MacBook Pro 17-inch unibody review
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Mar 4th 2009 5:42PM
posted Mar 4th 2009 5:42PM
There's no point in going as in-depth on this model of MacBook Pro as we did on the 15-inch version. In terms of hardware, build quality, and general patchwork inside, this is the same computer (albeit somewhat more gigantic). The same unibody construction is used here, and Apple calls the laptop the "world's thinnest and lightest 17-inch notebook." We won't argue -- it compares favorably to the smaller entry in the family, and besides it's obviously larger footprint, we didn't feel it was excessively heavy for a device of this size (it actually weighs 6.6 pounds, just a little over a pound heavier than the 15-inch version).
All of the other details, like the glass trackpad and new keyboards are completely intact. Actually, if you saw one of these from a distance, it might not be immediately obvious that it was the 17-incher (save for how tiny the human using it would look in comparison).
Hardware
The version we received was the fully kitted out iteration of the laptop. The base configuration (a not-super-cheap $2,799) is outfitted with a 2.66GHz CPU, 4GB of RAM, a 320GB hard drive, and the switchable NVIDIA GeForce 9400M / 9600M GT GPUs. The version we have came fully loaded with a 2.93GHz CPU, 8GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD, and (yes) an anti-glare display. Needless to say, performance wasn't much of an issue -- but the final cost ($4,899) might be a little extreme for most.
In terms of day to day tasks, this computer is simply overkill. If you're working on even somewhat graphically intensive projects, you can probably get by just fine with one of the smaller models. It's not as if the GPU is more super-charged than any other system in the line. The real advantage here is the massive screen real estate, matte display, and the supposedly gargantuan battery life. The 17-inchers do seem suited to those working in the video or photography fields, and Apple clearly isn't too interested in trying to shill these to the mainstream. The company is actually touting features like a 60 percent greater color gamut in the display panel (which incidentally is the same in both the gloss and non-gloss versions).
Performance on our system was insanely fast, though. From cold boot to active desktop took roughly 30 seconds, which is blazing (at least to us). Jumping from app to app, dealing with huge images / editing, multiple tabs of CPU intensive websites, and having scores of projects open at once didn't faze the Pro. The biggest performance gains were in disk access, and obviously the SSD is a major player here, but even general UI elements seemed snappier and more responsive than on our other computers. Of course, none of that should come as a surprise, this is -- after all -- Apple's top of the line laptop.
So let's talk about that display for a moment. Our biggest gripe about the other new unibody Macs was the lack of a matte option for the screens. In our review, we noted that the glare on the new LED displays is so intense that it's actually quite distracting in anything other than a lowly lit room. Apple chose to solve the problem on the bigger versions by introducing an anti-glare option (for an additional $50, of course). Interestingly, the company prefers the term "anti-glare" to "matte," which is odd, since "anti-glare" quite obviously suggests the other option is, well... "glare."
MacBook Pro 15-inch vs. MacBook Pro 17-inch
Regardless, the new display is stunning. Not only is the thing massive in terms of resolution (going back to the 15-incher made us feel like we were working on an OLPC XO), but the color depth and contrast are stunning. Apple seems to have really honed the art of light sensing, and we found the display accurately adjusting itself to a room's light. When cranked up to full brightness, the screen beams -- it's crisp, clear, and colors pop. We're not designers, and we're not professional photographers, but as far as we can tell, this display would be pure win for folks in those lines of work.
As you likely know, the battery in the 17-incher is the non-removable type, much like the MacBook Air... with one major difference. Phil Schiller went on and on at Macworld this year about the lengths the company went to in developing a battery which is not only built into the system, but extends life far beyond that of a typical unit. The result was a The claim from Apple is that the 40 percent larger, lithium-polymer-based bricks they came up with can provide up to eight (yes, 8) hours of use on a single full charge, and can be re-juiced 1000 times before needing to be replaced. Once you need said replacement, the packs can be swapped out by Apple for a low, low fee of $179.
So, the claim: up to eight hours with the on-board graphics, and seven hours with the discrete GPU switched on -- how did they fare?
In our tests, under normal use (image editing, heavy web surfing, blogging all over the internet, YouTube / Viddler video watching, really serious AIM sessions), the laptop nabbed an average of 4:40 on a single charge with the low-power GPU, and, surprisingly, just under four hours (about 3:50) with the discrete chip. Those numbers fall right in line with other reviews we've seen of the laptop, and our feeling was that they're fairly consistent across the board. So, we're dealing almost four hours discrepancy with what Apple claims -- but what does that mean? According to the company, they tested a 2.66GHz model with the screen at half brightness while browsing the web over WiFi and editing a text document to achieve that eight hour number. We put the system to a more average and complete test, and frankly, we're impressed with the results. The new battery bests the typical lifespan of a MacBook Pro removable by almost double. Having seen what it's capable of, we could get comfortable with Apple adding batteries of this variety into other new laptops they produce, but let's revisit this again in a year or two -- we still have no idea what the long term experience would be like with one of these. Will it live up to the promise of a 1000 charges? We have our doubts.
