Talk:Gigabit Ethernet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as High-importance).

Link to "Echo Cancellation" under 1000 Base-T leads to page that is not relevant to the sort of "Echo Cancellation" used[edit]

The Echo Cancellation article is entirely dedicated to echo cancellation in voice communication and ancient modems - that is, to ACOUSTIC echo cancellation. This is unrelated to gigabit ethernet. If we're linking to that article from here, it needs to describe Echo Cancellation in the context of data transmission, which I imagine would involve a very different approach (maybe it doesn't - but I don't know, because the Echo Cancellation article doesn't mention it!)

I'm putting this post under the Gigabit Ethernet article, not the Echo Cancellation article, because I suspect there may already be an article for echo cancellation in data transmission (under a different name). (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the link and text to point to Adaptive equalizer. An (acoustic) echo canceller is an adaptive equalizer (plus other stuff) operating in the audio band. --Kvng (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

1000BASE-CX Nearly Obsolete[edit]

"The IEEE 802.3z standard includes 1000BASE-SX for transmission over multi-mode fiber, 1000BASE-LX for transmission over single-mode fiber, and the nearly obsolete 1000BASE-CX for transmission over balanced copper cabling." --what makes 1000BASE-CX nearly obsolete? Is this an opinion? Is this related to the percentage of systems deployed? Can it be referenced to something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJohnston2 (talkcontribs) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have sources to hand but here is my perception of the situation.
1000BASE-T has become by far the dominant physical layer for short to moderate length runs of gigabit ethernet. To the extent that most computers sold come with one or more 1000BASE-T ports and if you say gigabit ethernet without mentioning the physical layer everyone will assume you mean 1000BASE-T. The fiber standards are far less common than 1000BASE-T but they remain relavent because there is a real need to link switches that are more than 100M apart.
I think 1000BASE-CX4 may have slightly lower latency than 1000BASE-T but I'm pretty sure the niche who care about minimising latency at all costs have moved on to 10 gigabit ethernet with SFP+ direct attach.
-- Plugwash (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning Apple?[edit]

How exactly is mentioning that Apple allegedly first put a 1000BASE-T port into a PC relevant in article about Gigabit-Ethernet technology? As far as I can tell, Apple had nothing to do with developing the actual standard, the technology or the core parts of the NIC electronics in G4 Powerbooks. And obviously network devices (at least Cisco) and server computers (at least IBM) sported 1000BASE-T before Apple's laptop did.

That's a bit like mentioning that the first car to sport a built-in FM radio was brand X, in an article about FM radio, without mentioning either the producer of that car radio set or who built the first fm radio at all.

Anyway, looks like some kind of stealth advertising to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


The notes section includes a link to a page that has gone: AndrewRH (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not convinced it was worth salvaging, but I fixed it with an archive link. -—Kvng 00:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


I have removed some misleading information about crossover cables in 1000Base-T. Somebody should write a better piece about how 1000BaseT has no TX and RX pairs, but gigabit NICs will usually negotiate MDI-X for legacy 100Base-TX connections. 2A00:67A0:A:6:222:15FF:FE88:AAE2 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not misleading. 1000BASE-T does transmit and receive on all pairs but pairs need to be matched before transmitted data can be properly received. Note that there's no other handshake than Autonegotiate and Auto-MDIX for finding out which pair is what. For 100BASE-TX downward, Auto-MDIX works just the same way as with native FE ports. After all, a GbE port can't really do MDI-X when connected to a legacy switch/hub port, can it? Zac67 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Misprediction in reference[edit]

A recently added reference at the end of the 1000BASE-TX section dates from 2002 and incorrectly predicted 1000BASE-TX would become the more popular and cheaper option, which is the opposite of the claim in the article: "However, this solution has been a commercial failure, likely due to the required Category 6 cabling and the rapidly falling cost of 1000BASE-T products". This reference may still be useful as a source for wire pair usage and as a source for the "in theory" claim in the previous sentence: "The simplified design would have, in theory, reduced the cost of the required electronics by only using four unidirectional pairs (two pairs TX and two pairs RX) instead of four bidirectional pairs." So maybe the reference just needs to be moved back a sentence, and an additional source found (if needed) for the fact that 1000BASE-TX ended up "losing" to 1000BASE-T. — ChrstphrChvz (talkcontribs) 07:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)