Sonnet ships $199 Solo 10G Thunderbolt 3 Ethernet adapter offering 10 gigabit connectivity...

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 55
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,242member
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    Soli said:
    10GigE is a head scratcher, to me. It’s slower than both USB and WiFi, by costa more and is much bulkier, despite GigE being a longstanding standard that faster than both for a very long time.
    It also supports much longer runs of cabling than USB, which makes it more suited for wiring up large buildings.  Different target markets.
    They each have their pros and cons. I'm not suggesting that USB or WiFi be used where CAT-x cable a needed. My point is about how it hasn't evolved as well as other standards, or even in its earlier days from 10BASE-T to 100BASE-T, to 1000BASE-T. All the way to 40GigE with copper wire has been an IEEE standard for 2 years, but without 10GigE having been adopted like previous generations have for consumers is that something consumers will ever see?

    If my point still isn't clear, look at a USB-A/3.0-to-GigE adapter and look at this USB-C/3.1-to-10GigE adapter and the cost. Something seems unbalanced about the technology growth for Ethernet.
    This isn't necessarily meant for the joe-user.  The majority of Internet providers aren't even remotely capable of transmitting anywhere near 10gb/s.  Heck, even Sonic and GoogleFiber are advertising fiber to the home but even then, that stops around 1 gb/s.  The only home this product has is for shops like graphics/render/scientific shops with a LAN infrastructure designed for it.  It's not meant for us mere mortals.

    If the cost of fiber wasn't so high, and terminating the connectors weren't such a pain in the backside I think most people would have upgraded to fiber long ago.  I own an apartment building and when I renovated every unit, I wired them all with fiber, and also ran Cat6.  Over 10 years ago when I wired the first one, to 2 years ago when I finished the last renovation, all the fiber to this day has remained dark.  There's just nothing out there since current tech hasn't even utilized Cat5 speeds to the outside world for a majority of users.

    It will be interesting to see how well this product sells.  Obviously there is a market.  I'm just curious how big a market is there.
  • Reply 42 of 55
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 858member
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    cpsro said:
    Soli said:
    802.11ad only has a maximum throughput of 7Gibps (according to Wikipedia), but USB3.1 matches 10GigE in theoretical throughput, but like GigE, it may allow Full-Duplex and USB-C/3.1 may not, which halves directional throughput, as well as potential latency issues that Auxio mentions.
    802.11ad is very short range (for devices in the same room) and relatively few devices support it.  Call it dead.
    This discussion is confused.  802.11ad is for wireless networks.  10GigE is for wired.  802.3ae is the main standard which defines how it works:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet

    Since it's wired, and the PHY layer introduces very minimal overhead, the throughput is only limited by the overhead of the protocol you use to communicate between devices.
    Are you really confused as to why I'm wondering why a wireless standard found in consumer devices is faster than wired standards found in consumer devices? No one is mentioning 100M runs. This is about Ethernet stagnating as a technology for consumers.
    Actually [pushing glasses up my nose] any discussion of Ethernet implies 100M runs. Or longer. That’s the whole point of Ethernet. If you don’t need long-run, switched networking, you are right, stick with TB3 or USB3.whaterver.

    I think you are trying too hard to defend your original point. Just say uncle. Like you already did. 
  • Reply 43 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,283member
    polymnia said:
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    cpsro said:
    Soli said:
    802.11ad only has a maximum throughput of 7Gibps (according to Wikipedia), but USB3.1 matches 10GigE in theoretical throughput, but like GigE, it may allow Full-Duplex and USB-C/3.1 may not, which halves directional throughput, as well as potential latency issues that Auxio mentions.
    802.11ad is very short range (for devices in the same room) and relatively few devices support it.  Call it dead.
    This discussion is confused.  802.11ad is for wireless networks.  10GigE is for wired.  802.3ae is the main standard which defines how it works:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet

    Since it's wired, and the PHY layer introduces very minimal overhead, the throughput is only limited by the overhead of the protocol you use to communicate between devices.
    Are you really confused as to why I'm wondering why a wireless standard found in consumer devices is faster than wired standards found in consumer devices? No one is mentioning 100M runs. This is about Ethernet stagnating as a technology for consumers.
    Actually [pushing glasses up my nose] any discussion of Ethernet implies 100M runs. Or longer. That’s the whole point of Ethernet. If you don’t need long-run, switched networking, you are right, stick with TB3 or USB3.whaterver.

