[Macworld]

Post your comments for MacBook Pro (17-inch, Mid 2009) here

[Photonerd]

If I were getting a new Macbook Pro right now I'd definitely go 17" matte.

[ChrisLJ]

So, the lone remaining model of Apple laptops that has an available matte screen, and you review the glossy version and then complain about it. Nice, really nice.

[dreyfus]

Well, I got the February model with the CPU upgrade, 256 GB SSD upgrade and the matte screen. While I love almost everything about this machine, I am a little astonished that nobody is pointing out its severest annoyance: Every 17" PowerBook/MacBook Pro since 2004 could drive any external 30" display flawlessly without spending an additional penny. With the Mini Display Port you need a 100 USD adapter to achieve the same, and even then you are restricted to using the 30" Apple display, as most others will not work reliably (or at all) with the adapter. Other than that, the machine is perfect. I want my Dual-link DVI port back!

[Dan Frakes]

ChrisLJ said:

So, the lone remaining model of Apple laptops that has an available matte screen, and you review the glossy version and then complain about it. Nice, really nice.

We reviewed the unit Apple sent us, which has a glossy screen.

Which makes sense: glossy is the "stock" model -- the matte screen is a built-to-order option -- so it's what most people who don't special-order will get. My guess is that people want to know how good/bad that screen is, so they can decide whether to splurge for matte.

[Dan Frakes]

dreyfus said:

I am a little astonished that nobody is pointing out its severest annoyance: Every 17" PowerBook/MacBook Pro since 2004 could drive any external 30" display flawlessly without spending an additional penny. With the Mini Display Port you need a 100 USD adapter to achieve the same, and even then you are restricted to using the 30" Apple display, as most others will not work reliably (or at all) with the adapter.

We covered this annoyance a few times when Apple introduced the Mini DisplayPort adapter, and I mentioned the adapter hassle in the review. It is indeed unfortunate.

[Manusnake]

You review a 17" laptop and put "Huge" in cons??? What were you expecting? A collapsible computer ?

[dreyfus]

Dan Frakes said:

We covered this annoyance a few times when Apple introduced the Mini DisplayPort adapter, and I mentioned the adapter hassle in the review. It is indeed unfortunate.

Of course you did! I was really just adding that it will not work with most third-party 30" displays at all. This is especially annoying for the only remaining "pro" machine deserving that tag (matte option and ExpressCard slot). If Apple would at least update the 30" display at some point, at least to make it match the much cheaper 30" HP display in quality... but then, they would most likely design the biggest mirror outside of Versailles right now :-)

[Dan Frakes]

Manusnake said:

You review a 17" laptop and put "Huge" in cons??? What were you expecting? A collapsible computer ?

Counting the seconds until someone posts, "You review a 17" laptop and put 'huge screen' in pros??? What were you expecting? A netbook-sized screen?" ;)

[Martian]

Macworld said:

>On the other hand, the screen?s high resolution means that items on the screen are quite small; I often had to enlarge the size of onscreen type, especially when browsing the Web.

The pixel pitch on this display is 0.20-0.21mm (approximately ? I didn?t bother doing the math) compared to approximately 0.25mm on the smaller MacBooks. If Snow Leopard adds the "sub-pixel" feature that Windows has had since XP, the user will be able to increase the on-screen size of everything by 25% (ie: reduce resolution) while maintaining native resolution sharpness. This would give an effective pixel pitch of 5/4 of the physical native resolution, about like that on the two smaller MBP's

This Windows feature saved me when I bought a (now dead) Dell with 0.19mm pixel pitch.

Are you listening Apple?

[Dan Frakes]

Martian said:

If Snow Leopard adds the "sub-pixel" feature that Windows has had since XP, the user will be able to increase the on-screen size of everything by 25% (ie: reduce resolution) while maintaining native resolution sharpness. This would give an effective pixel pitch of 5/4 of the physical native resolution, about like that on the two smaller MBP's

[snip]

Quote

Are you listening Apple?

Seriously. I've been hoping for this feature for years now. Fingers crossed Apple will do it soon.

[MiniMoe]

My Mid 2009 17-inch MacBook Pro, with non-glare screen and 256GB SSHD arrived TODAY! I've just suffered some temporary vision loss, so as I build it, I'm running it at the same 1280 x 800 resolution as my nearly 3-year old MacBook. Sweet! I didn't realize how much I'd gotten used to it, and how bad the MacBook's glossy screen was. It's also nice to have 3GB/sec data transfer and the only remaining ExpressCard slot.

[elove1975]

I'm confused about the battery test. When you reviewed the Feb 09 17in MBP 2.66, it ran 4 hours and 43 minutes on the ripped dvd test. Now you state that it lasted 4 hours and 20 minutes. Which is it?

[repmek]

I know "glossy" is the stock model, but our Apple Store has several BTO anti-glare MacBook Pro's in stock. I think it looks much better than the glossy version, even the silver bezel looks more timeless, IMO.
Would it be possible to review the anti-glare model some time, despite being BTO, and let us know how it compares to the old standard matte screens? Why are they called now "anti-glare" vs previously "matte"? Just word play or a technical difference?Thanks much.
Bjorn