Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Is It Time To Shrink the Ethernet Connector?
New submitter jimwelch writes: HDMI has shrunk to mini, then micro. USB has shrunk to mini, then micro. The wired Ethernet connector has not changed since 1988! On the Raspberry PI, it is the largest of the standardized connectors. Is it time to come up with a new version? What if, anything, would you like to see replace that suddenly clunky RJ-45 port? I rather like that (in theory) RJ-45 cables can't be easily dislodged, but at the same time dislike that its locking mechanism can be awfully fragile. And for that matter, I'm glad that on most of my computers so far there's been full-sized USB ports as well as full-size ethernet jacks.
Let's rewire miles of data centers for no discernible purpose.
Namely, existing infrastructure. With CAT5 and CAT6 cables everywhere, you will need some little box to convert the existing cable into a slimmer one which in turn would end with a slimmer connector.
There are far, far more RJ45 connectors in the world than USB, for example.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
it has been replaced in consumer equipment by the (very small) WiFi connector
I know this is a discussion about the plug, but with so many devices connecting to a router wirelessly, there's been no need to redesign it at all. Would be nice to see it merged with a USB-Type C style of connectivity, but the simple answer it that it's probably just not needed.
No. Leave it alone. Devices that are too thin for a standard jack are perfect candidates for a micro-USB ethernet adapter. The default assumption for RJ45 should remain as it is. No need for yet another connector to require we carry five different possible adapters and cables.
"Oh no... he found the
Ethernet is the one reliable standard that will always work, everywhere, no questions asked. And I need it. I can go on for days without eating. I can go on for hours without drinking. Without Ethernet? Good old, reliable, wired, Ethernet? What am I alive for? And don't come with your fancy "Wi-Fi" b/g/n. It never works when you need it. Airport? Conference? eduroam? It does not work! And I need it to work, this is the Internet we're talking about!
entropy happens
The standard rule applies. When a "Should x..." question is asked, the answer is no.
Any reduction would be at the expense of compatibility with everything which already exists. Modular connectors are reliable, cheap, easy to install, they work. Wired Enet is near end of it's capabilities (10G reduces the distance from 100 m to 15), so you'd be better off looking toward smaller fiber connectors as we move forward.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Whoever wrote this article obviously didn't do any research first.
There is already a new standard for physical ethernet cabling, calling RJ.5 (that is, ar-jay-point-five): http://www.alliedtelesis.com/videos/RJpointfive
"Allied Telesis is one of the first networking vendors to embrace the new RJ point five Ethernet connectivity standard. Built to replace the RJ-45 standard copper Ethernet connector, the new RJ point five connectors are half the size, so you save valuable space and double your port density."
They're not popular in the marketplace because the cables are uncommon and therefore expensive, and similarly the physical jacks are uncommon and therefore expensive.
As long as you can build a patch cable from an RJ-45 to the new connector, you'd be compatible enough with installed infrastructure.
Require that every cable be a right-angle, 90 degree cable - i.e. when plugged into something like a flat laptop or tablet, the cable lies flat against the side of the device when plugged in, not sticking awkardly straight out the back. My laptop dock can't get closer than 7-10 cm from the back wall of my cube because of the old-style cables (RJ-45, HDMI, USB) sticking out.
And the worms ate into his brain.
One of the reasons, I think, that the RJ-45 connector has lasted so long is it's very easy to field install. A bag of cable ends and a relatively inexpensive crimp tool is all you need, and the wires are easy to insert. Making a connector that's appreciably smaller would make field installation of ends that much more difficult.
Introduce a new standard and now you'll need new cables (wall jacks to device) or adapters (cables to device) to keep new things interchangeable with existing things. That doesn't simplify anything.
That's assuming it CAN be made smaller, given the cable is unlikely to change.
=Smidge=
WiFi still can't match the reliability, simplicity, and in almost all cases bandwidth of an Ethernet network. Also, wiring a home with Cat 5e is a fraction of the cost of deploying a proper wireless network, and it delivers full duplex 1 Gbps, all the time. I tend to stick to Ethernet as much as possible, leaving WiFi for portable devices only, whatever conveniences Wifi offers aren't worth the tradeoffs.
Sure; let's set up WIFI only for Corporations with 10,000 people on a campus! Great idea!!!
Current ethernet adapters are quite easy to patch your own, if they were to get smaller isn't there quite a chance this would become impossible/require a soldering iron? Something that wouldn't be of favour to the people laying loads of ethernet throughout data-centres, offices etc.
Ethernet is an attempt to use the cheapest cable possible for the longest distance possible for the highest bandwidth possible. That's part why TIA/EIA standards do not specify the cable, they specify the performance characteristics that must be met. This is why it's possible to run Gigbit over some particularly short distances over Category 3, or why it's possible to get 10G out of 6 or 5e for some short distances.
Changing the connector means that the horizontal cable gets more expensive, the jacks get more expensive, the patch cord material and plugs get more expensive.
There already has been interest in changing the connector, larger. There was a cable that put four pins on the top to attempt to electrically separate the pairs to reduce crosstalk. It didn't take off, probably because the developer didn't want to license it cheaply enough, ie, free. There were attempts at hermaphroditic cables, but they were larger and had licensing issues.
The 8P8C jack used as RJ-45 for Ethernet, RJ-48 for T1 and ISDN, and RJ-61 for telephone is not going anywhere.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
-inducer removed. If you don't have boots on the existing RJ45, you're going to waste a lot of time pulling that cable back out of the route it's on.
The problem is that impedance matching could be a problem over very long runs of cable with a smaller connector at very high speeds. It probably wouldn't be just a "scaled down" RJ-45 with a mandatory boot over the snag-inducing tab.
And, of course, you'd need to have (and keep in stock) RJ-45 to "New" connectors, both M/F and F/M genders, 'cause one has to accept a cable, and the other side has to accommodate the replacement standard. Ain't the march of technological improvements wonnerful?
System admins often make up panels, and even cables, for RJ-45. In this case, the size is good. Smaller jacks and ports would be difficult to wire manually.
My opinion: leave it as is
My thinking is;
Most connected items that are portable or IoT already use WiFi now so having a smaller connector wouldn't really be a benefit.
For the larger systems like desktops and servers there would be little to no benefit from the smaller connector.
A standard RJ45/8P8C connector/jack is already about as small as you can get it and still be able to see what your doing when you install them.
Currently the tools and connectors used for CAT X cabling are completely standardized and interchangeable with most of the telephone hardware still out there. Things like the line testers and punch down tools work on both systems so I have less I need to buy and carry when in the field working with mixed systems.
