Talk:IEEE 1394

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for IEEE 1394:

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand: Add section on usage or production data, such as statistics on the number of IEEE 1394 devices manufactured last year.

USB 2.0 as "obsolete"[edit]

I noticed a comment on the wiki saying that USB 2.0 is now "obsolete" -- I don't think this is the case. If anything, it will take a long time for USB 3.0 to be adapted. Therefore, I've removed the comment. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

POV issues with "Comparison with USB" section[edit]

I don't think the "Comparison with USB" section works very well as a comparison at the moment. It only states how wonderful FireWire is compared to USB and does not give a 'pros and cons' style comparison. It feels like a certain level of firewire fanboyism was involved when writing this section and is not very balanced. A better neutral point by point comparison (being careful not to go down to every minor technical difference as there may be thousands) would be best here. Possibly a simple bulleted list? Should now include more details about USB 3 as it is currently becoming (has become?) as a set standard.

I agree that it should include USB 3. However, it isn't possible to do a pro and con style comparison with USB 2 and 1394. USB 2's only real pro was that it was widely accepted for non-intensive data and charging applications. Other than that, 1394 was superior or the same in all practical ways. I think the whole section is largely unneeded at this point. USB's ubiquity lead to it being favored even in applications where 1394 would have seen better performance. Ultimately, convince of familiarity is much better than a faster data rate and 1394 is more or less finished as a standard. - 67.166.136.32 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This speaks to a larger problem with the article. 1394's day has passed. USB and Ethernet won. Apple has dropped 1394 on most products. The article was written at a time when hopes were high. The article needs to be updated to reflect the current reality. I have added a POV tag. --Kvng (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kvng, I disagree the whole article does not meet POV standards, but I agree the USB section does not meet the standards. I recommend you switch your current POV template to the POV-section template for the USB section. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I came to my conclusion by rereading the lead which claims that 1394 is is frequently used by personal computers and the third paragraph contains further unsubstantiated and/or outdated fanboy-style claims (marked with citation needed tags). --Kvng (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying for us.§ Music Sorter § (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I realize this is a little old, but the dispute tag is still here, and I'd just finished fixing up a bit of firewire fanboyism on the USB page. Your statement smells a little of "fanboyism" itself. USB had many advantages over FireWire, and a comparison is certainly possible. A key selling point of USB is that it provides a regulated 5V supply, allowing direct connections between USB hosts and 5V CMOS/TTL logic ICs. This vastly reduced complexity for designers and integrators compared to FireWire. The benefits to the consumer for USB went far beyond "non-intensive data and charging applications." Price of peripherals is probably the biggest reason USB won. Licensing is another big win in the USB department. Apple has sold over 300 million iPods over 10 years and would have paid $10,000 thus far to the USB-IF if they wished to use the logo or $2,000 if they didn't. If they had stuck with FireWire they would have paid $75 million and counting to MPEG LA. This sort of bias ("The only reason USB won is ...") is exactly the sort of thing that brings neutrality of articles like this into question in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.48.132 (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
IMO, comparison section should include USB2/3 and Thunderbolt. While Apple is slowly replacing FireWire with Thunderbolt, saying that they dropped it completely is a bit too harsh. Apple still supports FireWire on Thunderbolt-only laptops and desktops via an Thunderbolt to FireWire adapter (actually, new iMac is only desktop without FireWire port, new mini has both FireWire and Thunderbolt ports). As for the future, IMO FireWire will be slowly phased out by Thunderbolt, not by USB. FireWire was commonly found on higher end external disk drives (especially those not targeted towards Windows-based PC desktops only), where it is being slowly pushed out by new Thunderbolt (e.g. look at older Drobo disk arrays (Drobo and Drobo S) that used to sport FireWire800 ports, while newest Drobo 5D and Drobo mini models sport Thunderbolt ports). 173.164.152.229 (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional Information desired[edit]

I wanted to learn how the video and audio signals are encoded into the 4 pins when used between camcorder and computer. Such understanding helps in troubleshooting. The article only alludes to 4 "circuits" which is the number of pair combinations with the 4 pins. I'd like to know what is happening among the 4 circuits to distribute ---and receive!--- information. Say, one pair is output of the digitized data stream that could, for example, be audio and video already combined and digitized, and the other 3 pairs could be for equipment control, feedback from the equipment and interconnection selection among the up to 64 items in a firewire group. But I don't feel comfortable guessing that the video and audio are combined and I would like to know how they are combined. Do Apple or Sony offer such understanding, or the IEEE 1394 working group's published papers? Joe Friendly (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Joe Friendly 13 February 2011