    I think you are trying too hard to defend your original point. Just say uncle. Like you already did. 
    I'm trying to get a question answered. Since you don't have the capacity or knowledge to even begin to answer it then you shouldn't have chimed in. You especially shouldn't make ridiculous claims about "Ethernet implies 100M runs" when the common length is for a terminated Ethernet cable is less than 2M. What you're confusing is the specification stating what the maximum length should be, but even your "100M run" comment is absurd because you're not factoring in the use of a patch panel which results in more than one cable but with a maximum length still being 100M between nodes. The accepted lengths are 90M for the main run and so you can have 5M from each jack on the patch panel. I shudder at the thought of you not using a patch panel. When 10GigE launched over a decade ago the maximum allowable length was almost half that at 55M with CAT6(?), which means only 45M for the main run, so you can have 5M on each patch panel to plug into nodes.


    sflocal said:
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    Soli said:
    10GigE is a head scratcher, to me. It’s slower than both USB and WiFi, by costa more and is much bulkier, despite GigE being a longstanding standard that faster than both for a very long time.
    It also supports much longer runs of cabling than USB, which makes it more suited for wiring up large buildings.  Different target markets.
    They each have their pros and cons. I'm not suggesting that USB or WiFi be used where CAT-x cable a needed. My point is about how it hasn't evolved as well as other standards, or even in its earlier days from 10BASE-T to 100BASE-T, to 1000BASE-T. All the way to 40GigE with copper wire has been an IEEE standard for 2 years, but without 10GigE having been adopted like previous generations have for consumers is that something consumers will ever see?

    If my point still isn't clear, look at a USB-A/3.0-to-GigE adapter and look at this USB-C/3.1-to-10GigE adapter and the cost. Something seems unbalanced about the technology growth for Ethernet.
    This isn't necessarily meant for the joe-user.  The majority of Internet providers aren't even remotely capable of transmitting anywhere near 10gb/s.  Heck, even Sonic and GoogleFiber are advertising fiber to the home but even then, that stops around 1 gb/s.  The only home this product has is for shops like graphics/render/scientific shops with a LAN infrastructure designed for it.  It's not meant for us mere mortals.
    So now the speed of your WAN should determine the speed of your LAN? :sigh:
    edited May 17
  • Reply 44 of 55
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,091member
    sflocal said:
    It will be interesting to see how well this product sells.  Obviously there is a market.  I'm just curious how big a market is there.
    At $200 per port, I suspect sales won't be great because the only buyers will be those who REALLY need the bandwidth. Those of us who would like faster access to centralized storage but don't have a pressing economic imperative may balk at the cost. The number of buyers that really need it is probably pretty small.

    Which ties in to what I think was @Soli's point. Obviously Thunderbolt and USB are not substitutes for or alternatives to ethernet, but they're examples of how some interface technologies have gotten faster over time without significant price increases. Building a machine with USB3 instead of USB2 (or Thunderbolt 3 instead of Thunderbolt 2) may cost a little more, but it certainly isn't a three-digit increase. Ethernet didn't seem to have this problem in the past -- it went from 10 to 100 to 1000, but speed increases didn't come with huge increases in cost. I think what @Soli is asking is why this particular step in the evolution of ethernet costs so much more than previous ones, and why it's possible for other technologies like USB and Thunderbolt to cost-effectively increase speed while ethernet seemingly can't.
    Soli
  • Reply 45 of 55
    libertyforalllibertyforall Posts: 1,239member
     I guess I don’t get it, why do I need another device to use with this one?! 

    cpsro said:
    Is there an adapter to get this to work with Thunderbolt 1 or 2 MacBook Pros?
    Yes, but it's a little complicated/annoying.  The TB3 cable on this device appears to be "captive" (irreversibly attached to the device).  Apple sells a TB1/2 to TB3 adapter for about $50, which works both ways (TB3 computer->TB2 device or TB3 device->TB2 computer) but to use this device, you'll first need another device, like a TB3 dock that has 2 TB3 ports.  Adapt the dock to your TB1/2 computer.  The Sonnet ethernet device will then attach to the second TB3 port of the dock.