All the older hardware, the Smart TV's, the server patch panels, the home routers, hubs, etc. use the full size connector. I don't think people would be happy if they bought a new router and had to get all new cables to boot.
Just some of my thoughts on the subject, I'm sure there are going to many other valid reasons for and against that other commenters will bring up.
How about a smaller plug with 4 contacts (RX pair and TX pair). But make it with the same contact pitch as the RJ-45 and include a space to correspond to the RJ-45 pin 3 (unused for Ethernet). Then, make a plastic backshell that snaps onto the new connector, making it as thick and wide as the old RJ-45. So it will plug into older equipment.
Have gnu, will travel.
In the next 5-10 years, no one is going to have landline internet to their homes anymore.
Mobile data will do to the ethernet jack what cellphones did to the home phone line.
There is no point in redesigning the ethernet jack because in 15 years, no one will be using them anymore. (Shy of in server rooms and data centres, but even then, size won't be the driving force.)
It's already in progress. Mini-ethernet. Micro-ethernet. Then Ethernet type C.
Young one, Cat 5 completely obsoleted 10base2 thin net. Thank god.
My work laptop is too thin for an RJ-45. I have a USB to Ethernet dongle when I want the net connection to be wired. So RJ-45 is fine. There will be adapters for whatever connection smaller devices need.
Fiber-based Ethernet has already different kind of connectors.
bash$
There has to be a better reason other than "USB and HDMI did it". What good reason would there be? there has to be something beneficial achieved other than following a trend. Until then, no.
The IP-phone on my desk uses POE, no power cable. Wifi sucks, in our building with lots of concrete walls, metal bookshelves, and equipment generating interference sometimes you struggle to connect even when standing underneath the thing and then throughput is crap.
Try updating a lab of 45 machines using Deploy Studio over wireless.
...that can recognize the wire ordering as part of the handshake on device connection. That's the only way you could make smaller connectors and still have it be relatively easy to make up your own cabling.
Time to play "Which computer in the daisy chain got disconnected?"!
The RJ45 connector is the single element in an ethernet network installation that introduces the most crosstalk and signal loss. Everybody involved in the certification (signals level testing, rather than simple multimeter-style continuity testing) of ethernet has long known this, which is why there were so many different connector proposals for CAT7 networking when that spec first came up for discussion with the standards bodies.
The RJ45 was a good choice at the time when ethernet moved from coaxial cable with BNC connectors. It was easier to plug and unplug, was in plentiful supply at low cost and with tools and installers already familiar with it (all due to its use in the telephone industry) and worked well enough with twisted-pair wiring. The connector was not, however, selected based on its signal integrity properties (which at the time were less of an issue because the RJ45 ethernet at that time was topping-out at only 10megabit).
No, leave it as is. For one reason, ethernet cables are often hand made or hand terminated. I've terminated 1000s of cables in my career, various lengths and runs. The current connector, while not perfect, is just about the right size for hand termination without expensive or specialized equipment. My bag always has a crimper and spare connectors in it. I can easily whip up a cable on a moments notice. If you go to a mini or micro connector, more specialized equipment will be involved that may not allow one to hand terminate a cable easily. If we lose that, we lose the versatility of the connector in general.
Because it's versatile. With the right tools, it's incredibly easy to terminate and repair in the field. Parts are cheap. And I can crimp any length cable whenever I need it.
But copper has its limits. To get beyond those limits, pair twists are tighter, cables are getting thicker, pull specs more delicate, and installation more complex. As conductors get thicker and shielding becomes mandatory, backwards compatibility is proving a challenge. We're now at the point where manufacturers like Leviton are engineering prefabricated connectors with built-in wiring to be fitted on a neck connector in which rests the cable's conductors. Shrink the head, and it'll have to be prefabricated like this.
Sure, we can make smaller connector heads, but at increased cost and decreased versatility. If we do, why stop there? If we're going to redo the connector, why not the entire cable? Would it even be possible to re-engineer the twisted pair cable to give us the same performance and versatility but shrink its diameter and reduce its delicacy?
And if you don't like it its really easy to convert your cables to non-locking cables.
They also self convert in fairly short order unless you buy snag less cables or ends if you make them yourself.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
The physical size of a connector is related to whether it needs to be handled by human hands, and if so, whether a locking mechanism is part of the connector, which also must be handled by human hands. Beyond that, it's the physical size of the necessary cable that forms the final parameter.
The Ethernet Connector could be made slightly smaller and satisfy the above, but not by much. There is no need for change when it's for the sake of change. So, the current RJ-45 is perfectly adequate and need not be further reduced in size.
A possibility would be to increase the density of the interface; ie 10 Ethernet lines per connector. In that case, you could justify a newer connector but it would still operate alongside the single line RJ-45 in many cases, rather than replace it.
What do you mean I need a terminator, the cable just plugged right in?
Ethernet is fine as it is and the bandwidth is going up and up so shrinking the cable could only force us to expand it again later when we decide we need more bandwidth or something.
Leave it alone.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The beauty of the RJ-45 standard is that it has low insertion force, a positive engagement report (the click when the cable seats properly), and it is essentially impossible to put in the wrong way. It remains in place without screws, and yet releases easily. The only shortcoming it has is the fragility of the catch mechanism when pulling cables through walls or cable trays, but various manufacturers have come up with a range of boot designs to circumvent that problem. You can recognise the connector port by feel, and know the orientation blindly (ie, around back of the equipment you can't get your head behind to be able to see). Other people might disagree, but in my experience, it's the most reliable connector in common use. Maybe the RJ-11 (standard telephone jack) was, in its heyday, more commonly deployed, but probably not. I have never, ever, not once, found a panel-mounted RJ-11 or RJ-45 that had failed.
Compare with the micro USB: insertion force is high enough that it's close to the force required to plastically deform the connector when putting it in the wrong way, yet, it can easily fall out under many circumstances. There is no positive feedback on proper seating. The holes for a micro USB are indistinguishable by feel from many other ports (at least to me). There is no retention mechanism other than friction. The connectors are very fragile, and nearly impossible to join to the cable in the field (read: you can't make your own cables). The insertion count lifetime is quite low, and I've worn out quite a few of them myself. It's a poor standard.
The folks designing the RJ-45 and its sister standards were frelling brilliant. The people designing the more recent stuff ... not so much.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
RJ22 (the little connector on the coiled cable going to your telephone handset) could be an alternative if there's not a lot of crosstalk induced by having the pairs up against each other.