Still, if we had to choose a swappable scenario over this, it would be hard to choose. From experience, being able to quickly swap to a new battery is a huge benefit when you're on the move and don't have a second to recharge. On the other hand, the huge stretches of time between charges we saw on the new 17-incher are extremely encouraging, and likely long enough to make the system viable for field use.
Wrap-up
Ultimately, the decision about whether to buy the bigger MacBook Pro is probably already made -- if you're a power user who needs the real estate, there's little to deter you from making this purchase. Apple has cleaned up the design in all the right ways, improved the display and guts considerably, and proved that it can milk a substantial amount of time from a non-removable battery. The cost may still be a major barrier here for most, but something tells us if you really need a computer of this size, you'll find a way to pay for it. Our actual gripe comes not in the form of problems with this particular system, but in Apple's methodology of rolling out options for their laptops. Unlike competitors such as Dell, if you want a 15-inch Apple laptop, you're stuck with one type of display (the same resolution and same obnoxious glossy finish), and your options for other components aren't much better. Apple: you've proven that you can turn in a beautiful, clear LED display without resorting to the reflective sheen of the current models -- why not extend that kindness to the rest of your users?
Likey
is it just me or is this computer extremely ugly? the keyboard looks so out of place and the speakers on the side look hideous. I'd rather go with that asus lambo laptop
I think the styling was cool about 3 years ago but it seems to be getting long in the tooth....
Seightan, I just don't get it either. It just looks...I don't know, awkward. Too much dead space around the keyboard, maybe? (And yes, I know there are speakers there, but still...)
Also the space around the keyboard is the air intake for the fans. If you crack open the pre-unibody one, take off the filter from both sides and crank the fans you feel it sucking in air.
It looks better in person, but still awkward. Not as bad as most alternatives, but for Apple it's not up to regular standards in my opinion.
New designs always look "ugly" - it's natural to be put off by something different. However....
I am typing this on the new unibody 17" and I can tell you this computer looks fantastic. Better than anything really. It makes my older 15" MacBook Pro look like a cheap plastic Dell - despite the fact that the old MBP was up until recently the standard in laptop design. The unibody looks like it came from 5 years in the future. Of course if you get the matte display, you also get the silver bezel and no full-screen glass so it doesn't look nearly as good.
On the glossy issue, I am not sure matte is all that much better. Matte blurs out reflections, sure - but does the end result look _better_? I don't think so. The 17" glossy display is absolutely stunning in terms of color reproduction and brightness and my matte 15" is also hard to read in direct sunlight - it's just a _different_ hard to read. My final verdict would be that matte trades a certain amount of color / black accuracy for a slightly improved experience in direct sunlight or very bright rooms. The glossy looks better also because of the black bezel and seamless glass.
I think it looks odd because with all the real estate, the keyboard is the same as the less roomy MBPs. The tiny cursor keys and the function keys etc. are meant to save space, so look inconsistent with the size of the rest of this machine. Maybe it's a matter of getting used to, and I understand the cost concerns, and maybe the design continuity from the 13 and 15 inchers, but it's a bitt off balance.
The styling is nice, but that keyboard half looks FAT! The wrist-rest area is so big that it makes the the bezel on the sides of the keyboard look huge. This thing is begging for a dedicated four-column keypad. They need to move the speakers to another location and add an extended keyboard.
Oh come on, like any of these replies have to do with "Likey"
stop replying to the first comment to get yours bumped to the top.
The silver bezel looks so ugly and out of place.
i think that since it (basically) uses the same design as the smaller macbook, the proportions of the keyboard, trackpad etc... are out of wack!
like they could have easily made the trackpad bigger, and would it kill them to add the number keypad on the side of the keyboard?
Im using a 17 inch laptop atm and it has a full keyboard + numpad, it looks like it meant to be there. I can see why they have that keyboard on the 17inch MBP, because its the same keyboard for all MBs and MBP and therefore cheaper to make.
I get 3 hours out of my two year old bottom of the line macbook while doing web development in an airplane with my screen brightness all the way down.
If you aren't browsing the web with the beastly Flash player spinning your fan and aren't goofing around in iMovie for 4 hours straight I have no doubt most users will get the 6-8 hours.
