Is the Dell E4300 that bad of a machine?

Example:
Dell E4300 2.40GHz 4.0GB, 160GB Hard Drive, 5400RPM
$2200

Sony Z 2.40 GHz 3 GB 250 GB Hard 5400rpm
$1915

Nah. The P8400 has 3 MB of cache while SP9400 also has 6 MB. SP9400 and the P9500 are comparable. Cache > 0.13 Ghz of Speed.

Anyways, we'll see. It's ordered. I can get a Z, or more likely a X200s later. I'm still not convinced about the Z's keyboard.

 

Yeah I was wrong about the cache size of SP9400. but P9500 also has 6MB cache. so P9500 is superior CPU.

But the differences in GPU are way more substantial.

 

how can dell even offer 1GB with vista? it doesn't make any sense.

 

It is cheaper to upgrade aftermarket, and they realize that. Plus, there are options for XP which run perfectly fine at 1GB.

I wouldn't complain.

 

This is marketing rubbish. Most manufacturers that claim to sell "business" notebooks have had similar videos for years and they don't prove anything. The bottom line usually is: "Tests are not a guarantee of future performance under the test conditions." In other words, we made that up so that our notebooks look "cool". Likewise, they could claim their notebooks could fly but their don't guarantee you that outside of "Sony's testing environment", it would be just as useless.

Business notebooks aren't meant to be dropped, they are supposed to take more abuse than consumer ones, but that's about, no guarantee, otherwise there are rugged notebooks.

I have seen similar videos about the previous Latitudes, they haven't released new ones probably because they thought no one would buy into the same old marketing tricks, I don't know and don't care anyway.

Lenovo have tons of videos and they even made some live drop-tests on the webcast here last year, it proved nothing for me, but we had some people that believed. I guess some people are just naive or want to be due to the special "feeling" that have for certain brands.

Lenovo actually went further and released a video about a motorcycle being drive over a ThinkPad and a few other videos but not to go off topic. If anything, they are at least creative.
http://www.notebooks.com/2007/06/15/thinkpad-vs-motorcycle/

Enough about the marking garbage... but if you take Sony's marketing for real, then you should do the same with any other company, which isn't exactly wise so to say.

As for the durability of Sony Z and E4300, I haven't seen the Dell but if it's like the previous Latitudes, then it will be vastly superior in terms of durability compared to the flimsy Sony Z with the overhyped plastic called "carbon fibre" (no, it's NOT the same as in F1 racing cars as Sony claims) that is mostly weight saver and it chips, shatters, doesn't offer the best protection since it's quite flexible without reinforcements. ThinkPads also use carbon fibre but you can't flex them like a piece of paper and that's for a reason. I have nothing against Sony in general but I wouldn't consider the Z "business class", as least not in same league of Dell, HP and Lenovo business lines, its just a typical Sony that you should take care of it, nothing spectacular. Also, they tend not to care about their consumers at all, which isn't a good thing, that's from my experience with them so far.

I also wasn't impressed with the keyboard and would call it average at best, maybe you can get used to it I guess but I'm not sure I want to and then again, some will hate it, others will like, just like with the SZ. The design is kinda of mixed bag as well, someone called it Frankenstein around here the other day and while I wouldn't go that far since it definitely not ugly as the FW for example, it's not that impressive either and the so "premium" materials "feel" cheap. Also, the screen opens too low and the size is weird, not sure if I like that too. Those things are subjective so opinions will vary.

Anyway, the only thing that could prove the durability of a certain notebook is time, anything else is BS and people don't come here to get marketing rubbish, they could find that themselves, but rather for opinions as subjective, biased and fanboyish they are around here.

I personally don't care about either, small notebooks aren't my cup of tea, but if I wanted one for some reason, the ThinkPad X301 is about the only one I like but it's not perfect as well.

 

I personally don't see any reason to believe those Z videos are falsified or that Sony's carbon fibre is really plastic. I was quite impressed by the build quality of my TZ and SZ. But each to his own I guess.

