Filed under: Macworld, Hardware, Rumors, Macbook Pro
Rumor: Unibody 17 inch MacBook Pro
Both 9to5Mac and AppleInsider are reporting on rumors that a 17-inch, unibody MacBook Pro will debut at this week's Macworld Expo. Most interesting is the rumor about the machine's battery.Specifically, the alleged laptop's battery would be non-removable, very slim (consider the MacBook Air's battery) and able to run "...much longer" than the current model. The announcement of a new 17 inch MacBook Pro wouldn't be a very big surprise, but a non-removable battery would. People like removable batteries for obvious reasons.
Mike Rose guessed that we'd see a new 17 inch laptop when we all listed our predictions. We'll all see what happens in just a couple of days.
For full Macworld Expo coverage, bookmark the TUAW Macworld Expo 2009 landing page.
[Via Engadget]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Rowan Pope said 9:21PM on 1-04-2009
The new 17" Macbook Pro features are identical to those of the 15", except for an extra USB port and FW400 as well as the FW800 (which you can do via an adaptor anyway) Bigger battery to handle the larger screen, CTO option for 1920x1200 res screen but both are glossy, better speakers, but essentially the same machine. The larger battery combined with the screen set to it's lowest setting gives the 17" the best battery figure for word processing, but with the brightness up and in real world use, life is similar to the current 15".
That is my sensible prediction. They aren't making a 17" Macbook Air, how totally pointless that would be. (the Air, isn't pointless)
Reply
Paul said 2:15AM on 1-05-2009
I just switch back to a Sony VAIO from a MacBook Pro ... Windows 7 will knock the paws of snow leopard ... Apple is over rated!
Rowan Pope said 4:31AM on 1-05-2009
Each to their own. Sony makes nice machines, but the all metal body on the new MacBooks will prove to be quite durable I feel.
I dual boot vista, and will toy with windows 7, but for the work I do (music and web production) maintaining windows as my main OS is problematic long term. My user account has been through 8 different macs, some PPC, and all my apps are just how I like them. Until windows fixed the need to 'fresh install' from time to time, I'm not going back.
Andrew said 9:24PM on 1-04-2009
I've never needed to remove the battery on my first gen MacBook Pro.
I can understand some people needing/wanting the option, but I personally would love the longer battery life over having to juggle two batteries.
just my $.02
Reply
Alex said 9:51PM on 1-04-2009
I've been using Mac Notebooks (Powerbooks & MacBooks) since they first came out and have owned all the largest 17" screen format MacBooks. I have never had to remove my battery other than to upgrade my memory or disk drive.
I'm sure there are those that need that capability, but I have been a Mac Developer for over 10 years and have not had a need for that.
Gautam said 10:06PM on 1-04-2009
All I know is that my battery is gone after a year with my mbp. It only lasts 45 minutes. So a replaceable battery is a must unless they can come up with more reliable ones.
Andrew said 10:41PM on 1-04-2009
That's one of the big advantages of these Ag batteries. They won't start to lose capacity for around 5 years, assuming you don't get a defective one. In which case warrenties cover manufacturing defects.
Brooklynguy said 9:47AM on 1-05-2009
My household has 2 MacBook Pros--one purchased 2007, one 2008. The battery on each one dropped to below 80% health after 30 cycles, roughly 1 year after purchase, and would no longer hold a charge for more than 2 hours on very minimal CPU and MEM demands. So replacing the battery has come to be an expected yearly expense, but I suppose it's a small price to pay for these great machines.
Romesh said 11:16AM on 1-05-2009
Brooklynguy, I find that unusual. My early-2008 MBP (now almost 10 months old) has 89% health with 95 cycles, and I've been using the battery regularly since I take my laptop everywhere
Rowan said 12:36AM on 1-05-2009
Battery removal doesn't bother me, easy HD access does, which is why I have a late 2008 Macbook, I find that option very handy. I just don't see why the 15" MBP would have removable battery and the 17", being more pro, more expensive, more desktop-replacement oriented than the 15", would lose it's removable battery. Doesn't make sense to me.
As an aside, a larger MB Air is conceivable but unlikely.
Reply
Dumbcriminals.com said 2:40AM on 1-05-2009
Stop making the Mac laptops smaller and make them more durable.