Thunderbolt could have been a contender, but as usual no one other than Apple adopted it because it was too expensive (and I'm sure there's an Intel tax or something).
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
And what Apple may or may not do has absolutely no bearing on the networking within my data center
They can be a bitch to press especially if covered with a thick rubber cover, and they often break off
Make a suitable teeny-tiny 8-pin connector that has the key features of the current jack, namely that you can't plug it in wrong and you can't just "pull it out" thanks to the locking tab.
Then have low-cost adapters that convert it into a standard RJ-45.
The advantage of this is you can also create standard, small, self-contained USB2/3, USB-C, or what-not-to-"new"-Ethernet-adapters that fit in a thin form-factor from the computer to the wall.
It might look like this:
[RJ-45 wall jack] [RJ45 to "thin" adapter"] [Ethernet wire with "thin" adapters at both ends] ["thin"-adapter ethernet to USB2/3 or USB-C adapter] [computer].
For the data center and other places where you typically crimp your own cables, continue to use existing wiring standards.
For your "go bag" have a variety of male-to-female adapters of both "thin" and "classic" varieties, much like techs used to have 9- and 25-pin serial adapters in various gender configurations in their "go bag" back in the day.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I spent $20 on a 100' cat6 cable to run along the baseboard through three storeys. It's 30' too long and it's not as nice as cable buried in the walls, but it's definitely cheap and 1Gbps is definitely better than wireless.
Increasingly, people just connect to networks via USB connectors. The fact that there is a little USB-to-Ethernet chip at the other end of the cable hardly matters. With high-speed USB-C connectors, you can run networking, display, and power over the same small connector and cable.
I suppose the cost of the cable itself is not bad, but to wire every room in a house with wall jacks and such is expensive, especially after labor is accounted for.
Currently anybody with a crimp tool can make their own Ethernet cables with cheap and commonly available RJ-45 connectors. Any attempt to shrink Ethernet cable connectors will inevitably require factory-made molded cables and drive prices up for no good reason.
Yes, I did, three years ago. And for a lot less than $200. Five terminations total (three bedrooms, living room, & basement rec room). 250' of 5e by Sewell for $40 (it's even cheaper now), connectors and wall jacks for another $30, and $10 for some cable fasteners and 1-gang boxes from the local hardware store. It helped a lot that my basement was unfinished at the time. Finally, a simple $50 dual-band wireless router w/ a 4-port switch, and I was done. $130 total, plus my own time. (Though, you do probably need to spend another $30 on tools, unless you borrow from a buddy / the workplace.)
I wonder how much patents are preventing this from becoming popular, either
* directly, because not everyone is allowed to license it?
* indirectly, because the cost of licensing is more than "noise" compared to the actual cost of manufacture?
* indirectly, because the existing market players are loath to embrace something that is "owned" by someone else and are waiting for the patent owner to donate it to a patent pool that they already participate in.
Also, the AC poster calls this "a new standard for physical ethernet cabling" but a quick Google search doesn't turn up anything suggesting that this connector has been approved by any of the major standards bodies. It's also called "RJ point five" in all of the vendor-related web sites that I found, suggesting that it is not a true RJ ("registered jack") standard.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The main problem I see with RJ.5 is that if you have a row of tightly spaced connectors you will need a tool like a pen cap or paper clip to depress the locking tab without risking depressing other locking tabs.
Even with my fat fingers I can press a single RJ-45 latch in a row of connectors.
YFI: Yes, I was thinking. 44 years of programming. I ran computer center when it was then 15 pin AUI, then coax, then 1Meg RJ45, etc., etc.
Did you think before writing an inflammatory, insulting, hate filled comment.
Biggest problem I have had with Ethernet there is no cheap way to designate roles to ports without invoking expensive power hungry L3 aware ASICs (e.g. RA Guard). The ability to deny ports capability to intercept and take over/down the network should be baked into Ethernet and leveraged by protocols layered above.
To me this change would be worth some pain associated with required upgrades to accommodate.
Why? For the mobile, ultra-thin, etc devices you already have wireless, ethernet-over-USB, etc. Why, oh why, fuck with a great existing standard? Just to accommodate devices that already do not have them? No thanks!
No. I don't want to buy new tools.
Pshaw, while you were terminating 10base2 I was troubleshooting IBM MAUs with 4mbs STP token ring. You haven't seen crazy till you deal with STP connectors...
Silence is a state of mime.
Originally "ThickNET" and then "ThinNet" (10Base5, 10Base2) used coaxial cable. Then came twisted pair (10Base-T) followed by its variants to go to 100 (100Base-TX) and 1000 (1000Base-T). All of those twisted-pair connectors would be easily converted to a smaller form factor connector provided it still kept the pairs separated, properly twisted, and maintained it's Category rating (e.g. Cat-5, Cat-6).
However, the addition of power over Ethernet (PoE) requirement makes the problem tougher. There are various standards; they use all four pairs in some cases; the cables have to be separated by a certain distance so that the electricity provision doesn't impact the data transmission.
Given that, it's unlikely that Ethernet cables or connectors are going to be changing any time soon.
HOWEVER, the Ethernet connector is only the largest connection on the rPi because it offloads the power connector to somewhere else and takes it in as a micro-USB. Similarly, Ethernet could have a "data only" sub-micro connector (like an adapter between the wall socket and the rPi) that converts from RJ-45/RJ-45X with possible PoE to 4 leads and a micro connector for data.
I don't see millions of people rushing to buy those adapters, but then my lack of vision doesn't mean it can't happen.
Don't count on it.
E
Shrinking it really isn't an improvement for *Ethernet*, it's a change made for the sake of "improving" some other element of equipment design, and more than likely, for someone else's benefit and likely financial at that.
Lots of existing ultrabooks already took out the extra thickness necessary to support an RJ45 jack as it is, I seriously doubt a new standard would cause them to add the extra hardware back in even if some future chipset included all the silicon for Ethernet and all they had to do was add a port. You buy a $20 USB3-gigabit Ethernet adapter and for all intents and purposes you have your Ethernet back.
Servers and workstations already have plenty of real estate for RJ45 ports, so shrinking there doesn't get you anything, especially if you go 10 gig. 10 gig buys you 10x the bandwidth, so you need fewer ports anyway for more bandwidth with less cabling as a side bonus.
