Separately, have you been to a NYC coffee shop recently? Few folks have 15" displays, but two people can just about fit. The 17"-ers take up the full table, and it feels like they're bringing a "rig".
if you're the one with the 15", and the person near it's a 12" or 10", there's enough room. lots of people will be satisfied with 12" so if you're the 15" you'll be in the win. get a 12" if you want room in trains, probably. 14" is a weird compromise. you either need a proper office or table or you don't. and 17" will always be rare enough that 2 people with 17" landing on the same table will never happen. I mean, you get a 17" inch machine especially so you can beam a "fuck off, keep the distance" to people around you... :P
I'm suggesting an "Amtrak laptop" that fits precisely and snugly in the fold-out trays that they give you, regardless of screen size.
... it's a LAPtop. Why bother with the airplane tray when it's thin and light enough to use on your lap?
> What's the appeal of a thin-and-light 17 incher?
Most mainstream customers don't need a powerful CPU/GPU (see success of MacBook Air). All they want is thin, light and a big beautiful screen.
Ikea doesn't sell that chair anymore and apple doesn't sell that laptop anymore. sigh
I disagree with the thin part. I have yet to see anyone care whether a laptop is 1" or .7". This is a pointless marketing ploy, invented by Jobs. Yes, lightness matters. But we have seen (and I actually owned one) incredibly light laptops mostly from Japan well before Jobs invented the thin craze.
Careful there. I didn't say mainstream customers care about having the 'thinnest' laptop. I agree that a distinction between 1" or 0.7" is pointless. They do care about having a 'thin' laptop. It's largely marketing but also partly ergonomics, especially at the 17" size to reduce volume
Noise, performance and battery life are really important too, so there are bound to be a lot of compromises. But I really do value thinness.