Why ethernet?

[therealseebs]

There's something called a flash drive ....

... which is slower than gigabit ethernet, usually.

Seriously, it's faster to copy files between two computers by using ethernet than it is to copy the files onto a flash drive and then off again. Much faster. Heck, it's faster to copy the files than to do either of reading or writing, let alone doing both in series.

As to whether it makes sense on a laptop: Not every feature of a laptop has to be in use 100% of the time to be worth having. If I have a dock of some sort, obviously I'll always use Ethernet, and I probably don't care that much whether or not the laptop has the port. But if I go in to the office (I normally don't, it's 1500 miles from here), I'm going to bring a laptop, not a desktop, because carrying a desktop on a plane would be silly. And when I get there? I want ethernet.

 

[throAU]

^ by the same token, it's not worth having in the laptop and drawing power constantly, making the chassis bigger, etc.

I'm not sure if you've noticed the hit your macbook takes to battery life when your ethernet is in use, but copying files via the thunderbolt dongle on my 2015 drains the battery a heap (last time i used it was to copy about 280 GB worth of video content... it had a huge impact to battery life)

 

[therealseebs]

There's no denying that Ethernet is faster and has better latency, but I'm at a loss about this file transfer idea. I can move 1GB in less than 15 seconds from one SSD to another (edit: over WiFi). Your initial claim that a 1GB file took upwards of 4 minutes sounds like an internet connection issue more than anything else.

Are you suggesting that it's possible that wifi sometimes doesn't achieve full nominal performance? Because that would completely invalidate my observation that, in the real world, I frequently get dramatically lower performance from wifi than the specs would indicate it could theoretically do.

Unless you're playing a game (latency) or transferring super-massive files between 2 SSD drives where seconds matter, I don't see an issue with WiFi only. Now, this is assuming a well-constructed 802.11AC network.

Yeah, and here's me in a house old enough that the walls border on being a functional faraday cage, using a wireless access point that isn't the absolute best and brightest and most modern because it has to be compatible with older devices and I don't want to spend a lot of money upgrading every time the specs change. And my office is across at least one wall and one floor from the access point.

I'm not saying Ethernet isn't better for some uses, just questioning the specific scenario you mentioned. 4 minutes for 1GB just strikes me as something you can fix without Ethernet.

I probably could, but why should I have to, when Ethernet exists and solves the problem admirably?

 

[Howard2k]

Not really.

Certainly not out of your laptop it doesn't

Current commonly available high performance server variant of ethernet is 40 Gigabit and the NICs are super expensive. Fibre only and about as expensive as a Macbook Air - depending on the distance the SFP is specced for.

Yes really. I don't have it to my MacBook either, but there's certainly plenty of it around.

 

[therealseebs]

^ by the same token, it's not worth having in the laptop and drawing power constantly, making the chassis bigger, etc.[/quote

It doesn't draw power constantly. It draws power when in use -- and almost certainly less power than wireless, I'd expect. And whether it's "worth it" is a matter of personal taste. I would absolutely prefer a thicker laptop with ethernet to a super thin one without. I would prefer it even more if the extra chassis space was used for other things I want.

I'm not sure if you've noticed the hit your macbook takes to battery life when your ethernet is in use, but copying files via the thunderbolt dongle on my 2015 drains the battery a heap (last time i used it was to copy about 280 GB worth of video content... it had a huge impact to battery life)

Have you tried it with a native ethernet port that isn't using a dongle? (Disclaimer: You might need a several year old machine to do this.)

That said... No, I haven't noticed, and I don't care. If I'm doing Ethernet, I can probably find a power supply too, it's not as though I'm going to be cable-free while using Ethernet.

 

[brynsmith23]

WiFi is just for convenience, when you don't have the option to use Ethernet.

Ethernet is always going to be the better option, when its a available, less drop outs, faster transfer.

I find i get better performance out of my devices hardwired up, like the Apple TV, the PS4 and Printer, I'm lucky that my place is wired up with Ethernet ports everywhere.

But you can't beat the WiFi on Convenience, i did a time machine restore on my wife 2010 Macbook pro, via WiFi as i couldn't get to work via Ethernet and the WiFi speed on that thing is so slow...

I'm looking forward to seeing how this WiFi AC goes in the new MBP, when i transfer my data.

 

[protoxx]

Wifi is convenient. Not just to wander around but if you've ever run cable in a existing house/office you would understand the expense and effort needed.

However it will be slower and less secure. Even if you turn on all the security it still is vulnerable to the determined and well equipped. You go into really secure environments and wireless is forbidden. Not just wireless, wireless keyboards, mice, cell phones, etc.

 

[mrex]

Doesn't matter, ethernet will always beat the current wifi. Wifi still has latency, interference, and collisions.

it does. It takes only about 30 seconds to copy 1gig file over AC wifi. im not going to change my place and find an ethernet cable - it takes longer than 30 seconds... (this was only realetd to the original post, the 1 gig file transfering).

