This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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)
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...) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the uncited and unclear material. --Kvng (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)