WW(you)D? MacBook pro 15" or 17"?

[edgarbc1]

my needs are home stuff - web, word, etc
office stuff, bootcamp xp, work apps on that side of the fence
hobby stuff - protools recording w traveling preamp + misc for my band

I am not a graphic designer, so antiglare is not an issue for me.. This would be
changing my paradigm.. going from desktop (all my life so far) to laptop and
bag is an issue for me...

i take papers from home and from office, so a bag which can take the laptop and
have decent side pockets for file folders and notebooks and such is important.

I like the 17 for my hobby recording.. nice real estate for that workflow, also expansion with side ports
I like the 15 for portability (the lug factor on an iMac is not fun) but dont like less USB and SD slot

[DRR]

Love the 17. I do not wish I had gotten the 15. I've had three. It's not the most portable thing but i've flown 50,000 miles with it. Comes down to this, you either need the added screen size and real estate or you don't.

[qdog2]

I use a 17" G4 PB and never wanted a 15". I use a bag with a shoulder strap to carry it. I put it over my shoulder and still have both hands free.

[RAMd®d]

Most kids I know have 17" laptops (note that I did not say 'Books) and they take them all over.

For your "home stuff", the 17" should be *just* as portable as a 15".
If you have to carry it a lot, especially while out and about, size and weight might be a factor. But the 17" 'Books are a lot more portable than older versions. If bag size is a factor, you obviously don't need a 17" 'Book.

But if you want a 17, size and weight shouldn't be a real consideration.

Money might be.

[Sam3]

RAMd®d wrote:
...
If you have to carry it a lot, especially while out and about, size and weight might be a factor. But the 17" 'Books are a lot more portable than older versions. If bag size is a factor, you obviously don't need a 17" 'Book.

But if you want a 17, size and weight shouldn't be a real consideration.

Money might be.

Are the current 17" Macbook Pro's lighter and/or easier to carry than the 17" Powerbook G4? I had that machine, but went to the 15" MBP when it came out as for me, the 17" G4 was too unwieldy. I would like to get a machine that has a processor better than a Core Duo.

[DRR]

Sam3 wrote:
[quote=RAMd®d]
...
If you have to carry it a lot, especially while out and about, size and weight might be a factor. But the 17" 'Books are a lot more portable than older versions. If bag size is a factor, you obviously don't need a 17" 'Book.

But if you want a 17, size and weight shouldn't be a real consideration.

Money might be.

Are the current 17" Macbook Pro's lighter and/or easier to carry than the 17" Powerbook G4? I had that machine, but went to the 15" MBP when it came out as for me, the 17" G4 was too unwieldy. I would like to get a machine that has a processor better than a Core Duo.
The unibody MBP has a slightly larger footprint but is thinner. It's also a little lighter. The first CD and C2D machines are probably almost exactly like the G4 17".

Functionally, they are the same size and weight when you're carrying it. You're not going to notice an ounce or two or a tenth of an inch here or there.