  • Reply 46 of 55
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 858member
    Soli said:
    polymnia said:
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    cpsro said:
    Soli said:
    802.11ad only has a maximum throughput of 7Gibps (according to Wikipedia), but USB3.1 matches 10GigE in theoretical throughput, but like GigE, it may allow Full-Duplex and USB-C/3.1 may not, which halves directional throughput, as well as potential latency issues that Auxio mentions.
    802.11ad is very short range (for devices in the same room) and relatively few devices support it.  Call it dead.
    This discussion is confused.  802.11ad is for wireless networks.  10GigE is for wired.  802.3ae is the main standard which defines how it works:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet

    Since it's wired, and the PHY layer introduces very minimal overhead, the throughput is only limited by the overhead of the protocol you use to communicate between devices.
    Are you really confused as to why I'm wondering why a wireless standard found in consumer devices is faster than wired standards found in consumer devices? No one is mentioning 100M runs. This is about Ethernet stagnating as a technology for consumers.
    Actually [pushing glasses up my nose] any discussion of Ethernet implies 100M runs. Or longer. That’s the whole point of Ethernet. If you don’t need long-run, switched networking, you are right, stick with TB3 or USB3.whaterver.

    I think you are trying too hard to defend your original point. Just say uncle. Like you already did. 
    I'm trying to get a question answered. Since you don't have the capacity or knowledge to even begin to answer it then you shouldn't have chimed in. You especially shouldn't make ridiculous claims about "Ethernet implies 100M runs" when the common length is for a terminated Ethernet cable is less than 2M. What you're confusing is the specification stating what the maximum length should be, but even your "100M run" comment is absurd because you're not factoring in the use of a patch panel which results in more than one cable but with a maximum length still being 100M between nodes. The accepted lengths are 90M for the main run and so you can have 5M from each jack on the patch panel. I shudder at the thought of you not using a patch panel. When 10GigE launched over a decade ago the maximum allowable length was almost half that at 55M with CAT6(?), which means only 45M for the main run, so you can have 5M on each patch panel to plug into nodes.


    sflocal said:
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    Soli said:
    10GigE is a head scratcher, to me. It’s slower than both USB and WiFi, by costa more and is much bulkier, despite GigE being a longstanding standard that faster than both for a very long time.
    It also supports much longer runs of cabling than USB, which makes it more suited for wiring up large buildings.  Different target markets.
    They each have their pros and cons. I'm not suggesting that USB or WiFi be used where CAT-x cable a needed. My point is about how it hasn't evolved as well as other standards, or even in its earlier days from 10BASE-T to 100BASE-T, to 1000BASE-T. All the way to 40GigE with copper wire has been an IEEE standard for 2 years, but without 10GigE having been adopted like previous generations have for consumers is that something consumers will ever see?

    If my point still isn't clear, look at a USB-A/3.0-to-GigE adapter and look at this USB-C/3.1-to-10GigE adapter and the cost. Something seems unbalanced about the technology growth for Ethernet.
    This isn't necessarily meant for the joe-user.  The majority of Internet providers aren't even remotely capable of transmitting anywhere near 10gb/s.  Heck, even Sonic and GoogleFiber are advertising fiber to the home but even then, that stops around 1 gb/s.  The only home this product has is for shops like graphics/render/scientific shops with a LAN infrastructure designed for it.  It's not meant for us mere mortals.
    So now the speed of your WAN should determine the speed of your LAN? :sigh:
    I’ve read through your responses and I the only question you ask are about “will the consumer be able to tell/why has Ethernet stagnated”. What comes through much stronger than any question is that you are striving to make a point that I disagree with. That being that somehow line of sign WiFi or point to point TB3/USB3 is just as good as 10gbe and these basically makes it stupid. 