 

[iizmoo]

What? Ethernet currently runs at 100Gb/s.

And I'm sure the adapter for that will cost less than my $2K MBP
[doublepost=1478933036][/doublepost]

... which is slower than gigabit ethernet, usually.

Seriously, it's faster to copy files between two computers by using ethernet than it is to copy the files onto a flash drive and then off again. Much faster. Heck, it's faster to copy the files than to do either of reading or writing, let alone doing both in series.

As to whether it makes sense on a laptop: Not every feature of a laptop has to be in use 100% of the time to be worth having. If I have a dock of some sort, obviously I'll always use Ethernet, and I probably don't care that much whether or not the laptop has the port. But if I go in to the office (I normally don't, it's 1500 miles from here), I'm going to bring a laptop, not a desktop, because carrying a desktop on a plane would be silly. And when I get there? I want ethernet.

Flash is the same tech as in SSD. Depending on connection, you can roll around 400MB/s on something like the Samsung T3. Or up to 800MB/s on the Sandisk version of a mobile flash SSD. If you're transferring into the multiple hundred GB or TB, yes, a flash SSD actually is faster than GigE.

 

[maratus]

Thunderbolt gives you flexibility when it comes to high-performance interfaces. I'm really happy to have a universal port to which I can connect a 1Gbit ethernet card in a form of a dongle or a desktop docking station.

I prefer Wi-Fi for convenience, not for ultimate performance.

although I'm not impressed with file transfer over 1G Ethernet anymore. If in need of massive transfers I prefer my external thunderbolt SSD or even target mode between Macs. The actual transfer speed ranges from 2.4 Gbit/s to above 16 Gbit/s depending on the hardware. Two modern Macs can transfer up to 2 GB of data via TB3 target mode in 1 second. In other words, it's a completely new level

 

[brynsmith23]

And I'm sure the adapter for that will cost less than my $2K MBP
[doublepost=1478933036][/doublepost]

Flash is the same tech as in SSD. Depending on connection, you can roll around 400MB/s on something like the Samsung T3. Or up to 800MB/s on the Sandisk version of a mobile flash SSD. If you're transferring into the multiple hundred GB or TB, yes, a flash SSD actually is faster than GigE.

It would just be faster to transfer onto a 3.5inch Floppy, it holds an impressive 1.44mb

 

[iizmoo]

It would just be faster to transfer onto a 3.5inch Floppy, it holds an impressive 1.44mb

Comparing to a 2600 baud modem, you betcha.

 

[brynsmith23]

Yeah that is old school tech,

Having said that 18 months ago, i convinced my neighbour to ditch her Dial Up for Broadband... i didn't even know people still used Dial Up.

 

[Karnicopia]

Thunderbolt gives you flexibility when it comes to high-performance interfaces. I'm really happy to have a universal port to which I can connect a 1Gbit ethernet card in a form of a dongle or a desktop docking station.

I prefer Wi-Fi for convenience, not for ultimate performance.

although I'm not impressed with file transfer over 1G Ethernet anymore. If in need of massive transfers I prefer my external thunderbolt SSD or even target mode between Macs. The actual transfer speed ranges from 2.4 Gbit/s to above 16 Gbit/s depending on the hardware. Two modern Macs can transfer up to 2 GB of data via TB3 target mode in 1 second. In other words, it's a completely new level

This is what I think people are going to be kicking themselves over if they go with that 2015 in a few years. Yeah it sucks to use dongles for a while but it will suck worse being stuck with legacy ports and not having a dongle that can make your ports faster. I guess maybe the idea is you buy the 2015 it until USBC becomes mainstream but at that point the resale value of the 2015 MacBook Pro will fall off a cliff. Like trying to sell a USB 2 laptop when USB 3 was the norm. So yeah only having C may be a pain for a while but I think that will be better than not having them long term. I'll take the dongles personally.

 

[protoxx]

What? Ethernet currently runs at 100Gb/s.

Ethernet runs at lots of different speeds

10 base % runs at 10 megabits per second
100 base T runs at 100 megabits per second
1000 base T runs at 1000 megabits per second

http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/EthernetDesignations.asp

 

[MH01]

My iMac runs on wifi, and my internet connection is fast and stable enough that I don't even bother with an ethernet connection.

As long as your kit plays along , it's fine. Though for an iMac, ethernet would give you all benefits and no negatives.

I completely understand some people don't wish to have wires though. Wifi is a fine alternative, it's not better than wired though
[doublepost=1478935189][/doublepost]

If wireless is faster than wired, then floppy disks are faster than hard disks that are faster than ssd storage.

You sir need a tape drive for ultimate performance.

 

[Howard2k]

Ethernet runs at lots of different speeds

10 base % runs at 10 megabits per second
100 base T runs at 100 megabits per second
1000 base T runs at 1000 megabits per second

http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/EthernetDesignations.asp

i know.