 

You are very mistaken if you think that carbon fiber in Sony's notebooks are plastic.

It's gonna be hard for anyone to take you seriously with those kinds of comments....

Also, the new latitudes build quality is quite good, actually. They aren't the same solid feel of the old Dell laptops circa 1995, but with the new designs and more pleasing aesthetics I think Dell has a real winner.

Just my 2 cents

 

I smell collaboration in the subnotebook sector:

The E4300 was supposed to have a display port what is easily converted to HDMI or DVI via adapter. Now it has a meager VGA...
This would have made it a versatile media notebook like the Sony Z is with the integraded HD chip.

The X200 ditches to HDMI and the optical drive and more importantly the LED screen making it another cathegory again.
The X200s will have LED but also lower powered processors making it (you guessed right) another class yet again...

Last but not least the Sony Z has it all, but is artificially made more expensive by use of very expensive materials.

 

RE-read my previous post and at least try to understand it if possible. It requires just a little common sense, nothing more.

You don't know anything about the videos besides that they are "controlled experiments" and DO NOT guarantee against failure or breakdown, that should be enough to make a conclusion.

Not to mention that there aren't even anything special, you could get a random notebook and achieve whatever results you what by simply performing enough tests and present the results subjectively making people see what you want them to see.

You are both ignorant.

I don't think that I would take either of you seriously after those comments.

Carbon fiber is just a name used to refer to PLASTIC reinforced by a graphite textile, it rarely refers to the textile itself since it doesn't have much of use besides in composites. The proper name of this material usually is Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) or Carbon Fibre Alloy (CFA), that's how Lenovo, Asus and others calls it for example. Yes, the cars in Formula 1 also use Carbon Fiber Reinforced PLASTIC, the composites, of course, are completely different (second link below).

http://www.bluebird-electric.net/composites/carbon_fibre_reinforced_plastic.htm
http://www.solarnavigator.net/composites/carbon_fibre_and_racing_cars.htm

Wikipedia also have articles written in a simple language:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber_reinforced_plastic

For those who are scared, there is nothing wrong with the word "plastic" here, that's not the problem. The problem is that when people hear "carbon fibre" they think that's some magical indestructible material supplied by Aliens... yeah, right. The truth is that's a composite and its strength, durability and other qualities vary and ultimately depends on the production process and the ratio of carbon fiber material present in the composite.

Here is an example, not the best picture but it gives a general idea.
http://www.geocities.com/vpkelly.geo/tsgraph.jpg

Now the composite used in notebooks, as you may guess, is a low-grade/cost material. We are usually talking about about plastic polymer (usually ABS) reinforced with 10% carbon fibre which isn't that expensive to begin with and it's mostly a weight saving measure than anything else, that's about it. This material chips/shatters and bends/flexes easily when it's not properly reinforced.

For the record, the last carbon fibre notebook that I used was one of the Asus expensive high-end "flagships", and flexed, creaked and at the end got cracks all over the case. That's not an isolated case, there are pictures and even videos around. I'm not going to even start on Sony's screens flex, this has been beaten to death and you can believe whatever you want I don't care anyway.

I'm not saying it's bad material or something, but it's mostly used to save weight and make the notebook thinner. You can simply achieve better protection for both the LCD panel and motherboard with thicker/heavier materials like magnesium alloy (or even ABS/PC), which are used (sometimes in combination with carbon fibre like in ThinkPads) in the real business notebooks with proven durability and even in the rugged notebooks. Many manufacturers have used CFRP but they just don't create hype around it since it's nothing that special or important for consumer to know and it doesn't necessarily made the notebook "more durable" or "better built". Of course, some people buy into this kind of marketing and you can see tons of posts "OMG carbon fibre" "OMG Sony" "OMG Formula 1 cars" and those are the same people that don't consider a material to be a "carbon fibre" if it doesn't have "waves" on it. Outstanding!

 

Yes, but you made it out to be some cheap-o plastic and were trying to say it isn't "real" carbon fiber - which it is. So you are wrong....

Thanks!