    Maybe you can clarify the question you want answered?

    For the record, I have a patch panel installed and most rooms in my home have a Cat5e drop. Please don’t make assumptions about other’s experience because it’s an expedient way to discredit their ideas. I see enough of that on the news. 
    edited May 17
  • Reply 47 of 55
    asciiascii Posts: 5,838member
    I would love to wire my house with 10 gigabit Ethernet just for the challenge of it! Even though my Internet connection only goes at 100 megabit it would still be fun to zap files from device to device at that speed.
    wozwoz
  • Reply 48 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,283member
    polymnia said:
    Soli said:
    polymnia said:
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    cpsro said:
    Soli said:
    802.11ad only has a maximum throughput of 7Gibps (according to Wikipedia), but USB3.1 matches 10GigE in theoretical throughput, but like GigE, it may allow Full-Duplex and USB-C/3.1 may not, which halves directional throughput, as well as potential latency issues that Auxio mentions.
    802.11ad is very short range (for devices in the same room) and relatively few devices support it.  Call it dead.
    This discussion is confused.  802.11ad is for wireless networks.  10GigE is for wired.  802.3ae is the main standard which defines how it works:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet

    Since it's wired, and the PHY layer introduces very minimal overhead, the throughput is only limited by the overhead of the protocol you use to communicate between devices.
    Are you really confused as to why I'm wondering why a wireless standard found in consumer devices is faster than wired standards found in consumer devices? No one is mentioning 100M runs. This is about Ethernet stagnating as a technology for consumers.
    Actually [pushing glasses up my nose] any discussion of Ethernet implies 100M runs. Or longer. That’s the whole point of Ethernet. If you don’t need long-run, switched networking, you are right, stick with TB3 or USB3.whaterver.

    I think you are trying too hard to defend your original point. Just say uncle. Like you already did. 
    I'm trying to get a question answered. Since you don't have the capacity or knowledge to even begin to answer it then you shouldn't have chimed in. You especially shouldn't make ridiculous claims about "Ethernet implies 100M runs" when the common length is for a terminated Ethernet cable is less than 2M. What you're confusing is the specification stating what the maximum length should be, but even your "100M run" comment is absurd because you're not factoring in the use of a patch panel which results in more than one cable but with a maximum length still being 100M between nodes. The accepted lengths are 90M for the main run and so you can have 5M from each jack on the patch panel. I shudder at the thought of you not using a patch panel. When 10GigE launched over a decade ago the maximum allowable length was almost half that at 55M with CAT6(?), which means only 45M for the main run, so you can have 5M on each patch panel to plug into nodes.


    sflocal said:
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    Soli said:
    10GigE is a head scratcher, to me. It’s slower than both USB and WiFi, by costa more and is much bulkier, despite GigE being a longstanding standard that faster than both for a very long time.
    It also supports much longer runs of cabling than USB, which makes it more suited for wiring up large buildings.  Different target markets.
    They each have their pros and cons. I'm not suggesting that USB or WiFi be used where CAT-x cable a needed. My point is about how it hasn't evolved as well as other standards, or even in its earlier days from 10BASE-T to 100BASE-T, to 1000BASE-T. All the way to 40GigE with copper wire has been an IEEE standard for 2 years, but without 10GigE having been adopted like previous generations have for consumers is that something consumers will ever see?