It lacks a numeric pad... i just cant understand that decision on a "workstation"... working isn't only photoshop/graphic editing.
I want.
Can I get a discount if I buy this without OSuX ?
.
That question was dumb on at least seven different levels.
Wooaaaa,
"From cold boot to active desktop took roughly 30 seconds, which is blazing..."
You are trying to tell me that a machine running 8GB RAM costing $4800 takes as long as 30 seconds.....
You are kidding me....
This is running Generic Hardware. Every PC manufacturer in the world can screw the EXACT same components down on a chassis and get a faster boot than that. This is not the hardware.
That is not good software !!!!
Tough love OSuX fanboys.
Thanks for the comment. Now Santa knows what not to get you if you're naughty.
Wow, kccboy2004, way to go off topic. Don't do it to my posts again. Ever.
My 7 year old Dell D600 running with 500MB RAM running XP boots up from cold in 25 seconds.
Apple should try flashing the BIOS.
^^ Bullshit. Sorry.
A: Douchebag Troll!
B: You're like the kid with a 1992 Ford Probe that's always claiming he's smoking Vettes' and Porsches on the interstate.
My Quad core 2.4 (OCd to 3.0) zBrush PC with 8gigs of RAM doesn't boot to windows in 24 seconds. Maybe when it's on a fresh install.
You need to actually look at your watch instead of counting in your head maybe.
Ok... so some people think it's a bad design... Um... if you want a more proportional keyboard to screen and real estate around the keyboard, maybe you should get the 15" one or the 13" one. They're much more proportional on those. What would apple do instead of that? There's no room for a 10 key, the keys are already spaced the same as all keyboards.... should they make the keys huge so it's proportional, but you cant type? I don't understand exactly what people are bitching about... of course it's kind of unwieldy... it's a 17" laptop.
OSuX lol good one, That thing is seriously ugly though, I guess that's why MS controls 97% of the market.
@kccboy2004 Boot speed has more to do with drive speed than RAM.
The first pic makes it look a bit...warped.
matte! hooray! screen that extends almost to the end of the body! hooray! lots of battery life! hooray!
...
hooray!
To me, it doesn't matter how long it lasts... it runs OSX. Done deal, right there.
Dear god that is ugly, everything is out of proportion, massive body oddly shaped trackpad and tiny keyboard, i thought Apple were supposed to be good at design.
I'm glad I'm not the only one to think this.
Sure, Apple may make a good looking desktop, but their laptops are just hideous!
Your are not alone.
I like way better the old MacBook Pro
The design looks fine on the 13" and 15" models but it doesn't really scale well. It just makes the keyboard look tiny.
It doesn't look THAT bad IMO; what is beyond me is why the hell didn't they use all that space?! Come on! A bigger keyboard, a small num pad...
I think the reason it looks ugly is because they've taken out the black bezel, presumable just on the "anti-glare" version, which was a stupid move. The black bezel was what made it look more modern. This now just looks like the old MacBook Pros which were well out of date.
It amaze me that Apple has engadget so deep down their pockets that the editors at this site never say anything negative about an apple product without spinning it one way or another. Just look at how the Mac Mini has been updated by comes with a preposterous 1GB of RAM but Engadget haven't even touched on it. The would be firing AK47s in the air if Dell released a $600 with just 1024MB of RAM. Apple posts here are beginning to sound more like advertorials.
qft: "You're an idiot."
Homeboy, feel free to not read engadget. We won't miss you.
+1
from what you said, i take that you haven't really used a mac. therefore i strongly suggest you pop into your local apple store and play with it for an hour or so, then come back and post it. since when has making an excellent product a sin? take your head out of the soil and look around. i have had several apple and dell laptops, i can tell you that, apple laptops costs 50% more but lasts TWICE as long as the dell one, well in fact it's still running without missing a beat. so now you do the maths and tell me which one's the better to go for?
i can still sell my 5-year old powerbook g4 for a good price on the internet, can you still with your 2-year old dell?
Seriously, I am not a fan of apple, but I'm smart enough to realize that engadget isn't "Apple has engadget so deep down their pockets..." I think the engadget editors just seem a little awestruck at times by apple, but i wouldn't say they're rampant fanboys.
That being said, I do think it a little odd that no price/power comparison was made to any other laptops.
How is that Macbook Air holding up in the hinge department?
@Dustin: Just fine, thanks for the concern.
They must still be paying for that decrease in Apple's share price.
Sorry I stand by what I say. I don't own a single apple product, in no way am I an apple fanboy...and I still think the OP is an idiot for saying such a silly thing. Of course Derek said it in a more eloquent way, so we'll go with what he said.