The standard I would have liked to have seen would have been 4x discreet Ethernet links in a single plug and single cable for use with switches, servers and patch panels. The sole purpose would have been to cut back on the amount of discreet cabling necessary for multiple links between common devices (servers or patch panels) and switches. The cabling density in some racks is more than the cable trays and raceways can sanely hold, and more than I want to deal with and keep my sanity.
10G solves this problem in a lot of ways for servers already -- even if using iSCSI, actual bandwidth consumption is low enough that you can get by with 2x 10G links where you might have had 8x 1G links before.
On the panel side, I'm sure there are other solutions already out there.
The future is 40-Gbps Thunderbolt 3 on USB-C connectors. You have up to 100 watts of power, multiple DisplayPorts, multiple USB 3.1 ports, PCI-e, and potentially 10-Gigabit Ethernet flowing on the same reversible cable. Nobody cares about having a bulky RJ-45 connector once USB-C gets popular. Even today people can easily add Gigabit on their USB 3.0 ports.
And what Apple may or may not do has absolutely no bearing on the networking within my data center
15 years ago Apple had absolutely no bearing on the music industry whatsoever.
Then they launched and grew the worlds largest online music service.
I fail to understand how you could possibly be that defiant about what or who could impose change in the future.
It depends entirely on the house. If you've got an unfinished basement, and already have telephone and/or TV wall jacks in the rooms you want to network, you could do the whole thing in a couple hours.
Without a basement it depends on how miserable of a crawl space you have, how spread-out the rooms are, and how much other wiring is already in-place for re-use.
It depends on how professional you want it to be, also... Any idiot can run some CAT-5 cables under their carpet in very short-order, and crimp ends on them. I've seen some people just staple CAT-5 high on their walls, too... Paint it to match, and it actually doesn't look too bad. It's those who just leave it loose and hanging (or laying on the floor) that I find embarrassing. You could even copy cable/satellite installers, who run the coax on the outside of their homes, and just drill directly through the walls into each room... It would work as well for CAT-5 as it does for coax, and (for some reason) people don't seem to mind it being done with coax.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
twinaxial for the 5250 was even more entertaining...sneeze at them and they broke. My first "professional" networking job, small city using cables from the early 1980's wanted me to upgrade them in 1994. All their new PCs had to have terminal cards, the connectors were so old they were brittle...NOT fun lol.
USB is horrible. Every display port since VGA has been horrible Pick a standard and STOP.
These are the current USB:
USB 3.0 type C, USB 3.1 Type C, USB type A, USB 3.0 Type A, USB 2.0 Micro, USB 3.0 MicroB 10-pin, USB 2.0 mini-B 5 pin, USB 2.0 type B, Apple lightning
These are the current video cables:
HDMI, HDMI micro, HDMI mini, DVI dual, DVI-D single, DVI-I dual, DVI-I single, Display Port, Mini-Display Port, VGA (d-sub 15 , PC-RGB),, Thunderbolt, 3-wire component, 5 wire componen video, composite video, s-video, 13w3, 5 BNC RGB.... Cant think of more.
This rubbish has to stop. I have probably 50 cables in various card and places where computers and phones live to deal with this horrible mess.
You know how much waste this creates having to chuck cables all the time or keep piles of old ones around to deal with the fact my phones,DSLRs, camcorders currently have micro, mini and type-c all at the same time.
This is stupid, wasteful and out of control. And now with Type C there is horrible problems with getting rapid charging even from 2A chargers with certified cables (the expensive ones).
Please, for Pete's sake, please dont muck with ethernet or do it exactly one more time at most. Its sickening to think of the billions of miles of CAT5e and CAT6, even some CAT3, that would be obsoleted if the 8P8C plug was EVER changed.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
Not unless they make an adaptor that will allow the 'old' Ethernet to hook into the 'new' Ethernet format. If that is the case then I am all for it. Although I can see where it might cause real estate problems in a 'new' network cabinet unless it was at the end of a dongle. It would be especially cool if it allowed for the reduction in the foot print of large scale routers.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Don't forget to pay about double to get weather resistant sheathing though... standard wall cable can't even cope with sunshine.
I hate RJ45 jacks and outlets enough as is. I favor a slender barrel connector where all you have to do is insert the wires in order and then snap a cap over it to hold the wires in place and sink a vampire tap through the insulation. All you would have to strip is the outer jacket and straighten out the first quarter-inch of each wire. The tip would have a cluster of hardy contact spots instead of pins. Nothing to snap off when you rotate the connector to find the key notch. The result could be as small as a headphone jack.
You could even have the switch take a second to handshake through the connectors with the other end and find which wires were which, and rewire itself internally for the best throughput. When building a cable, you wouldn't need to worry about inserting the wires into the connector in any particular order.
No, the RJ45 doesn't need redesigned/replaced to make a smaller connector. Right now it's about as small as it can get and still be handled by human fingers without trouble or damage. If it's made too small to handle, what's the point? For a device where connector size is that critical, it's probably better to use WiFi for connectivity and portability and a USB-to-Ethernet adapter if you absolutely need a hard-wired connection.
I'd also point to micro-USB as an example of why smaller isn't better. It's the most fragile, most trouble-prone connector I've ever had the displeasure of working with. It's easy to damage either the cable connector or the socket or both without realizing it, and the damage won't always even be visible when looking into the socket. This are not good things for a connector. On my cel phone I really wish they'd've left the micro-USB connector off and done a better job with the wireless charging (most of the US variants have all the circuitry for it included but they omit the backplate with the necessary antenna loop and connections). WiFi and Bluetooth let me move things around easily enough, and the space would've been better used for an external microSD slot (I've found very few things that can't be moved via a 64GB flash drive).
I'm confused why everyone started talking about servers and datacenters and stuff. Surely if this actually happened, it would be done the same way as mini/micro HDMI & USB: The hubs switches and servers would all keep using the same old 8p8c, and the mini connector would just be used on the other end for the ultrathin laptops and stuff.
or GTFO
That's funny - all the twinax I dealt with was robust and heavy. Both cores embedded in a plastic envelope, shield, external plastic sheath, screw-on connectors with a locating lug so you could *only* connect them correctly.
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
From the question's comparison to a bunch of cables that you can't (easily) terminate yourself, I'm going to assume you buy all your ethernet cables. That's great except when you want to fish cable through walls, and use punchdown jacks in patch panels. Or make one that's a custom length. Or repair a 30m cable with a broken wire 5mm from one end.
The only thing wrong with RJ45 is the fragility of the locking tab, and plastic overshields do a pretty good job of protecting that.