    If my point still isn't clear, look at a USB-A/3.0-to-GigE adapter and look at this USB-C/3.1-to-10GigE adapter and the cost. Something seems unbalanced about the technology growth for Ethernet.
    This isn't necessarily meant for the joe-user.  The majority of Internet providers aren't even remotely capable of transmitting anywhere near 10gb/s.  Heck, even Sonic and GoogleFiber are advertising fiber to the home but even then, that stops around 1 gb/s.  The only home this product has is for shops like graphics/render/scientific shops with a LAN infrastructure designed for it.  It's not meant for us mere mortals.
    So now the speed of your WAN should determine the speed of your LAN? :sigh:
    I’ve read through your responses and I the only question you ask are about “will the consumer be able to tell/why has Ethernet stagnated”. What comes through much stronger than any question is that you are striving to make a point that I disagree with. That being that somehow line of sign WiFi or point to point TB3/USB3 is just as good as 10gbe and these basically makes it stupid. 

    Maybe you can clarify the question you want answered?

    For the record, I have a patch panel installed and most rooms in my home have a Cat5e drop. Please don’t make assumptions about other’s experience because it’s an expedient way to discredit their ideas. I see enough of that on the news. 
    I guess technically if one can answer my question they are a customer, but I didn't once ask anything about what the general customer will be able to tell about Ethernet.

    And what's this about discrediting your ideas? Knowing the maximum run between nodes allowed by the standard for particular HW isn't your idea; it's a fact.
    edited May 17
  • Reply 49 of 55
    wozwozwozwoz Posts: 203member
    Unfortunately soli, your entire premise is completely confused. Almost every hotel room is wired with ethernet. It is THE standard for networking. Long after Thunderbolt is gone, just like Firewire and Geoport and ADB and all the other transitory connectors have gone, Ethernet will still be the standard because it is EVERYWHERE and connects everything. The arguments about 10G Ethernet today are exactly the same ones I heard about 1gig ethernet when it came out (who needs it?, you would have to be in media to want it, my internet connection isn't that fast etc etc), and the same arguments about 100Mb Cat 5 before that. My electrician laughed at me when I installed Cat6 cable when Cat5 was the norm ... 'you will never need it' ... now it is the standard. And it is a delight for streaming those Bluray movies and Time Machine backups to a remote room. It keeps on evolving, keeps on getting faster, and has shown amazing robustness for growth over the same Cat 6 or Cat6e cables, and is the most versatile medium for robust and safe connections for printing, security cameras, phones, server streaming -- everything. You just plug anything in, anywhere, on the same network, in any configuration, and everything just talks to everything. 
    polymniaascii
  • Reply 50 of 55
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 858member
    Soli said:
    polymnia said:
    Soli said:
    polymnia said:
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    cpsro said:
    Soli said:
    802.11ad only has a maximum throughput of 7Gibps (according to Wikipedia), but USB3.1 matches 10GigE in theoretical throughput, but like GigE, it may allow Full-Duplex and USB-C/3.1 may not, which halves directional throughput, as well as potential latency issues that Auxio mentions.
    802.11ad is very short range (for devices in the same room) and relatively few devices support it.  Call it dead.
    This discussion is confused.  802.11ad is for wireless networks.  10GigE is for wired.  802.3ae is the main standard which defines how it works:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gigabit_Ethernet

    Since it's wired, and the PHY layer introduces very minimal overhead, the throughput is only limited by the overhead of the protocol you use to communicate between devices.
    Are you really confused as to why I'm wondering why a wireless standard found in consumer devices is faster than wired standards found in consumer devices? No one is mentioning 100M runs. This is about Ethernet stagnating as a technology for consumers.
    Actually [pushing glasses up my nose] any discussion of Ethernet implies 100M runs. Or longer. That’s the whole point of Ethernet. If you don’t need long-run, switched networking, you are right, stick with TB3 or USB3.whaterver.

