Talk:Energy-Efficient Ethernet

Merge green Ethernet into EEE
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)

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)

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)

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)


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

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: I propose a) with alternative restored Widefox ; talk 14:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * c) Energy-Efficient Ethernet — changed from the original for grammatical reasons (and the alternative removed at that point)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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