Have a look at some of the shenanigans NIC makers had to do with PCMCIA cards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Dis CAT4 obsolete CAT3? Did CAT6 obsolete either predecessor?
Yeah, they kinda did. Everyone was moving to 100Mbit.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Cat 3 offered same speed with retooling costs. Cat 5 allowed 100 Mbps so was a clear winner.
The XJack was totally awesome. Pop out perpendicular connectors? That was the pop-up headlights of PCMCIA cards...
Oh, I'm not saying it wasn't awesome, but it was fragile as hell.
I'm presuming that there's a diminishing law of returns there at some point. But, and this is a question - I simply do not know, is there really any reason we can keep expanding to having multiple twisted pairs all sending/receiving with well-timed off-sets so that it was a bit round-robin-esque and perhaps multiple simultaneous connections? A bit like poor-man's broadband where you multi-linked a couple of dial-up connections...
I imagine it'd be fragile as hell but I don't see why it's not realistic - to a certain point where it becomes impractical. I'm thinking something akin to the trunks or OCs running into buildings and the likes - only more specifically aimed at a closer to the desktop, such as the router, the cable to the NIC even, etc...
I know a bit about networking - the fundamentals. I've done some work with it because I had to but it's vital to point out that I've not touched anything professionally (really) since about 2000. I don't really see a reason why a thumb-width cable full of twisted pairs of copper can't be brought to the unit or even to the end-point. It's more resilient than fiber is, in the physical sense. Hell, with error correction it could just send notice and then function in limited capacity as it routes around failures. At least it can in the picture that I have in my head. ;-) (The picture in my head may not actually fit reality as well as I'm thinking.)
What am I missing? Why is this not done? Why is there no CAT-55, CAT-60, or the likes? Things already support multiple streams. Even if they didn't, splitting stuff into that wouldn't be too damned hard. I imagine that it'd be a bit frail, potentially. I imagine that scaling might be a problem but that's what error correction is for. I imagine that error correction is going to add a bunch of computational overhead and that there's a diminishing return at some point but - are we at that point? Is there anything I'm missing that prevents us from going further?
Why am I fixated on copper? More so, why am I fixated on copper when the rumor mill assures me that my *very* remote area is going to get a fiber service? 'Cause I've seen copper on the ground, bent by trees, and blown completely off multiple poles and buried under ice and *still* had reasonable throughput. They'll be hanging the fiber from the poles and not laying it in the ground - yes, they're going to and yes they already do. I'll take something slower but more reliable. Oh, I'll be jumping on fiber the minute it arrives. I'll also be keeping DSL and figuring out a way to automatically fail-over to DSL when the fiber inevitably goes down.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The Shannon noisy channel theorem only applies to shared bandwidth. Right now wifi bandwidth is shared because transmitters (and receivers) are omnidirectional. That limitation goes away if your transmitters/receivers are directional. 802.11ac is the first step to making wifi directional. The 2x2 and 3x3 designation means it's transmitting 2 or 3 wifi signals simultaneously at the same frequencies. They're just transmitted in slightly different directions, and the receiver uses 2 or 3 antennas to sense the difference in multipath to distinguish the individual signals.
Scale this up and you basically end up with a big phased array antenna. A brief handshaking burst would allow the two devices to establish where they are relative to each other in orientation. Further communications can then be done directionally. In the direction the phased array is "pointed", the signals sent by each element in the array line up to create a high amplitude signal. In other directions, the signals don't line up and you end up with low amplitude noise. The end result is like a narrow pencil-beam channel between the transmitter and receiver which can't see nor be seen by other narrow pencil-beam transmissions. Thus no Shannon limit. Same way you can (barely) see the letters on a laptop screen in sunlight even though the sun is millions of times brighter (generates far more noise than the signal coming off the screen). The sunlight and laptop are in different directions, and you are able to point your eyes so they center on the laptop while the sun is way off in the edge of your vision.
I don't know if I'd say "STOP." That seems less than intelligent to say. I'd say stop doing so for trivial reasons. I'd say stop doing so without good reasons. I'd say stop doing so for proprietary reasons. But, I'd not say stop doing so entirely.
Why? I speculate that improvements will be had in the future. I say that gains will be made and technology will advance even further. I'd rather not prevent that. I'd rather not force them to not make new standards. I'd rather they had the freedom to make newer, better, and different.
I just wish they'd not do so for trivial reasons.
Make sense?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Please no. There is absolutely no need to mess with one of the few remaining universal standards.
You only change based on the need.
a. HDMI to micro: the need was super slim laptop output, try finding a 1" thick laptop nowadays
b. USB to micro USB: the need was super slim smart phones, try finding a 0.4" thick smartphone nowadays.
c. Ethernet: there are plenty of 1U+ blades, desktop computers, and industrial stuff (Ethercat) that are fine using RJ45. There is no need.
d. RPi could use a smaller ethernet connector but:
a few 100K pi's vs a million blade servers.... spanning models from 2000 to 2016 (not everyone is Google, Facebook, or Amazon that can replace their 2015 servers asap).
Designs like the RPi should goto a connect that makes sense. If the users want less size, then listen to them (add the RJ.5).
RPi really gets is chops via WiFi anyway.
Obligatory XKCD
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
My horrible suggestion is that some networking company just invent a new standard after a few quiet consultations with industry engineers. Then just impose their standard.
While this is often the route to making people deeply unhappy, it would have the ever so slightly notable side effect of a vaguely useful standard getting implemented. But the key to success is that they make it a patent free, and open standard.
Otherwise, if we rely on broad consensus, we are looking at the next IPv6. A laudable standard that just never seems to get any traction even with pundits saying that the world will come to a screeching halt without it. Also a broadbased consensus would have a probably aim of solving problems only at the extreme expert problem domain.
I can make two suggestions for such a standard to make it work. First is that it needs to be easily backwards compatible. With a minor adaptor, I can just plug it into a traditional Ethernet plug. The other is that it needs to do something completely kick ass for the end user, as opposed to only something kickass in a data center.
For instance it would need a feature such as being shockingly cheap per foot, or transmit 8 zillion wonka bits per second. Or the connector would need to be somehow indestructible. Or something.
Just making it smaller isn't that big a deal on its own. It would need to be paired with some other kickass feature. The simple reality is that an old connector is usually hooked up once to my desktop and sits there for years at a time without fiddling. They could make it bigger and I probably wouldn't care that much.
Sure; let's set up WIFI only for Corporations with 10,000 people on a campus! Great idea!!!
Schools around here have WiFi as the only network connection method for 20,000+ all with iPads, and it works fine.