Reply
Marc J said 7:19AM on 1-05-2009
Waiting to replace my Mac Pro (G5 PPC) with a 17" unibody (assuming there will be one of course!).
Battery no biggie, I think the 17" is more a case of a mobile desktop than a laptop (ie I want a home machine that can easily move from room to room and go elsewhere if needed - rather than a laptop I'll cart to and from work/home daily).
I was really hoping for a matte screen option. Maybe?
Reply
Mike said 6:41AM on 1-05-2009
I just want them to do something smart with the extra keyboard real-estate - like add a number pad to the right side. You've got room, people are using this as a desktop replacement, whey not add the extra keys? I could really care less about the battery on a 17" - who's really using that on an airplane, or on their lap?
Reply
Keith Sheehan said 10:25AM on 1-05-2009
There's no doubt that a 17" refresh is coming if Apple intends to keep it in its lineup. It's also a logical assumption that the specs would be revved to correspond if not exceed the 15" MacBook Pros. This is all just a matter of time. What does seem silly about this story is the non-removable battery. The 17" MacBook Pros have always been the bulkiest Apple laptops. There's just no way around that fact. Removing the ability to swap out batteries would not reduce the footprint of the machine at all so this 'rumor' is highly unlikely.
What is more likely, and irritating for graphic professionals and photographers, is the high probability that the 17" MacBook Pro will join its 15" cousin in offering only a glossy screen as an option. As much as Steve loves design, there are times where practicality needs to be dictated over design and this point is one of those times. Here's hoping for multiple screen options on the 17" and a re-offering of a matte screen on the next 15" revision.
Reply
TaosJohn said 12:39PM on 1-05-2009
While I'm sympathetic to everyone wanting a matte screen, in all honesty, I think you're nuts: I'm a photographer, and images are so much more vivid and saturated with the glossy screen. I would NEVER go back to matte!
With me, the image is everything. So what if there are a few reflections? The IMAGE is higher quality. Glossy screens rule.
Reply
Marc J said 5:42AM on 1-06-2009
I'm in graphics/pre-press. I need images to look as much like they do in print on my screen. Glossy sexed up eye candy isn't actually that helpful to me. (currently use a 30" cinema display and an old-school 23" easel style).
Appreciate YMMV, but I'd go matte if I had the chance.
Bob Tabor said 1:38PM on 1-05-2009
Hi all, I've read the previous comments and almost everyone says the battery situation (assuming all this is true) is not a show stopper. But wow, I've been holding off on purchasing a new 17' macbook and now I'm worried. Not having a removable battery is fine in a $200-$300 device, but this is a $3000 device! I would need to know that there is some long-term warranty available, not just 3 years via Applecare. I've had enough problems with my decked out iMac over the past 14 months as well as a 500gb Time Capsule that -- while I absolutely love Apple's industrial design and software simplicity -- I don't completely trust the reliability of their products without having some sort of net to fall back on. So, I'm cautiously optimistic, waiting to hear their contingency plan just in case the battery need to be replaced after the warranty period is done. I'd love to hear from someone who already owns a 15' macbook who might have some feedback. Thanks.
Reply
Chris said 3:01PM on 1-05-2009
I work with two batteries for my MPB 17" all the time. As a developer and photographer I am out and about all the time (trains, cafés, shoots, etc) and I totally depend on having more than one battery life with me!
I also support websites for people so I (contractually) need to have the extra charge available.
If this rumour is true I am deeply sad and will have to re-think the way I do things. I'm shocked at the idea...
:(
Reply
Furies said 4:06PM on 1-05-2009
Personally, its not the length of battery life, its the longevity of the battery itself. I have never been on a laptop long enough to use all 100% of the power. However, I constantly have problems with the overall performance of the battery over time (about a year). By the time a year rolls around, battery charge easily decreases by a third, in other words it takes less to drain your battery completely. Without the option of replacing the battery, the laptop can become worthless in a matter of 2 years.
Reply
samuel said 11:30PM on 1-07-2009
I'm glad now I didn't read this before MacWorld, what spoiler! This stuff should have its own feed, I always have to abstain from reading TUAW for an entire week before any event because of this stuff.
Think of the 'no-iphone' feeds.
Reply