Anyone with more time than me fancy cleaning it up? Danno81 (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I've added a banner to the section. --Kvng (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There are basically two "standards" for video transmission over IEEE 1394. One was intended for real-time machine vision, and it's quite uncommon. The other one is the one commonly found with DV cameras and similar devices. Audio and video is transported together in digital form. However, the codec may vary. In most cases, it will be DV. Quote from the DV article: "Whichever container is used, the video itself is not re-encoded and represents a complete digital copy of what has been recorded onto tape. If needed, the video can be recorded back to tape to obtain full and lossless copy of the original footage.". In other words, the A/V stream is transmitted in unmodified form over the Firewire link - Firewire does not care about the codec/format of the original video. The command link (typically from computer to camera) is of course standardized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.4.160 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge IEEE 1394 coding system[edit]

This sub-article is not large enough nor is this article large enough to merit having separate articles. Merging could eliminte flagged problems in IEEE 1394 coding system. --Kvng (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need for a sub-article here. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I also did a bit of reorganization. --Kvng (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename to: IEEE 1394 (interface)[edit]

I think the page should be renamed to IEEE 1394 (interface) from IEEE 1394 interface. This would make the page title more uniform with other wikipedia page titles, for example Thunderbolt (interface) . If any one has any reasons why a rename would be a bad idear please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spazturtle (talkcontribs) 17:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There are other kinds of Thunderbolts, but not other articles on things named "IEEE 1394" so by the usual convention no disambig is needed? Why not just call it IEEE 1394? I suppose to be precise the standard defines both the interface to the wire and the signals on the wire itself, but since there is no separate article on the standard itself (or the committee), and in my opinion should not be, why not just use the more concise name? See for example IEEE 802 IEEE-488 IEEE 1344 etc. W Nowicki (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)



IEEE 1394 interfaceIEEE 1394 – concise since no disambig is needed

I support a move to IEEE 1394. There's already a redirect with non-trivial history there so someone will have to submit a move request. --Kvng (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I just did. Not a big deal, but would make sense to swap the redirect. The only history I see is that it used to redirect to FireWire and then for a few days an anonymous user made it one sentence back in 2007.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hot Pluggable/Swappable?[edit]

In the chart on the righthand side, under General Specifications, it says Hot Pluggable: Yes. Then, in the article, under Technical Specifications, it says it is not hot-swappable. What do you mean by hot pluggable? Does that mean the same thing as hot swappable? If so, isn't this contradictory? If this is an error, would somebody please correct the info? If not, please explain the difference. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianemathtutor (talkcontribs) 06:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hot-swappable includes both hot-pluggable and hot-unpluggable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.4.160 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The history section says PCI is serial... Read on.[edit]

This is false. Can someone fix it? --Hinata talk 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch. You could have done this yourself, of course... I also removed the "such as... on the F22 Raptor" from the same sentence because very few readers will be familiar with those systems; that clause merely added confusion. Jeh (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Technical specifications[edit]

The examples of isochronous transfers in this section randomly start talking about aircraft components. This seems to me to be inappropriate (maybe this paragraph was copied from a page on firewire in aircraft control (citation link dead)), although perhaps could be made acceptable by adding "in an aircraft control system" instead of "in the aircraft". Also the sentence "FireWire is capable of safety operating critical systems" seems wrong. Perhaps safely was intended instead of safety? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ico2 (talkcontribs) 16:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Kvng (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Logo used[edit]

