Joseph Mack wrote:
The purpose for them being this way, regardless of my personal preference, is so that when the device sits on a surface you can have the wires tucked out of the way in the back (presumably running out of sight), and look at the front of the device to measure activity, or if you suspect a connection problem. If the LEDs were on the back you'd have to turn it around to see if an issue had occurred with the Link, or if there was activity present. By converse, if they put both the LEDs and the jacks on the front, you'd have wires spilling out onto your desk, or bent unnecessarily. The trade off of course is slightly less convenient setup, and significantly easier operation over time. As you can realize, when you're setting it up, you already have your hands on it and can easily turn it around or reposition yourself to see the lights after plugging in the cables. If you simply want to check activity on your wife's computer (which you know is connected to switch port 2), it's easy to just look over at the switch and see if the activity light is blinking.Joseph Mack wrote:
A growing (?) trend I've seen is to merge thehmm, I guess I'm a two light kinda guy.
Link and Activity indicators into one.. Dark = no link; Lit = link good, no
activity; Blinking = activity (implying link).
I like plugging in a wire and see the link light on the RJ45 and not have to turn the device around to figure out if I have
a connection.
Joe
Note: I don't design these devices, and I don't purport to defend their design decisions. I'm just trying to shed some light onto why they may have done it that way.
Aaron S. Joyner -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