WiFi is just fine, as long as you pick the right technology, the right infrastructure products, design the network appropriately (Do not underprovision or try to "save on costs" such as by purchasing too few APs per unit of space to cover Or trying to save $$$ by picking a cheaper AP, Or in some other manner that undermines the design objectives.), and Do implement the infrastructure correctly.
If the campus network is correctly implemented, then WiFi provides an excellent user experience.
If there are problems for such large deployment, then it is due to unauthorized devices interfering, incompetence by the designer, or people who configured the network equipment, or other implementation mistakes, not merely by the number of users.
Obviously, there are possible network demands that cannot be met (Ones that would not be acceptable with the wired network either), but they're not within the realm of reasonable usage for network users at a business or school campus.
No one is trying to change your precious data center. The focus here is on thinner (mobile) devices. If you want to cram more into a rack, you already have alternatives to RJ-45.
All ethernet devices of the last 10+ years can autonegotiate between straight and cross-over wire configuration. So with wires on the connector organized as tx+ tx- rx- rx+ (4-wire example), a flippable connector would not require any changes in the electronics. And it would get rid of the impedance-killing central pair split in today's standard connector.
Of course, the question is whether you could make a flippable connector that's field-crimpable with simple tools.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Stop improving things? Don't think that's a good idea. Stop changing ports without good reasons? That would be better _but_ not possible in general.
However you are listing things that don't change without good reasons: USB. You list USB 3.0 and 3.1 type C separately while it is one port, you also list USB A twice while it is one port. Plug a USB 3.x device into a USB 2.x port and it will work, plug a USB 2.x device into a USB 3.x port and it will work. While the USB 2.x micro and USB 3.x micro ports are different physically the USB 3.x ports are a superset of the USB 2.x ones.
Your complaint about the USB C port is funny as it is the closest thing ever to your ideal connector: it is designed to scale in the future, it is designed for and intended to support interfaces that aren't yet created.
I might be one port but things dont work right. I know, I have the entire bevy of these connectors, both USB and Video, and USB speed and behavior has been terrible since 3.0. Speed isnt right, amps isnt right. You can look on Amazon reviews on cables - massive complaints. There is a Google engineer "Benson Leung" that reviews cables as a hobby and checks them to see if they violate USB spec. Even with Benson approved cables the ports often do not charge correctly. Sometimes its 1A even on a 2A port. Sometimes its 2A. Its almost never does the 100 watts / 20 volts / 5A - unless you buy a charger. And type-c chargers are bloody expensive and hard to find. You need a Benson approved one and test it to see if it really rapid charges.
So yes, while type C might be closer to the ideal its a stupid joke how much they cost and how little benefit they provide over a regular stinky 2.0 micro cable these days.
So do I want more unversiality like 8P8C / "RJ45" - hell yes. Id rather wait a bit longer for 10GBASET to become practical. But wait, since there are literally TEN 10GbE standards - that would be 10 different transceivers that can be 10GbE - making fixed port SFP+ and 10GBASET restrictive and SFP+ twinax expensive and SFP+ other types of transceivers very expensive...
You know how much the cables and transceivers cost in a DC? I've seen figures in the 30% range.
You know much more expensive 10GbE because of the number of lunatic standards we had and how much cabling cost?
You see the advantage of CAT5e/CAT6 was it was useful for a VERY, very long time - since 1991. That reduces waste and cost and keeps wiring in the walls good. It was more universal then power adapters, other anything today. It was and is the entire world standard, along now with WiFi - ABGN - I've never had an issue connecting with WiFi or wired ethernet. Ever.
But the diarrhea mess of Apple and phone cables I keep in a backpack at all times. Joke. Custom power cables for laptops. a thunderbolt Ethernet, a DVII, a DVID, a display port, HDMI, mini-displayport, a VGA, type C-C, type A-C, a rapid charger, lightning-cable - all this trash being lugged around. But there is one thing I have one of. Ethernet and the wifi (wherever that is buried.within the laptop). I have a gaggle of dongles and a gaggle of USB cables and chargers because these standards suck horribly.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
I think you sort of describe teaming, which is standard stuff on the server side.
I don't really see a reason why a thumb-width cable full of twisted pairs of copper can't be brought to the unit or even to the end-point.
Like them?
http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
It's more resilient than fiber is, in the physical sense.
It's much, much, much, much more expensive. As for resilliance, it depends what you mean. On long links, the crosstalk, resistance and capacitance will kill the datarate of the copper so much, that you could replace that with a small fiber bundle and make most of the rest of the size steel armour sheathing. IOW, for a given bandwidth and cable diameter, you can make a fiber based cable much tougher.
What am I missing? Why is this not done? Why is there no CAT-55, CAT-60,
Twisted pairs are not that great over long haul. Controlling the impedence is hard so you get signal scattering whenever it changes. Also, see crosstalk to other twisted pairs. Coax works much better for long hauls, but it's much more expensive to produce. It also doesn't have the same run length as fiber but it beats twisted pair. For example, 12G (and soon 24G) SDI pushes digital video over a single coax at a rate of 12 (or 24Gbit/s) for about 100m. For those prefering run length over raw speed DOCSIS (cable TV/modem) specifies a rather robust 10GBit/s over copper for residential length scales (i.e. hundreds of meters) and there are people who make base-T ethernet to coax bridges which can push at least gigabit ethernet over miles.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
hmm lets make a new connection standard
wonderful idea! whats it going to look like?
dunno lets just reuse the usb-c connector
Nobody's talking about changing the wiring or the standard, as far as I can see. What people are discussing is a new standard for connectors at the end of the cable. This would not obsolete any existing equipment, as the RJ45 connector is perfect in data centre installations etc. The new standard would be targeted at portable end-user devices, things that the RJ45 connector was never designed to cope with anyway.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Please, for Pete's sake, please dont muck with ethernet or do it exactly one more time at most. Its sickening to think of the billions of miles of CAT5e and CAT6, even some CAT3, that would be obsoleted if the 8P8C plug was EVER changed.
No-one's talking about mucking about with "ethernet", just replacing the RJ45 connector with something specifically targeted at the portable device market. RJ45 connectors are fragile, and we all have several "spares" buried away somewhere because the retainer tab has snapped off at one end or the other.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
There's no stopping it. This is just another example of how the free market actually works.