The post I was replying to said that it maxed out at 1Gb/s. I was pointing out that it doesn't.

 

[iizmoo]

i know.

The post I was replying to said that it maxed out at 1Gb/s. I was pointing out that it doesn't.

All Mac currently sold has a 1Gbps Ethernet built-in or adapter as generally sold in an accessible manner and being the fastest port is a Thunderbolt 3 at 40Gb/s, kinda hard even to achieve 100Gb/s Ethernet. The max mentioned was in context to general availability.

Even 10GigE adoption at home is going t be interesting, too many pieces of equipment has to change to really make use of it. Prosumers might want it, but GigE is fast enough for everyone who isn't, that make the pricing very challenging.

 

[Gudi]

This is why some of us want Ethernet.

You don't want Ethernet, you want fast and reliable wire transfer with ad-hoc networking.
That's Firewire or Thunderbolt.

 

[therealseebs]

You don't want Ethernet, you want fast and reliable wire transfer with ad-hoc networking.
That's Firewire or Thunderbolt.

Huh. Silly me, thinking I had something like 8 machines hooked up in various places in a three-story building and wanted them to all be able to talk to each other at 1Gbps, possibly simultaneously, without having to deal with hot-plugging and drive unmounting and things like that. Obviously, you're right. In the parallel universe where I have only two computers and they're physically adjacent and either of them has firewire ports, and it's not a problem to shut one of them down to reboot it in target mode and use it as a target disk, firewire would be a really good solution to a completely different problem.

 

[Gudi]

Huh. Silly me, thinking I had something like 8 machines hooked up in various places in a three-story building and wanted them to all be able to talk to each other at 1Gbps, possibly simultaneously, without having to deal with hot-plugging and drive unmounting and things like that. Obviously, you're right. In the parallel universe where I have only two computers and they're physically adjacent and either of them has firewire ports, and it's not a problem to shut one of them down to reboot it in target mode and use it as a target disk, firewire would be a really good solution to a completely different problem.

Silly you, there is no need to shut down and reboot anything. Just connect two or more Firewire devices and they will set up a network automatically. All the devices are able to talk to each other simultaneously, possibly with data prioritization for uninterrupted live video/audio streams. Firewire was designed to be able to do all that without user configuration and Thunderbolt inherited its capabilities and added speeds of up to 40Gbps. Apple always only wanted the best and endet up with 4x TB3 for everything. Obviously, I'm right. But in a parallel universe known as Windows people are stuck on all kinds of ancient ports: PS/2, USB-A, S/PDIF, HDMI, VGA, DVI-D, IEEE 1394a, eSATA and at least six different Audio Jacks, all color-coded in the weirdest way. Oh and there I see an Ethernet port, thank god we've got you covered. No port shall be missing in our living computer museum collection.

 

[therealseebs]

Silly you, there is no need to shut down and reboot anything. Just connect two or more Firewire devices and they will set up a network automatically.

This is a great example of the difference between theory and practice.

In theory, firewire is hot-pluggable and you can connect lots of devices. Of course, you need daisy-chaining for that, or special firewire hubs that used to be for sale I think but I haven't seen one in five years. In practice, a lot of firewire gear has been observed to let out its magic smoke when hot-plugged, so it's a bad idea. In theory they "set up a network". In practice, there's a reason Macs have "target disk mode", and you need to use it if you want to let one Mac copy files to and from another.

And it definitely doesn't do well with long distances.

Look, I know what firewire is, I know what it does, and I know what it's useful for. And this is not a thing it's useful for. (To say nothing of it being slower than Ethernet.)

Ethernet is really good at "I have a bunch of machines scattered throughout this building, I want to move data between them quickly." Neither thunderbolt nor firewire is actually a good solution to "I need to copy files between these machines while they are up and running normally." They could be, in theory, but that's not what the actual software options on offer do.

 

[maratus]

There's a reason why dedicated Network interfaces and protocols exist, and FW or TB won't replace them.

Apple didn't put TB3 in their laptops because TB3 network is better. Apple did it only because you can't possibly put all ports needed in an ultraportable machine and TB3 is the only interface that can host any adapter without bottlenecking its performance (1/10Gbit ethernet, all sorts of display connectors from MST DP 1.2 to HDMI and ancient VGA, latency-free audio interfaces, SCSI, SATA, PCI-E 3.0 and many, many others). The only other "port" that comes close to this functionality is a bare PCI-E slot found in desktop workstations, but it's not suitable for portable use.

 

[kinster]

Obvious some of us still use Ethernet.

 

[Hadron]

Ethernet has its uses. However, for a laptop not sure it makes sense.

Speak for yourself. It's much better in my office for some applications, e.g. videoconferencing (which I do a lot of), and it's much easier for me to use the printers when on the wired network.

Different people have different needs. But if Apple were to release a laptop I couldn't connect to a wired ethernet then it would be "bye bye" from me, no matter what else it did.