E6410 Owner's Thread

Wow. I have the 160GB 5400rpm drive and the hard disk is definitely holding this thing back. Definitely getting the 40GB SSD if I get the money.

 

Now I don't have the E6410.. but the E6400 with 5400RPM Hitachi HDD (Core 2 Duo P8400, Nvidia Quadro NVS 160M, 4GB of RAM DDR2 800MHz, Windows 7 Professional 64-bit, Intel Wireless N-5100M, no bluetooth, no finger print reader). And it boots from the moment I press the power button, to my account fully logged in: 34sec

I don't know if the BIOS is slower on the E6410, but you should get faster results than I am.

The only thing special I did is:
-> Disable all not needed services (but nothing crazy.. I stop service on things I don't use or have.. like CardSpace, SmartCard (I don't use it), Windows Media Center services (no TV-Tuner, so don't need them running on the back for TV recording), and so on).

-> I don't have any A/V. Although on my desktop I use Microsoft Security Essential, and it doesn't harm system boot time. I just don't have it, as I maximize performance to the max due to the slow HDD, and well.. I don't download anything, and only go on trusted web sites.

-> I used O&O Defrag to defrag my HDD, using "Optimize" mode, which puts most accessed data (ie: everything that Windows access when booting), closest to the motor, where the HDD pater starts and next to each other, so everything is on the way of the head.

-> Latest drivers, and Windows 7 SP1 fully updated.

-> Startup items: Alps Apoint touchpad drivers, Dell Feature Enhancement applications.

-> SATA Controller set to AHCI.

I was expected to hear a 10-15sec boot up.
(and no I am not mistaking with hibernation)

 

40 gig is kind of puny for Win 7, I would go with at least 60 gig. You will find the price difference between them to be pretty similar.

GoodBytes:
That's a awesome boot time for a 5400rpm drive!

About 20 seconds of that time is consumed by the bios. I have the latest bios installed, but it does take way more time than I think it should.

I have not tweaked any of the services except the ones that should be shut of if you're running an SSD. The fact is, my test is admittedly not totally scientific since my old win7 install is a year old, but I don't have a lot of junk running at startup. I do have Microsoft Security Essentials running on both of them though.
In addition, I have Roboform and Xmarks that run at startup, both of which I am sure add a few seconds to the total time.

Although I should have added that my determination of a complete boot is not logged in but rather once I have started completely logged in and can get FireFox open. I told you it wasn't scientific!

Regardless, an awesome boot time for a non-SSD system, particularly one with a 54k drive!

 

Me too, it's when I can open Firefox.

As for Roboform.. well seriously why not use the Web browser to store your passwords, and as for XMark, well Chrome and Firefox has complete sync feature. Granted it's not between web browsers... but choose one and stay with it.

 

The E6410's BIOS is indeed slower than the E6400. In fact, it takes a long time just for the logo to show up. PBA initializes faster than the E6400 though.

I have the fingerprint reader setup for PBA and Windows Logon, so it takes my system about a minute to get to the desktop. If the FPR doesn't accept my fingerprint the first time, it could take longer...

 

Also, did anyone install the new Intel HD drivers? It's been giving me problems:

1. Maximum manual screen brightness is stuck around 1/3rd for some reason, and it can go much darker than before. With the light sensor on I can still get the full range.
2. Text in OpenGL games looks jagged. (don't worry, I run fairly old/non-intensive games that I get 100fps of Intel HD)

 

I've also installed it, and I can confirm your first point: the manual brightness control is no longer working as expected, it's almost unusable in bright places. And I have also noticed some brightness vibrations in certain situations...
I might even consider going back to the previous driver version...

 

Has anyone successfully managed to increase or upgrade the screen resolution in an e6410 by swapping in a different led/lcd screen?

The e6420 has horrible reviews, but has an option to get a good resolution (1600x900).

Tinkered with the idea of trying to fit in a e6420 LED screen into an e6410. However, the following obstacles seem hard, if not impossible to overcome.

• The e6420 has a 14" (size on Dell's website), whereas the e6410 was listed at 14.1".
• Further, the connector pins are probably different as well.

The generic lcd websites have other 14.1 screens with higher resolutions (but for lenovo, acer, etc). One can only presume retrofitting these screens to e6410 is even harder.

 

The E6410 uses the new embedded DisplayPort connector for the LCD, so if the connector (and connector position) matches up, you'll at least have some hope.

 

Not to personally attack, but attempting to put a e6420 screen in a e6410 is one of the worst ideas I've heard.

e6410s have a 1440x900 resolution option....almost zero benefit to go to 1600x900. Especially with the terrible quality of the Dell e6420 panel.