Every company is free to introduce whatever the hell they want and spew as much BS marketing hype and misinformation as they can afford in an attempt to sway the masses of confused consumers who, for lack of time or knowledge, can't discern between good information and bad. Eventually something catches on and becomes popular (often for little more reason than the pet rock did in the 70s) and we're all more-or-less stuck with it until the next fad comes along and becomes the popular choice.
Hooray for capitalism!
Sure, a smaller and sturdier connector would be nice, but the changeover costs would be insane! Not to mention the fact that a more compact connector might not be something you could clip onto the end of a cable you're running the way we do with RJ-11&45. You can't crimp and clamp something the size of Micro USB.
When there will come performance laptops that can utilize that bandwidth.
Real power users runs workstations though. With the emphasis on "Workstations".
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
type c is not same as usb 3.0 that has been shipping for a while for hd's, phones etc.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Until the bandwidth is exhausted due too many users in the area.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Unlike the tiny connectors which are too expensive. The connector in the device is tough and rarely breaks. The cheap, easily replaceable part breaks occasionally (but rarely unless you are plugging and unplugging it).
I don't see a reason for changing it other than to artificially drive sales.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The one with the new employee that just has to have his computer at the other end of his desk.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
almost no one is getting gig speeds (except fiber people, you bastards!). And no one is going want to re-engineer something that already works and so entrenched as the defacto standard (no one can cost justify "it makes the physical port a touch smaller" as a good reason to update the hardware).
When speeds for everyone start going to 1 gig then you will see a new ethernet version/form factors on the scene.
My question is how a new cable would be handled... would it just be the same voltages as a RJ-45 cable, except terminating in a smaller connector? Will that connector be as easy to splice on, in the field, at 2:00 in the morning, when having to do an emergency upgrade, under the raised tile, while hung over?
We already have technology to deal with putting a RJ connector in a smaller factor. Anyone remember the old PCMCIA modems which had a push-in, push-out connector, called the xJack? I've used those in the field ages ago, and they were rugged enough. If a device doesn't have enough space for the RJ-45's thickness, then why not use that style of connector?
I'm thinking short-haul, probably off a fiber splitter type of deal at the junction on the pole. Big fat bastards, not quite as large as your image - obviously.
In case it's not painfully obvious, I haven't been inside of a real network closet in... Wow, like 15 years. Well, I've gone in and looked at the pretty lights a few times. I've even spliced fiber - with loads of help. I wouldn't let me near your closet. I do manage my own fairly well. I can crimp me some CAT-5 and 6. I got that down. :/
But yeah, short haul - probably from the pole - maybe to a hub in an apartment complex or the comms room in a large building. Seems to me it'd work - frail as all hell but they should be able to figure that out by now. They'd be thick cables, obviously. I dunno, how many twisted pair can you fit in a half inch? However many that is, that many. (I got these technical details and number *all* figured out... *nods*)
So, yeah, something about that size. That'd probably be, what, 30 pair? More? That'd still be pretty flexible. It's only gotta go to a router - it can split off in regular wireless or CAT-6 from there. That gets the bandwidth there to max out those lines - if it's doable. I really don't see why it wouldn't work but I am pretty far from guru status. Hell, I'm barely competent status. I've connected some pretty complicated things for, oh, circa 1999. I even used wire ties - and sticky labels.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Find a way to structure it so the connector is nothing but concentric rings, with no orientation, and just some notches to stop it rotating.
The vast majority of the standards you list have been deprecated because their bandwidth wasn't high enough. Don't worry, corporations don't change standards for the fun of it, they do so because they need to. Some of those standards arose because of competition (the thing we constantly say is good). Very few are actually extraneous (Apple is a big culprit there).
Or,
tl;dr I'm glad to be done with VGA signals. Don't know what parent poster had against HDMI (variations requiring adapters aside)
Don't worry, corporations don't change standards for the fun of it, they do so because they need to.
Except Sony.
And the attenuation of 5GHz actually helps rather than hurts in a large installation. Because there is less interference from neighboring APs.
The biggest issue with space a distribution cabinet is the cabling, not the connectors. Having a smaller connector doesn't make the underlying cabling smaller which will likely result in zero saved space
If the standard is widely adopted, you would expect most workplaces and high-end hotels to have cables and/or adaptors available. A change like this could become ubiquitous in 2-3 years.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
What's all this "you" stuff? Most of us don't get a say in how our employers implement policy. And when that policy means moving all the AD domain controllers offsite, desktop hotdesking is impossible (imagine 50 to 100 people downloading their roaming profiles afresh over a shared link every morning). There are good reasons for making the ethernet port more swap-friendly, and if the only justification you have against it is that people who set up their IT estates differently from You are just plain wrong, well....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
The cheap-ass breaking tabs is from cheap ass "unbranded" RJ45 ends. Branded RJ45 connectors never have these issue. And if the tab doesnt have a boot on it the only way to break the tab (on branded connectors ) is to strain it by bending it all the way to the back several times.
Was it goblins who bent my retainers back several times when I wasn't looking? And sorry if my employer chose to skimp on what are considered consumables.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
VGA... Was that the bastard that had like a half-dozen different specs or was that the good one that is still in use? :/ (I really haven't paid any attention at all since HDMI.)
I might be thinking of an eVGA or an SVGA or something. Like 12 pins, two screws? If it was the one that was fairly universal for a while then I don't have any hate for it. I do kind of have some hate for one of the ones that had a whole bunch of different things and they were all named the same thing - and I think the damned adapters were the same things. Mid-1990s to about 2000 or so. If it's the one that came after that, I'm not too annoyed with it. That one was fairly universal and didn't seem to require me to do anything important.
However... Err... Since about the time HDMI came out, I've used that. I did have some interim crap that was not too well supported. DVI maybe? HD-*** something or other?
Yes, yes I am absolutely a professional at remembering all those damned acronyms. (No, I'm not. It's my story, I'll tell it any way I want to.)
So, if it's the shitty one then I agree. If it's the one that I still see on some of my desktops (even an occasional laptop but often on desktops with motherboard support for on-board graphics but I usually add a graphics card of one type or another) then I don't have any major hate for that. It survived for a while, was rugged enough, and was pretty universal in my experience. Tough to output to some televisions but not bad. If it's that one then I'm not sure why you'd hate it.
But, if it's the one that came before it (I think it supported up to 800x600 or maybe 1600x800 and some only 400x300 and some between them and the plugs all looked the same) then I hate that bastard.
