4 ms·
> Why do we still have the RJ45 connectors at all? > We've transitioned other technologies. I wouldnt say we have transitioned to other tech. And we still hav
by Akronymus 4y ago
> Why do we still have the RJ45 connectors at all?
> We've transitioned other technologies.
I wouldnt say we have transitioned to other tech. And we still have it because inertia. Same reason why serial is still widely used. Also, ethernet != RJ45. You can have hardwired point to point connections with ethernet as well, and those can be quite compact.
> Is the industry so focused on WiFi that they are just hoping it will go away for end user devices?
> Surely even if the data-centre a compact alternative would be a cost saving due to taking up less space?
> What am I missing here?
Ethernet is simply more reliable and scalable. Reliable in that there is basically no risk of it disconnecting, and scalable in that you can have hundreds of ethernet cables besides each other without much interference. With WIFI it'd become unusable.
- firecall 4y agoTotally, but I specifically meant the RJ45 connector itself! WRT other technologies, we've updated USB and Thunderbolt to use the compact USB-C connector standard. We've updated display connectors many times over the years! And yes, there are legacy installations and so on, but that's never a good reason to not advance a technology! We'd all still on SCSI connectors or SATA if legacy was a good reason not to evolve technology! Just looking at a rack of patch panels and switches, you can see a lot of space is taken up with supporting the RJ45 connector itself! None of the other comments really explain why we still use RJ45. Because it's a standard and legacy isnt a reason to not have developed a modern compact alternative!
- Akronymus 4y agoOh, you meant the connector itself. I guess because it is good enough? SCSI couldn't scale to higher throughputs afaict, while the RJ45 mostly doesn't impact speeds at all.