Talk:Energy-Efficient Ethernet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy-Efficient Ethernet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Networking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge green Ethernet into EEE

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

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 ?

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

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

I think the current title may be misplaced:

a) Energy Efficient Ethernet — original title, official, most common in refs, and Ethernet is always capitalised
b) Energy-efficient Ethernet — would be the most correct grammatically (not treating as a proper noun)

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

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911162922/http://www.calit2.uci.edu/uploads/Media/Text/Ilyadis_BRCM_EEN_Update_UCI%20Workshop%20April%201%202010.pdf to http://www.calit2.uci.edu/uploads/Media/Text/Ilyadis_BRCM_EEN_Update_UCI%20Workshop%20April%201%202010.pdf

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

Y 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]