Two things worth noting. First is the extra 5 fps on the Unreal Tournament benchmark and second is the Final Cut Compressor benchmark in which a dual Core G5 still ass-whups the Core Duo.

The first, I suspect, implies that the GPU in the 17″ MacBook Pro is not underclocked like it is in the 15″.

The second (along with other Altivec-biased marks like iMovie filter and iTunes encode) show why there is no “Mac Pro” (replacement for the PowerMac G5). Until the quad-core or multi-CPU core duo’s come out, the G5 is still the king when money is no object.

This will change come August.

Yeah, I’m sort of torn. On one hand, I don’t have a lease and the 17″ 1.5Ghz G4 PB (which I only have because my old PB was stolen) blows for Aperture. Besides, the extra resolution and bright display… good thing.

On the other hand, you can bank on a minor upgrade to the Merom chip in a few months, there are a lot of kinks currently with the 15″ MBPs: not all apps play nice with the Intel version of the OS, driver support is flakey, there are some severe heat issues (and underclocking) going on. Also apps like Photoshop run better on my current hardware than the MBP, and that won’t change until early 2007 anyway.

The remote is a non issue (I have a bluetooth Palm and Salling Clicker) and neither is the built in iSight (Caitlin lives with me so no need to video conference anymore).

So, I’ve convinced myself that while the current model is a “good deal” I really shouldn’t pull the trigger on my credit card just yet.

(It’s like seeing that Best Buy in stock deal for the Nikon D200. Yeah, I know it’s not going to get that much cheaper anytime soon, but how many photos have I taken with my D70 recently? And I know that a new kit lens (18-200mm VR) or a replacement compact digicam, or even a MBP to run Aperture at a decent speed will have a larger impact on it than a D200.)

Good point!

I think 15″ is the ideal size for most people (especially non-graphics people like programmers). I harsh my 17″ powerbook’s size all the time (even in the article above).

But I stand by my statements above because the 15″ with the same spec should be cheaper than a 17″ notebook.

My piece:

20" notebooks aren’t far fetched. Dell has a 19" notebook I believe.

Umm similarly spec’d Dell (“lessen spec than a Dell” or whatever BS is floating around).

Dell has a 17" Latitude? Since when?

Okay let’s similarly spec a Dell 17" Inspiron (large and heavy piece of shit) and see what we get. (U.S.)

$1928: 17" Inspiron 9400
+$500: 2.15Ghz Core Duo
+$179: ATI Radeon X1400
+$149: UXGA resolution
+$35: 120GB 5400rpm
+$60: 8x dual layer
====
$2851

US Price of 17" MBP: $2799.

(The Dell comes bundled with a 3 year warranty. That costs extra for AppleCare. Having used both for over a decade, I won’t even begin to compare the two. If you know Dell’s system, you can chuck the warranty and save $70.)

(I’m not 100% sure about the "UXGA" stuff. I’ve never heard of it before when used for a wide screen display. UXGA is 1600×1200 (not wide screen). Apple’s 17" MBP LCD is WSXGA 1680×1050. WUXGA is 1920×1200. For reference, my current Powerbook is a piddly WXGA+ 1440×900, which I think is what Dell’s base Inspiron is. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.)

(The same also goes if you feel that a ATI X1400 in the Inspiron is better than an ATI X1600 in the MacBook Pro.)

(I’m also not sure where the Inspiron stands on gigabit ethernet, dual-link DVI, bluetooth, built-in camera, remote, and Firewire 800. But on the other hand you get really useful stuff a built-in modem, extra USB and FW ports, s-video, and analog video outs. All stuff that there are adapters for. *snort*)

I’m not saying that you can’t save money by buying a shitty 17" PC notebook and stripping it bare. I’m just saying that claiming to save about $750 on a 17" PC notebook with similar (or better) specs is a bit of a stretch.

My opinion, and yes, you can find other deals but that isn’t the point.