Yup. That there's some professional lingo - them's the technical terms. (Yes, yes I am a wee bit stoned this morning.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Have you ever crimped your own RJ-45? If you have, then the idea of making that harder is enough to dissuade you from wanting to change the connector to make it smaller (and thus harder to do). I have never needed to make a custom USB cable. Occassionally I will need to make my own twisted pair. But I don't think I've ever installed an ethernet cable on a deliverable project that wasn't custom-cut.
I used to work for a company that rigged off-the-shelf equipment into custom fixtures, so I would be in favor of a min-Ethernet connector for some projects. But thatt would be with the understanding that I have only 3 to 6 inches of length to work with -- because I only need the small, chintzy cable when I'm joining two components in a tight fixture. Otherwise, I'd still want the sturdy, classic Cat 5 and RJ-45.
QSFP+ does just that: 4 pairs of 10Gb each. The problem with huge bundles of cables is that they tend to be less flexible, have more points of failure, and have much more expensive equipment.
What I mean is VGA surviving into the era of large digital screens, despite being an analog signal and having poor contrast, poor black level and some noise. It's all visible at that size and picture quality and not necessary. SVGA is only different on the software side - the connector and everything else is the same.
DVI is the one with so many variations. It can carry either analog or HDMI-compatible video and there is also a dual-link variation for higher resolutions.
It's not just the ports; it's the wires, which are not thin themselves. They were developed from Telco wires so that anyone could "make up" a connection on the fly in any length you want. The wires are color coded so you can easily get them in the correct order. If you want a "micro" version, then you are passing the point where a normal human can cheaply and easily create these cables and entering into a pre-cut, machine manufactured realm where you lose all that versatility. If you CAN duplicate the RJ-45 you will be replacing $100 worth of tools with $1000 worth of tools. Unless everything goes to fiber optic, it's a bit harder to switch than it looks.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
For one, there's the fact that they actually used to make a server, but specifically decided to get out of the server business. Apple is good at selling things to end consumers, not so much servers.
Fifteen years ago, cellphones were getting smaller and smaller. Among the results of that were a) lots of lost phones, and b) morons entertaining half an el car (e.g. in Chicago), because they'd YELL so that they could keep the phone next to their ear, and so the mike would pick up what they had to say.
Now... what are *you* going to do to support the miniaturized replacements - give all of us who need to deal with them a way to shrink our hands and fingers? Or is this just some dim-witted idea to sell more patch cords, since the smaller ones a) won't lock as well, and b) will break more easily.
mark
another "make us buy all our stuff all over again" plot from Hell. that's the only reason to dump the RJ-45 connector. it even works fine on gig-E with the proper cable. the Bellheads got this right out of the gate.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Agreed, if only we'd done one thin-enough-for-Apple-fetishists revamp of ethernet before USB came along, and made a protocol that allowed peripheral PANs to coexist on ethernet switches with the LAN, we could have wasted a lot less silicon with a universal ethernet/peripheral port instead of USB.
One good push to get ethernet where it needs to be for the mobile market would be great, IMO, but only one, done right the first time and not priced out of the market by licensing fees -- the latter of which is probably the only reason a crummy standard like USB got adopted, with what, at the time, was incredibly CPU-unfriendly hardware level a protocol stack which was just a bodged together mess poised to create an even bigger mess as it was extended to eventually catch up to the state of the art.
If we could trust USB bodies not to invent yet another plug it might be possible to use the current pinout of the latest USB and autodetect whether you are plugged into ethernet or USB. Unfortunately any such trust would be foolish, even if they promised.
Someone had to do it.
If it looked like a mini-stereo-headset jack, it could rotate freely, anyway. But manufacture would probably be getting expensive with that approach. Suppose instead, the business end of the jack looked like a tiny DIMM edge-connector with 4 (or more) pads on each side.
WiFi?!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Easy - go to 5Gz channels. Many more channels, they don't overlap... Plus they don't go through nearly as many walls. Why are you stuck at 2.4Ghz, the 90s are calling - they want their WiFi back
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Ah! Alright, thanks. And yeah, it's kind of odd that VGA is still here. There's still all sorts of stuff with it.
I'm willing to be that there's at least one Slashdotter who *prefers* it. I do not know why but I bet they've got a reason. ;-) It is odd that it is still around. I can't think of any other video termination that's been around that long.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Neat. In my head, I'm picturing something maybe a full 1/2" diameter of twisted pairs - maybe a bit more. I imagine that'd be pretty flexible still. The thinking I had was that it'd run into a box, a router if you will, and then out from there. Sort of a pole (probably fiber) to the home via copper. Copper bing much more resilient than fiber, that just seems to make some possible good sense to me. You can't even really bend fiber too much before it's ruined. As said above, I've seen it under ice with trees and telephone poles on it. I have a generator, batteries, and use solar and wind - so I still have power when that happens. So far, I've never lost connectivity. I've had it slow way down - but never stop. Fiber isn't gonna do that - and a lot of us live back off of roads. I'm thinking apartment complexes, buildings, etc...
So, not huge honking things. How big does it get before it's unwieldy? That's the size I'm talking about - just before it hits that threshold.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No.
Ethernet is a successful standard.
Don't change it. Don't.
I like the design of the old slim but fragile XJACK ethernet receptacles : https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
aaaaaaa
If you want to miniaturize, go with board mounted punch down blocks. Then you don't have the clunky connector. Oh, you want quick re-configuration capability? Most people use RJ-45 connectors as they are cheap, easy to install, and big enough to be manipulated without special tools. But, there is nothing that says you have to use a RJ-45 for any given twisted pair connection. You can wire up with polarized sub-mini molex connectors but changing jumpers requires some tweezers.
NRRPT/RCT
We already have the connector. It has 24 pins, can carry up to 100W, and has 4 dedicated high speed pairs rated up to 40Gbps. It's specification already allows for different signalling to take over the pins in what the spec calls Alternate Modes. There are Alternate Modes for Display Port, MHL and Thunderbolt. These are in addition to the native mode - USB 3.1
It's the USB-C connector of course. The idea of making Ethernet an alternate has already been mooted. Someone just has to do the work to make it happen.
I can't even count how many PCMCIA 802.11b cards I had lose the plastic cover over the antenna...
Then 3com came out with those x-jack wireless cards...those things were great until they failed from the wearing out of the antenna connections.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I think the opposite. If you need to connect to a random projector, chances are you're going to have to a VGA port. Your laptop doesn't have one? Well, you better have brought an adapter.
Random projectors purchased in recent years typically have HDMI as well as VGA. The long lifespan of pre-HDMI projectors is all about the cost of replacement. An RJ45 to whatever adaptor will cost pennies in bulk.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'