Talk:Energy-Efficient Ethernet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge green Ethernet into EEE[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Energy Efficient Ethernet. -- Zodon (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article on Green Ethernet should be merged into Energy efficient Ethernet. Green Ethernet appears to be one manufacturers efforts in this direction. Rather than having a whole separate article, it could be covered as a separate section here (noting the differences between it and EEE). Since that article is on shakey ground from a notability standpoint, folding it in here would help resolve that issue as well. Zodon (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - EEE apparently was born from Green Ethernet and it appears at this point that EEE is the name that will stick. --Kvng (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • provisionally support, as long as it's noted that D-Link's Green Ethernet trademark represents a superset of the technologies in EEE, at least according to them. The terms aren't interchangeable. But yes, the Green Ethernet article is a bit weak. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Realtek[edit]

Recent Realtek network drivers (I'm using 7.034 on Win7 x64) have a Green Ethernet setting. It would seem they've done a deal with D-Link. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figures ?[edit]

Except for the useless marketing figures in the introduction, the article doesn't provide any figures. How much energy does a powered-up Ethernet transmitter use when idle? How does that compare to a transmitter in some low-power state? Jec (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts section - using cat5 instead of cat3[edit]

Um, ok... who's been using cat3 for their 100mbit+ ethernet connections over the past 10+ years? Anyone? Anyone at all... come on, make yourselves known.

Using cat5 instead of cat3 may have been a useful power saver with compatible chipsets back in the 10mbit days, but that kind of cable, as far as I've been taught at least, can't even be used to transmit a reliable signal AT ALL with the higher data rates, let alone be the default cheaper but higher-consumption choice, and even cat5 is sort of old-hat unless you're chucking together a minimum cost 100mbit home network. We're all using cat5e and cat6, these days...

I propose deletion unless someone knows better and can explain exactly what's meant in that paragraph? (Before someone pipes "it's Ethernet Over Twisted Pair", remember that ALL 100mbit+ copper-cabled ethernet is "over twisted pair", using pseudo-RJ45 connectors...) 193.63.174.11 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the uncited and unclear material. --Kvng (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

I think the current title may be misplaced:

We currently seem to have a mix of the two:

  • c) Energy-Efficient Ethernet — changed from the original for grammatical reasons (and the alternative removed at that point)

I propose a) with alternative restored Widefox; talk 14:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Energy-Efficient Ethernet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]