Dell Latitude E4200 Info

but these are no answers on my questions....

 

I only know if one way to adjust the CPU power management - and that's in Ctrl Panel > Power Options > Edit Plan Settings > Change Advanced power settings > Processor Power Management. It allows to define a 'Minimum processor state' and a 'maximum processor state' - freely adjustable percentage. This option is nonsense. You can freely adjust as much as you want - the processor will do only one of two things: run at 1.2V (in which case CPU-Z shows 1.2GHz) or 1.0V (in which case, weirdly and as reported before CPU-Z shows 1.6GHz). Not only does Dell not provide a proper BIOS and tools to adjust the CPU, but the power management tool pretends it could. Anybody an idea how to override this? Or should this go into our daily attempts to convince Dell to correct the terrible 4200 BIOS?

 

Sorry, but on my Lat 6400, the power setting actually works.
Perhaps the CPU of the 4200 doesn't, but it no reason to call a perfectly functioning feature as nonsense.

 

GoodBytes: The Min Processor State and Max Processor State can freely be regulated from 0%-100%, yet it only switches the processor at an undocumented percentage between 1V and 1.2V and 1.6GHz and 1.2GHz. I conclude that the feature to freely adjust on the 4200 is nonsense. I further conclude that calling it 'perfectly functioning' is nonsense, sorry, really...!

 

the power settings are nonsense. If i put it down to 50% my temps are on the same with 50% less power.
If I choose 100% the temps are the best ones.
This feature is nonsense. I need a feature to diminish my temps in which case for ever. I don't know if it works if i will put down my frequency. May be the CPU will be as same hot as without throtteling.

-> phil

 

I searched this thread for any mention of comparison with the Lenovo X200 and I'm very surprised that this comparison has not been made even once!

Both the E4200 and X200 are very interesting notebooks to me and the Dell offers some features that the Lenovo does not (and vice versa). But in the end I find the X200 has the upper hand in nearly every way. Reading over some of the complaints regarding the E4200 (especially regarding heat and fan noise) seem to be the last nail in the coffin for a possible E4200 purchase for me...

Nevertheless, I'd like to ask if anyone can comment on why they have chosen or will choose the E4200 instead of the competing X200?

 

No, actually, a more appropriate comparison is with the x200s and I have mentioned it as a competitor in this thread. However, it's arguable if they are truly competitive with each other. To me, the x200s is a clear winner and believe me I am totally biased towards Dell in general

 

funny, x200* doesn't bring up any hits when searching this thread.

IMO the *only* reason that the X200s is a more appropriate comparison is because it has a very similar weight to the E4200 (~0.3lbs difference). However, the plain old X200 is still so close in weight (0.7lbs difference) that I think it is entirely an appropriate comparison. To me, any 12.1" notebook is an appropriate comparison because it is ultimately the form factor that makes notebooks competitors.

Regardless, I agree that the X200s is the clear winner when compared to the E4200. However, all things considered (including price), I feel that the regular X200 trumps them both.

The 2 biggest problems with the E4200 are the silly 1GB onboard memory and the non-standard disk size. Both of these very odd design decisions make upgrades extremely difficult. 3GB total memory is the only reasonable option due to the sky-high cost of 4GB DDR3 sodimms and from what I understand the storage options are limited to the 3 OEM options provided by Dell since neither a 1.8" or 2.5" consumer grade drive will fit in the oddball drive bay.

The very weak processor also makes the E4200 rather pathetic compared to the X200s' SL9400 option, let alone the powerful standard voltage processors available in the regular X200.

 

1.8" is hardly 'non-standard' though it is certainly less prevalent than its larger 2.5" brethren. Aside from size, the E4200 is also thinner than both x200 and x200s.

 

As far as I understand the drive in the E4200 is *not* a 1.8" drive nor will the bay accept a standard 1.8" drive (the bay is too small). It uses a specially designed "card" similar to what many netbooks use. Correct me if I'm wrong. Even if I'm (hopefully) mistaken, 1.8" drives are quite difficult to source and purchase (especially at a good price) as a consumer. I don't even think newegg sells 1.8" drives of any sort (but I haven't checked for some time).

One of the compelling things about the E4200 is indeed it's very low weight and very thin profile (thinner and lighter than even the X200s). But when the difference is *so* small, as in a few mm and a quarter pound, I don't know if the difference is significant enough to give it an edge. At best I think the weight and thickness put it on even ground with both the X200 and X200s. Conversely, I wouldn't give the Lenovos extra marks if they were 1/4 lb lighter and a few mm thinner.