@b
its kind of funny how mac users tout that the macs have a better resale value, and last "TWICE AS LONG"...
1) at the price of one macbook, most of the time, people can afford two or more hp's (i dont like the dell designs much, esp their logo).. so this point does not have any validity, because even if i TRASH my laptop within 2 yrs, i still lose the same money as i would if i resold a mac... so the mac would have to outlast the PC by more than twice the time...
2) i have never seen a PC laptop last longer than 3 yrs, 4 at the max... which means the mac would have to last 6-8 yrs to get the same return on my investment... but... WHO WOULD USE A COMPUTER FOR 8 YEARS?? especially a laptop? most laptops break within 5 yrs of use or less... so by buying a mac... you're getting ripped off..
@dsid
I had a 1998 laptop for almost 8 years. the only reason it broke is because I was running it open ( i was building a lego case for it) and my mom was looking for something on my desk and short circuited it. but other than that it was running without a case for a good half a year (yeah I was slow at getting the parts).
@ alexicov
Oh and it was a PC.
just to throw that out there in case it wasn't implied
@dsid
typing to you from a 7/8 yr old Toshiba M100.
HD replaced,
DVD-ROM replaced (upped to burner while at it),
batt needs replacing,
power cord replaced (my fault for browsing sideways)
Still working and all necessary parts replaced for less then the cost of new Win-based book, let alone a Mac.
I use a laptop this old because it still works for what I use it for.
Homeboy got a point. We're in 2009 for crying out loud. 1 GB RAM is just not okay, no matter how good Apples products are.
I agree Mac's are expensive but remember delveloping and maintaining your own OS is not cheap. You can also apply this to the industrial design and materials of Apple products along with their shops.
A Windows computer manufacturer pays MS a licence makes sure it all works with the computer they have made and sells it with a bit of phone support for a limited time. Then the user will turn to MS for OS support. Job done.
Thing is, though, OSX runs okay on a gig. Vista, on the other hand, won't.
It may be an outstanding laptop, but I don't think it's worth almost $3,000 starting and with a cpu upgrade your going to be over.
I say get a laptop from another company and save about $1,000 and you could still buy another battery and come in way under this price.
Most people forget, the thing about Apple computers is not the hardware, it's the software. Apple is a software company that makes the best software on earth and makes the hardware to run the amazing software. Software like OS X (the operating system) Logic Pro (once known as emagic from Germany, This company made Logic for both Mac and windows till Apple bought emagic july 1st 2002 at which point Apple stopped supporting the windows version of Logic) Logic is used by mostly all professional recording studios in the world, Logic is also used by people who have home studios like myself, As a professional producer of electronic music in Yew York City, me and my colleges would not use anything but the best software to produce our music and Logic Pro is the best. There is other software Apple is known for which I also use and it's Final Cut Studio, Again it is simply the best video editing software available and Aperture is the pro photo software, A photographer friend of mine who was shooting Pink (the singer) a few years ago had a phone call from a friend of his and he asked this friend "so how do you like Aperture"? his friend asked him what's that and he said you are no professional photographer if you don't use Aperture. These days Apple is even better then when I first went mac back in 1997 when I had my first G3. Now we can even run windows on a mac natively or in a emulator so we can have the best of both worlds. (not that I ever run windows) but I have that option open to me.
TL;DR
@TheAre:
I stopped reading and clicked the "-" sign as soon as I got to "Apple is a software company that makes the best software on earth..." And this is coming from someone who works in an exclusively Mac environment and likes Apple. It bugs me every single time when a person presents his or her subjective opinions as universal truths.
TheAre:
...
Next time I want a cheaper laptop with no specs, I'll take your advice.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/10/dells-adamo-teased-sweetly/
For various reasons I think Apple does their battery test with websites not featuring the slayer of notebooks. That would be websites featuring flash.
Flash is a bag of hurt until it reaches the iPhone.
LOL @Erik
I totally agree - the Flash Player for OS X is rubbish and uses much more CPU time than it should. Heck, it is not unusual for it to cause the fans to kick-in. Why Adobe can't sort this problem out is quite beyond me.
What is his desktop background on the first picture?
second this, i would also like to know
I made it with bits and pieces from the eBoy library of .pngs. Should I share?
please please do share, does it come in non rainbow?
The rainbow is the best part man!
Joshua, yes please!
hmm, i suppose it does work well with this wallpaper
Sorry Joshua, but for a computer that kinda has a reputation for appealing to... the other team, the rainbow is NOT the best part...
Here you go: http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/JT_rainbow_eboy.png
Also, @bill -- I don't really worry about what "team" things appeal to, and you probably shouldn't either.
