E6410 Owner's Thread

Is anyone else experiencing quite a bit of keyboard flex on their E6410? I can see the keyboard flexing while I type on it, mainly in the middle area. I have an old Latitude D610 and its keyboard is rock solid compared to the E6410

 

Cant confirm this. No flex at all here.

 

Just got my E6410 yesterday. I did notice a bit of flex near the middle. It's not enough to bother me though.

Does anyone know if there are better drivers for the touchpad? The Alps is no match for the Synaptics one on my 5 year old Thinkpad in terms of accuracy and features. Its been especially frustrating since the touchpad takes a bit to realize that you are scrolling, unlike the synaptics that does it instantly (and accurately)

 

I can confirm the flex, but it didn't bother me.

But my system seems to run hot, I have a Intel® Core™ i7-620M, a 7200 rpm hdd and a NVIDIA NVS 3100M with ExpressCard.. maybe normal for the small form factor.

I also noticed some kind of delay (chopping movement) when using a mouse or touch-pad
anybody on this???
I have a 4.9 score areo graphics and 5.9 for gaming

 

I got the E6410 as a replacement for my D420. The Touchpad needs the synaptics driver, badly. I don't know why Dell or other manuf. think they need to make their own tweaks to the drivers.

There is flex on my keyboard, most noticeable on the O, L and G. It doesn't bother me.

What does bother me: the finger prints and smudges on the keys and the casing surrounding. Looks really unprofessional. And no, I'm not a greasy guy, it's just there.

I think I will be returning this because of the weight. I was really hoping I could make it work, but after my D420 and how easy it goes anywhere, it's hard to use something this heavy. But I really do like it.

What are the thoughts here about the E4310? It's hella-expensive. Is the E4300 worth $1,000 and use the $1,000 savings towards the 2012 model?

 

Reading the thread and looking at the specs, the E4310 isn't worth even the same price as the E4300...

 

I would have to agree. Been on the fence about buying the E4310, but it's just too expensive and now I am looking at the E6410. Just got to wait for another coupon to appear, missed the 30% off deal.

 

Thanks to everyone who has been posting great info on this thread. I just received my E6410 today (it's an upgrade from a 3 year old D630). The SSD is great and I'm liking my unit so far. Here's my question:

I ordered my system with the Dell 128GB SSD and in File Explorer it shows only 104GB total, which is a HUGE difference between what I thought I was buying and what I got. Does anyone know if this is correct or if something is wrong with the SSD I received? Is it possible that the advertised space vs free space is actualy 20% lower? That just doesn't seem right? If I knew I was going to get a total of 104GB then I might have no ordered it, as my D630 has 120GB and that is borderline for me...

I'm going to call my rep tomorrow but I thought some of you very-well versed guys might have opinions as well.

Thanks in advance for your help,
Jeremy

 

1- you have a Dell recovery partition.
2- HDD/SSD space mentioned is always lower than real life (for ANY STORAGE DEVICE). The storage in box uses the following format:
1000 B = 1 KB
1000 KB = 1MB
1000 MB = 1GB and so on...

while in reality it's:
1024 B = 1 KB
1024 KB = 1MB
1024 MB = 1GB,

and so on (using base 2). They do that for marketing, yes, but to also have a nice round number.


3- Formatting. Depending on the formatting configuration (allocation unit size) define, the space will varies (default is 4 KB for NTFS) . Also, you need to include the index table. This indexing table is a table with a set of address which has the address of a where every data is on your storage device. The address length is of 32-bit length (for 32-bit OS - because of this MacOS/Linux/Unix/Windows 32-bit is limited to 2TB of disk space), and 64-bit long for 64-bit OS for more storage of 2TB and more. This is also why we magically stopped HDD size increase to 2TB.. as manufacture are deciding if it's worth spending money on research NOW for even bigger HDD's, while many still runs Windows XP which is a 32-bit OS.

All HDD formats follows the following format: (the very same principal set under the Unix system in the 70's... that is right.. technology all over our computer changed, but weather you use NTFS, FAT32, exFAT, and any other Linux/MacOS formats, they are all using the the same layout with minor difference between them (the big difference, of the small differences is mostly files restrictions policy, and how it layouts the data such as boot sector, system restore, and so on...)

NOTE: the above table has an error, the arrows marking the links are supposed to be a double pointed arrows as it actually uses a double link list to allow recovery of a data block in the case of a corrupted link. The white table is the index table. Red, green, and pink tables are sub-index tables. This was done to not require the need to scan the whole index to find a file.. where if the file is at the end of the list it will need require to read the whole index, which is time consuming.



Data is read sequentially on the disk.. (HDD head goes up and down the disk form position 0 to max and drops full speed down to 0 and repeats the processes). Hence why defragmentation helps increase speed when accessing data. SSD don't' need defragmentation as it' has a 0ms delay for accessing (HDD you have the time for the arm to move and position itself, PLUS the time for the disk to rotate and arrive to the data. A non fragmented disk will have the to read a series of data by continuously moving the arm while defragmented you reduce these). Also, the above proves that HDD formats that are said by people on the net where xyz format "doesn't get the disk fragmented", is no more then a false myth, all formats on HDD's fragments, hence why this is never advertise by any OS (As mentioned, they all use the same Unix layout showed above).

 

Yes, get the E4300 while you can. It is The E4310's WWXGA display (1366 x 768) is a step backwards unless movie watching is your prime usage.

Storage manufacturers assuming that k means 1000 instead of 1024 which gives a 7% different at the GB level so 128GB is actually 120GB. Most likely the remaining space has been used by one or more hidden partitions containing, for example, a restore image. Disk Management should reveal these.

John