    I think you are trying too hard to defend your original point. Just say uncle. Like you already did. 
    I'm trying to get a question answered. Since you don't have the capacity or knowledge to even begin to answer it then you shouldn't have chimed in. You especially shouldn't make ridiculous claims about "Ethernet implies 100M runs" when the common length is for a terminated Ethernet cable is less than 2M. What you're confusing is the specification stating what the maximum length should be, but even your "100M run" comment is absurd because you're not factoring in the use of a patch panel which results in more than one cable but with a maximum length still being 100M between nodes. The accepted lengths are 90M for the main run and so you can have 5M from each jack on the patch panel. I shudder at the thought of you not using a patch panel. When 10GigE launched over a decade ago the maximum allowable length was almost half that at 55M with CAT6(?), which means only 45M for the main run, so you can have 5M on each patch panel to plug into nodes.


    sflocal said:
    Soli said:
    auxio said:
    Soli said:
    10GigE is a head scratcher, to me. It’s slower than both USB and WiFi, by costa more and is much bulkier, despite GigE being a longstanding standard that faster than both for a very long time.
    It also supports much longer runs of cabling than USB, which makes it more suited for wiring up large buildings.  Different target markets.
    They each have their pros and cons. I'm not suggesting that USB or WiFi be used where CAT-x cable a needed. My point is about how it hasn't evolved as well as other standards, or even in its earlier days from 10BASE-T to 100BASE-T, to 1000BASE-T. All the way to 40GigE with copper wire has been an IEEE standard for 2 years, but without 10GigE having been adopted like previous generations have for consumers is that something consumers will ever see?

    If my point still isn't clear, look at a USB-A/3.0-to-GigE adapter and look at this USB-C/3.1-to-10GigE adapter and the cost. Something seems unbalanced about the technology growth for Ethernet.
    This isn't necessarily meant for the joe-user.  The majority of Internet providers aren't even remotely capable of transmitting anywhere near 10gb/s.  Heck, even Sonic and GoogleFiber are advertising fiber to the home but even then, that stops around 1 gb/s.  The only home this product has is for shops like graphics/render/scientific shops with a LAN infrastructure designed for it.  It's not meant for us mere mortals.
    So now the speed of your WAN should determine the speed of your LAN? :sigh:
    I’ve read through your responses and I the only question you ask are about “will the consumer be able to tell/why has Ethernet stagnated”. What comes through much stronger than any question is that you are striving to make a point that I disagree with. That being that somehow line of sign WiFi or point to point TB3/USB3 is just as good as 10gbe and these basically makes it stupid. 

    Maybe you can clarify the question you want answered?

    For the record, I have a patch panel installed and most rooms in my home have a Cat5e drop. Please don’t make assumptions about other’s experience because it’s an expedient way to discredit their ideas. I see enough of that on the news. 
    I guess technically if one can answer my question they are a customer, but I didn't once ask anything about what the general customer will be able to tell about Ethernet.

    And what's this about discrediting your ideas? Knowing the maximum run between nodes allowed by the standard for particular HW isn't your idea; it's a fact.
    I don’t understand your clarification about your question. Maybe if you restated the question, it would make sense. I’d like to understand better since it seems important to you that I do. 

    I don’t see how offering specifications for Ethernet cable runs furthers your argument that 10gbe is pointless next to line of sight WiFi or TB3/USB3. 50M is quite a bit longer than either alternative you suggest.  The main advantage of Ethernet is its extended run length. And it’s switchable. Isn’t it?

    So without better understanding your question, I’m left disagreeing with the argument that advancement in Ethernet tech are pointless in the face of WiFi & TB3.

    If if you have a more specific question, I’m all ears. 
  • Reply 51 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,283member
    wozwoz said:
    Unfortunately soli, your entire premise is completely confused. Almost every hotel room is wired with ethernet. It is THE standard for networking.
    I never made any comment to the contrary. In fact, my query rests on the fact that Ethernet is so ubiquitous. I've even made statements as to just how common it is which are inarguably better than your odd hotel room reference.
  • Reply 52 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,283member
    polymnia said:
    So without better understanding your question, I’m left disagreeing with the argument that advancement in Ethernet tech are pointless in the face of WiFi & TB3.
    Why the fuck are you even posting on an article about 10GigE if you believe that advancing Ethernet is pointless?
    edited May 17
  • Reply 53 of 55
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 858member
    Soli said:
    polymnia said:
    So without better understanding your question, I’m left disagreeing with the argument that advancement in Ethernet tech are pointless in the face of WiFi & TB3.
    Why the fuck are you even posting on an article about 10GigE if you believe that advancing Ethernet is pointless?
    That’s not what I’m saying. You are the one saying you are unimpressed with 10gbe and don’t see how it has a place next to WiFi & TB3. 

