Talk:Backplane

Sources[edit]

I would like to know more about backplaning. If anyone has any websites to learn more in an easier manner, please add it. Thanks. --Bookinvestor 23:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Added the photo of an SBC in a backplane. Cleaned up a bit. Deleted the AMI stuff as not general unbiased information. If AMI desires to put that back, they should mention the myriad other backplane companies. I will when I get the time. Chassisplans 15:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

Geez, if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, just baffle 'em with BS. Terry Yager (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of slots[edit]

The article states as limit on slot count "... 20, including the SBC slot, as a practical though not an absolute limit." While I, too, recall 20 as a typical number, this should be replaced by some sourced and timelined market overview. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midplane backplane[edit]

The chapter Butterfly Backplanes introduces the term midplane backplane. That thing should be explained somewhere. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tomdo08 that "midplane" should be described in more detail in this article. So I restored the "Midplane" section that was deleted without explanation.[1]

I found some good references for "orthogonal midplane" and "virtual midplane" and added them to this article.

What, exactly, is the difference (if any) between a "butterfly backplane" and a "midplane"?

What other kinds of midplane should be mentioned? --DavidCary (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture[edit]

The definition seems to be not entirely correct. It is definitely not properly catching usage of that word. IMHO the most basic definition would be "board for the connection of other boards". The given definition would be a derivation of that in some but not all circumstances. One example is the image, which depicts an active backplane with several different bus systems. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mess[edit]

This article is full of fractured, orphan sentences. "To transmit information Serial Back-Plane technology uses a low voltage differential signaling transmission method for sending information" is one example, it doesn't fit into the article around it, has no context given, and isn't necessarily true.

The article looks like someone took a first-year college student's assignment and a couple of IBM and DEC marketing brochures from the 80s, and fed them into a shredder, with Wikipedia somehow taped onto the bin underneath.

The article as-is would be better replaced by 3 or 4 general-purpose, accurate sentences. Even a dictionary definition. As it is it's worse than useless, confusing, and de-educational. If anyone qualified wants to put the effort in, I'm sure posterity would thank you. If not I might just zap the whole thing and write the 3 or 4 lines I mention myself.

94.197.127.19 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Backplane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]