Joshtops, you're the man.
Joshua?
How's the speaker quality compared to the 15 inch and the former 17 inch Macbook Pro.
Read somewhere it has 5 speakers??
Aha! Now that I got your attention, what will it take to get this commenting system fixed? I can't see all my Highly and Highest Ranks anymore!
I thought it was LEGO for a second!
Thx! Great work!
Any company in the world can make a good computer if it costs this much. Apple isn't doing anyone a service here except continuing their line of overpriced and hyped products that can be comparable to other competitors at reasonable prices.
Tell that to Alienware, those things are horrendous.
I agree. I would much rather have a voodoo laptop. They are expensive and look way better than these.
LOL, I love your display comparison. Who the hell stares at their computer with the monitor off? Unbelievable.
i can't tell for sure because i don't read, but i think he was comparing the glare?
i'm just here because the wallpaper caught my attention :)
reading is over rated
epic lulz
I think Mystic's point is that when the screen is on (and not displaying all black pixels), the reflection is much less noticeable.
Can't wait to see how many people overreact to the fact that Engadget says the MBP is a good laptop...
... Not.
this suit is NOT black
I still really don't get why "unibody" is touted as such a feature. The fact that knowing my computer was manufactured in a neat way and it makes me feel cool deep down inside doesn't make up for stupid things like the inability to remove the battery (apple thinks the world will explode if you can access a battery these days) and the insane price tag.
Have you ever held one?
Yeah dude, have you ever felt the unibody in your hand? It is softer than a newborn baby. It fits in your hands better than a pair of boobs. Surely that is worth $3,000.
unless it makes me have an orgasm, i'm not paying that much.
When you compare holding a "unibody" MacBook Pro with the older MacBook Pros, you can instantly feel the difference in construction.
@ Derek:
It will make some people have an orgasm, chances are you aren't one of them. I was being sarcastic in my previous comment.
Keep in mind that unibody does not start at 3k, you can get a unibody Macbook 13" for $1250 (if you're a student).
This is true. Either way unibody is not something I would want. Sure it looks cool and "feels" better, but I do more with my laptop than heavy petting. It is not a selling point for me, and is not worth the premium price. But that's just my opinion based on my wants. I'm sure it works great for other people and is something that they desire.
If you get twice the battery life out of a non-removable battery, you're still just as well off in the example of being on the go with an extra removable batteries. However, you wouldn't need to lug the extra around or swap it out, you'd just enjoy twice the battery life by default. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Removable batteries might help if you carried around 2 spares, but I've never seen anybody carry around 2 extra charged batteries. You're more likely to get a fuel-cell charging rig and run it off of your charging port ...
sorry but 8hrs only with half brightness and editing a text document defeats the purpose of all the power in this laptop, so really it 4hrs for people who actually use the device. I hate how companies quote these numbers and people will buy one, take it home use it and find they get 4hrs and not 8hrs. That's about all I find bad about this, otherwise a good product.
My experience as power user points more towards 6 hours real life hard usage.... 7 when you are careful to shut down apps that use lots of CPU in the background. Not 8, but still pretty good.
I still think there needs to be a standard of some sort for battery testing under 3 conditions:
1) Maximum battery life: min brightness + WiFi - pure web surfing only
2) Average battery life: half brightness + WiFi - web browser, iChat, iTunes, Mail (typical usage)
3) Mobile workstation: half brightness + WiFi - Photoshop, Final Cut, or other GPU intensive app open in addition to whatever average battery life apps there are.
I think those 3 numbers would give a REALISTIC picture as to what to expect. Claiming 8 hrs when you can almost never get to that point in average use is like rating MPG with A/C in the South during the summer. It's lying to customers, pure and simple (or at least being negligent). *FYI - EPA changed it's rating policy a year or two ago*
I agree, having three values would be much more useful. The 8 hour figure is not outlandish like Apple's battery claims used to be a few years ago (when they apparently tested with everything off, display at minimum and doing nothing and running no apps). Nevertheless, 8 hours is something you will only get on extremely light usage.
Good point on the IM apps too - I run Adium, a twitter client, mail, Skype, and other apps that use CPU continuously so even if I am not doing anything on my machine it's going to do a lot of stuff.
I just found that if you go to Activity Monitor and choose CPU time column, you see total CPU time for all apps. Good way to find the greedy background apps you might want to shut down....
That's a really good Idea, I think they should just Standardize the battery life figures so that they can be reliably compared between laptops... We need a battery police.
hey josh, where can i get the wallpaper you had in the first pic of the macbook pro?
nice macbook pyramid