Latitude E6400 Owner's Lounge

I believe the Broadcom USH requires the Dell ControPoint Security Driver, which must be installed before the Intel AMT drivers. I installed none of these... and the Broadcom USH is the only device that appears not installed.

I can't comment on the SM Bus Controller. Nor look into it since my E6400 has just gone off to college with its student.

GK

 

Thanks, point taken. I did not understand the RAM usage I was seeing, but the system does appear to be working better with 4GB.

GK

 

1. I think the consensus is that XP runs better than Vista period. But the machine is ready for Vista 64-bit and beyond, more or less, so if you want to get on with it, the machine will run Vista 64-bit well enough until Win7 arrives in force. Vista has many new functions and features and the 64-bit kernel is suppose to be designed for better security... sticking with XP for no particular reason will only delay their introduction.

2. I read elsewhere here that geforce is possible, offers additional color controls, but may not necessarily be an upgrade over Quadro. If you buy the E6400 for its intended business/application usage, you'll probably see no reason to mess with the video driver. I've seen no rush to geforce, partly because it's a bit of a hack... not sanctioned. My lay impression.

GK

 

I disagree with the "consensus". I think that in terms of hardware related problems, Vista runs better since it's designed with newer hardware in mind.

My own experience with my previous Acer Aspire 5632 and now with the E6400 has been very good. I've had Vista since it was commercially released about 2 years ago. Since then, it's been mostly smooth sailing.

My 5632 has 1 GB RAM, which I later upgraded to 2 GB. Now the Latitude has 4 GB. Everytime, I've noticed an improvement in performance therefore I reccomend atleast 3 GB for Vista. It's not a lot considering how much is used by some apps like photoshop, WoW, etc.

I use no legacy software or hardware so there has been no compatibility issues.

After going back to XP on other computers, I realise how ergonomic and thought out Vista is. The improvement and addition of many features, both seen and unseen, make it better on the whole. Since SP1, stability has improved hugely and many problems corrected and performance improved.
I admit that Vista isn't as quick to respond as XP but that's not noticeable with 4 GB RAM and fast processor, like the basic P8400 in the Latitude.

I'm no expert on Vista so if you want a better comparison, Google away!

And finally, if you are considering eventually upgrading to Win 7, which is due out soon, it'll be much easier adjusting to it if you move from Vista rather than from XP.

 

I have not run XP on the E6400 but I'm pretty sure it would run better than Vista, which may have been smoother sailing since SP1 but surely has not been smooth sailing since its commercial release in Jan '07... no amount of machine design can fix many of those OS issues. Vista is about to be retired in mass after being adopted by what, 10% of the market? Even Intel refused to adopt Vista. That's the general consensus I meant.

But Vista has positives, the machine supports it, and legacy for some is legacy enough to be retired, so my preference/recommendation if buying now would be to move to Vista on the E6400.

GK

 

If you are comparing Vista vs XP based on what other says and company decision, then you are a fool. ;P (j/k)

In fact, the main reason why Vista was slowly adopted are:
- Company have old machine not compatible for Vista, using old technologies unsupported by Vista/Server 2008, meaning they can't switch without massive system upgarde. Ok that is no problem for companies like Intel, and other large ones. But why? What does Vista offers, for the great majority of the the employees, who uses Word, Excel, etc... A new Core.... ok that won't show for them... instant search... they can live without it. more security.... company sees itself safe with the additional security software... well...
Also, do the employees really do need a dual core, 4GB of RAM and a fancy video card (compared to their integrated graphic card from intel or SiS). No.., especially that you have to add the high cost of increase help-desk support, and training. LOTS of money for nothing. Company will switch OS, the same way they did when XP came out (which took the end of life of XP to finally get widely adopted), when their system and server are too old and cost to much to maintain, or run the new more demanding applications and server request. As much as I life Vista very much over XP, I must admit that I would take THE SAME decision. Also, what is taking into account is many companies work like this. You have the IT manager... he must take the decision.. do we switch or not... if he/she says yes, and problem appears... someone will get fired. So they tend to wait until bigger companies switch to it, before they switch. It's kinda lame, but that's life, they are sheeps and leaders.

I won't be surprised if Windows 7 gets adopted by companies at it's end of life.

Then after you have Microsoft mistakes such as.
- call Vista NT 6.0 instead of a new name... it's a new core, change the name not version. So companies like Intel, Nvidia, and the rest that make computer hardware, was like "Every time there is a new OS, Microsoft says that the driver structure is completely different and in reality there is nothing other then minor tweaks"... well this time Vista driver architecture IS very different over XP, and that made about all hardware not work with Vista. So companies made ultra quick un-optimized, not stable, little tested drivers. This destroyed the image of Vista. Microsoft should have put more pressure.

- Vista 32-bit. Many people have 200$ Dell laptop that can't even run XP smoothly and go "I'll put Vista!" YAY! Well guess what, Vista doesn't support old technology to allow it to support the new ones better, and have a more responsive OS. Also, sailing at retail the 32-bit version at retail, made companies believe that it's like XP. where the 64-bit version is there for special cases where one would need the 64-bit, at the cost of being less tested and such. But NO it's the reverse. Vista 64-bit it the original OS, and the 32-bit was a last minute decision. Therefore, the 32-bit is buggy and tainted the image of the OS.

- Quick release of Vista. Yes QUICK. Vista offered a new core, this is BIG. Windows XP was based on Windows 2000, which was based on Windows NT 4 which was based on NT. WOW! that an old core! Yes it is. And this is why a 8 year old kid can make virus and find security leaks. This is why Microsoft stop Longhorn development and releaseSP2 as XP was being ultra attacked with security leaks like never before. Making a new core that support the billions of hardware configuration that exists, and the possible way of system configuration, is extremely hard, especially when technology move so fast.
Add 2 years to Vista 06 release and Vista would have been impressive (and well fix the top issues). (Windows 7). Now I don't really blame Microsft, I mean they were very pressured by their investors and shareholders to release the dam thing. But they should have gotten balls and say "We don't release crap" and ignore them, and not be afraid if the stock goes down a bit temporarily.

- Lack of documentation. Vista and Server 2008 is so different, that many IT's don't know where to start, and how to configure properly the OS.. This means XP tweaks to Vista = destroy Vista. Also, make many tools/software used uncompilable, as the developers don't know where to start for making a patch or new version. Which explains the claim, "compatibility issues", at business level.

- Lack of explanation. Microsoft never explained - well now they did, but no one reads it - the explanation of why Vista takes more RAM. No explanation of the real features of Vista like the remade Prefetch and the new Superfetch technology, kernal on RAM, and how to use RAM, self-maintenance and the rest. Which made people go "OMG VISTA TAKES 1GB of RAM!!!!!" and not understand the real reason and how it works.

 

So if we others consider the remainder of your post, we are fools?

GK

 

nha! I wasn't serious when I said this...
let me add ";P".

 

I think you are right on that. Can someone comment on the SM Bus Controller though? I thought it was either Ricoh or the security driver, but after installing both (windows actually installs the ricoh driver with winupdate) I am left with sm bus controller and unknown device (which may be my bluetooth). Any thoughts? Loving win7 so far.


on another note, has anyone who has installed win7 been able to get biometrics up and running?
edit -- the unknown device is NOT bluetooth.

another quick request -- anyone that has the biometrics up and running (in XP or Vista, etc.) can you go to your device manager and check which device you have? http://www.upek.com/support/downloads/windows7/sensortypes.asp

 

For the SM Bus Controller install the Intel Mobile driver (Dell Support: Chipset). You have to do it manually. Also see the other Windows 7 thread, it's already been discussed there.