    Still waiting for the question you claim to be asking. 


  • Reply 54 of 55
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,283member
    polymnia said:
    Soli said:
    polymnia said:
    So without better understanding your question, I’m left disagreeing with the argument that advancement in Ethernet tech are pointless in the face of WiFi & TB3.
    Why the fuck are you even posting on an article about 10GigE if you believe that advancing Ethernet is pointless?
    That’s not what I’m saying. You are the one saying you are unimpressed with 10gbe and don’t see how it has a place next to WiFi & TB3. 

    Still waiting for the question you claim to be asking. 
    The entire point of my question was because I want to have 10GigE to be affordable and wished that its growth was on par with all previous Ethernet standards. At least two of your anti-advancement brethren used the term "good enough."
  • Reply 55 of 55
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 858member
    Soli said:
    10GigE is a head scratcher, to me. It’s slower than both USB and WiFi, by costa more and is much bulkier, despite GigE being a longstanding standard that faster than both for a very long time.

    I’d love for my wired Macs and wired NAS to have a 10GigE connection but I’m not even sure that’s a feasible option for consumer-grade equipment.

    Is there a reason for that?

    Soli said:
    polymnia said:
    Soli said:
    polymnia said:
    So without better understanding your question, I’m left disagreeing with the argument that advancement in Ethernet tech are pointless in the face of WiFi & TB3.
    Why the fuck are you even posting on an article about 10GigE if you believe that advancing Ethernet is pointless?
    That’s not what I’m saying. You are the one saying you are unimpressed with 10gbe and don’t see how it has a place next to WiFi & TB3. 

    Still waiting for the question you claim to be asking. 
    The entire point of my question was because I want to have 10GigE to be affordable and wished that its growth was on par with all previous Ethernet standards. At least two of your anti-advancement brethren used the term "good enough."
    Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. I certainly feel misunderstood.

    The way I was reading your comments, it seemed that you were holding up WiFi & USB as successors to Ethernet, with ethernet being end-of-life because it can't hang with the newcomers. I'll take you at your word that you do hope for 10GBE to be successful and that it is worthwhile.

    The argument I had was with the idea (that I now understand you were not making) that WiFi & USB/TB would/should somehow replace Ethernet.

    Your question was from way back in the first few comments on this thread, right (quoted above in bold)? I jumped in here later on after the discussed got sidetracked, so I missed it.

    My thoughts on this are probably the same that others have: As 10GBE plugs become more common, switches and other networking gear will become more common and economy of scale will improve pricing and better hardware will make the devices smaller and lower power. This has taken some time to begin happening. But this Sonnet device is a step in the right direction. This is what happened with Gigabit Ethernet over a decade ago. Coincidently, it seemed that Apple settling on Gigabit as it's standard network plug was what helped carry the standard across the line to consumer standard equipment. To more directly answer the question: 10GBE will become consumer grade. It may take a while. Right now you can get mid-range business-class NAS appliances with 10GBE built-in. Apple has the iMac Pro with 10GBE standard, and based on their typical port strategy, they WILL settle on one network plug as the rest of the desktop line gets redesigned. And Apple has a way of setting the pace for the consumer business, so once they tap 10GBE, I'm not betting against it being relevant.

    Of course, the cat's out of the bag as far as wireless networking, so wired networking is a much smaller slice of the networking pie these days. On the flip side, anyone still using wired networking probably cares about performance. Kinda like anyone still driving a stick-shift transmission in 2018 has a specific reason for doing so. Even though wired isn't the mass market it once was, the remaining market is very performance-oriented.
Sign In or Register to comment.