptops that weigh 7-9 lbs and are 2" thick. But they're still rather bulky and have large footprints, and the weight is not that tiny... almost 6 lbs for the 15" and almost 7 lbs for the 17".
I've owned the 12" and the 15" Powerbook and I think the 15" is the best value and it's not as big as the 17" and bulky while at the same time it's big enough to be comfortable where's the 12" felt too small for me.
And here's something neat to consider too: with the increased resolution on these latest PowerBooks, the resolution on the 15" is now that of what the 17" has been since its arrival three years ago (1440x960...actually 60 pixels taller than the 1400x900 of the previous version 17", and current 17" iMac G5).
Granted, the 17" has also jumped up to the 1680x1050 found on the 20" iMac and Cinema Display, but still...the 15" running at the higher resolution is going to feel like what the 17" has sported for years.
But until just a couple of months ago, the 17" and its 1440x900 resolution was the best/highest one could get on a portable Mac. Now you've got that resolution available - actually, a smidge more vertically! - on the 15"! And for a good bit less money than the 17" costs.
If it were me, I'd go with the 15" hands down. Perfect middle size, and, because of the bumped resolution, you're getting something that's going to be perceived, display-wise, as larger and more roomy.
Save the $500 bucks you'd spend going to the 17" (with no real performance boost, right?) and enjoy a good mid-size laptop with a nice increase in screen real esate! Pocket the $500, or apply it to other things you may want/need.
Is there anyone out there who uses FCP with a 17" pb and believes that the extra space is actually worth the extra 300 dollars (and size)?Yes and yes.
Call me a purist, but I really like to be able to have the 2 720x48(0/6) video palettes sitting next to each other at 'full-res'. That's simply not possible on anything less than the new 17" PB, and let me tell you, I've was holding off on a new PB for the longest time for just that reason.
For the software I use screen real estate is at a premium, so the 17" fills the bill nicely for me.
I agree with 709.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.