Talk:IEEE 1394

To Be or Not Be:

Wikipedia needs to implement immediate movement of challenged material not citing reputable original research to another page -- effectively deleting it from public use immediately. Material can then be restored if citations are provided or automatically deleted on timer countdown.

Wikipedia should not denigrate the designed behavior of standards like 1394, until such time as reputable academic or industrial groups publish a study on unintended behavior or practical experiences of ordinary users. Hearsay in popular magazines or personal experience does not count.

Real world accidents or intermittent problems of daily users are seldom scientifically documented by definition of their unplanned nature. If rumors grow to sufficient magnitude, a series of repeatable experiments will follow by some concerned industrial or academic group.

Thus as far as Wikipedia standards go "damage from hotplugging Firewire devices" does not exist -- no matter how widely the urban legends has spread nor what experts believe it possible with a sloppy enough connector. Effectively for Firewire, momentarily touching positive power to ground or grounded shield either: (1) cannot happen since the connectors are designed not to permanently fit together or (2) doesn't cause damage in firewire equipped systems.

Incidentally has anyone yet cited sources for the idea that "fire is hot"?

Yes I think challenging the possibility of real world equipment accidents is stupid. I also think that even when true citing references may be difficult as this is unintended, low incidence behavior. Yes you can get an expert to testify that is possible in a trade magazine. But is that a proper reference given that the testimony is almost certainly anecdotal based rather than researched? I would see ground for challenging that as a proper citation.

65.26.137.248 09:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Firewire FUD????

quote: If only raw transfer rate is taken into account, non-optical FireWire is no longer fast enough for the high-end hard drives. Large, sequential reads and writes may have transfer rates which exceed 130 MB/s, which is much more than the maximum transfer rate of FireWire. However, in typical use cases, FireWire still exceeds the sustained and random access data transfer rates of even the fastest high-end hard drives.

I'm going to remove this section. The article at storagereview.com does not mention firewire, and provides only specs and a review of Ultra320 SCSI drives-- "High-end" seems an inappropriate label as well- The article mentions "enterprise-class storage" The latter part seems to be a rebuttle of the first's claim, but again the quoted article is about SCSI drive speeds with no specific mention of Firewire. Both claims seem to be made on theoretical throughput without taking into account drive cache or use in secondary storage/backups as opposed to Operating System media. This section seems to be a about a techie flamewar and not encyclopedic material. PS: I don't consider the relationship between firewire and SCSI technology to be a compelling reason to leave this in. Cuvtixo 21:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The New Seagate 7200.11 Terrabyte Baracuda (i.e. consumer level) drives have a sustained transfer rates (from the platter) of 105MB, too. Tom's Hardware test got 100MB/s http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/05/the_terabyte_battle/page5.html That exceeds Firewire 800. That being said, I'm not sure it is relevant to the article. -- KelleyCook 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is more relevant for an article on external storage solutions.--Anss123 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly, there are vendors who are claiming: "FireWire 800 Data Rates over 115 Megs/second" -http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/hard-drives/RAID/Rack_Mount/FireWire_USB2_RAID_0 which is much faster than the max theoretical rate of FireWire 800! But I would expect such devices to come close to the almost 100 MB/sec theoretical max, since they use versions of RAID (e.g. 0,5) that greater throughput than single spindle drives can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.22.240 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FireWire logo

Is the FireWire logo/icon really a stylized depiction of a flux capacitor? Maybe it should be mentioned if it's true. --NetRolller 3D 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First find a reputable source and then WP:BE BOLD -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to USB section

This section gives example speeds for High Speed USB 2.0, but it doesn't provide similar numbers for FW 400 or 800. It makes the assertion "FireWire 800 is substantially faster than Hi-Speed USB" and references a TechTV comparison from 2006, but it makes sense to at least provide similar pre-digested summary numbers as given for USB 2.0. It should preferably provide these same estimates for both FW 400 and 800. 125.197.201.225 (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)