If this is an article titled IEEE 1394 and the article says there are three other proprietary names used for this interface, why does the article have one of them as the logo? Should we have a section that covers the three logos in the body of the article rather than have one of them as the lead? § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. My guess is maybe this article had the title FireWire first and the infobox was inherited from that. It looks like the standards group themselves did not have a logo (only a few IEEE groups bother), perhaps since the 1394 Trade Association did. Maybe that one might be more appropriate for the infobox, and the move the Apple one later in the body. You would have to upload the one from http://www.1394ta.org/index.html and do the fair use rationale again. W Nowicki (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting data on the IEEE 1394 site. Check out this description of "What is FireWire?" According to the 1394 site, they say yes FireWire is a trademark name of Apple for the 1394 interface, but it is the most common name used. Since 1394 does not appear to have their own logo (I only see the number "1394" on a few of my HP computers along with the "Y" logo for FireWire without the name FireWire. Maybe we can still use the logo but briefly comment in the logo text something like "Without a logo from the 1394 org, the Apple FireWire logo is often used instead" or maybe someone has other ideas. § Music Sorter § (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
What has happened is that Apple's name has become the common name, like kleenex has become for facial tissues. That is not a reason to put a particular company's product logo in such a definitive position in the article, just as the Kimberly Clark's Kleenex logo is not at that article. Better to have no logo there. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Circuits?[edit]

The term 'circuit' seems to be a bit misleading when describing the different connector types. Is that the proper term for identifying the pin count? It might lead some to believe that the 6-pin connector is faster than the 4-pin connector, when in reality those 2 additional pins only carry power. Also, 1 wire cannot comprise a circuit and therefore a 6-pin connector cannot carry 6 "circuits", and so on. Thoughts? Brock1912 (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Try replacing circuit with conductor. --Kvng (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Future[edit]

Can there be a section on the future of firewire? Since it seems to have disappeared from most pc laptopd Mark (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if you can cite a verifiable reliable source. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not the place for speculation about the future. W Nowicki (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I just requested a good reference for the paragraph on 6.4 Gbit/s. If that paragraph has to go, there won't be many potential future developments left. --Chealer (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling/case.[edit]

""Firewire" redirects here." should read ""FireWire" redirects here.". --Mortense (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, but be aware that redirect pages spelled both "FireWire" and "Firewire" exist. Also the auto case corrector will get in the act for other spellings and WP editors can't do anything about that. Jeh (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on top level POV tag[edit]

A discussion on one aspect occurred on my talk page at User talk:North8000#IEEE 1394 NPOV Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Current implementation[edit]

the introduction to the article is incorrect. Apple is currently shipping systems with Firewire (although it is the 800 not 400 implementation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessedavies (talkcontribs) 10:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing the Notes[edit]

I want to correct an error in note 47. Where are the notes? All that is visible in Edit mode is "==Notes== {{Reflist|2}}". An email to peasthope at shaw.ca will lessen the chance that I forget to follow up. Thanks, PeterEasthope (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

They are in the text where they are referenced. Wikipedia:References#Inline_citations may help. --Chealer (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC) (Posted to user's talk page)

OK, thanks. Currently it is note 48 and I've updated the URI, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of plugs, please[edit]

There are pictures of the Firewire400 plugs, but not of Firewire800, nor any discussion about the fact that they are different. I found this out the hard way trying to plug an iMac from 2009 into an iBook from a decade earlier via Apple's nifty "Target Disk" mode for system recovery. Apparently I need a converter of some kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.180.50 (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Full- or half-duplex[edit]

Until recently, the article indicated FW 400 was half-duplex and FW 800 was full-duplex. I have reverted an anonymous change making both are full-duplex. I haven't found any reliable sources yet but it looks like full-duplex capability was introduced in 1394b. -—Kvng 14:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Would it be possible, without violating the 1394b specification, to use S800 mode in half-duplex to double the throughput of large 1-way data transfers? 72.235.213.232 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
No, because the port hardware will not support it. The port has a pair of drivers and a pair of receivers, and one cannot do the job of the other. 86.145.151.250 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Firewire 400 is full-duplex. This is because the cable contains two pairs of data cables, one to carry data one way and one to carry it the other simultaneously together at the same time. The S100 and S200 modes are similarly full-duplex for the same reason. Firewire 800 has increased the number of data channels permitting faster transfer using 2 data channels in each direction, but it is still full-duplex. It is USB1 and USB2 (but not USB3) that is half-duplex. 86.145.151.250 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

intro - creation dates - a typo?[edit]

"It was developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s by Apple..."

Please, this is absurd. Perhaps the author meant "late 1980s and early 1990s" ??

Hogdad (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That was vandalism. Thanks for fixing. Welcome to Wikipedia! ~KvnG 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)