Talk:IEEE 1394/Archive 2006

message: The [www.t10.org T10] architecture model shows that Serial Bus Protocol (SBP) is transport protocol for IEEE 1394 buses in the SCSI-3 framework.  There is mention of its use for disk drives in the "Security issues" along with a bit about OHCI.  Here are some of the questions on my mind:
* Is OHCI a transport protocol that is a peer of SBP?  
* Are there other transport protocols?  
* Can we get more info on the transport protocol(s) before jumping into a discussion about their security issues?  
* How much information about the transport protocols are included in the IEEE 1394 specifications?  
Cy jvb 15:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport protocol(s) 

message: I tried searching for "Fire Wire" and got nothing in the search result that matched this article.  I then tried IEEE 1394 - and again got nothing that matched what I was searching for. [firewire]
Is it possible to put in a dis-ambiguation page of some sort that forwards 'Fire wire', and 'IEEE 1394' and 'IEEE1394' to this 'Fire Wire' page ?
:Have done. Njál 23:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the title and wiki search 

message: IIRC, loops of devices are allowed with Firewire 800.
Perhaps "Firewire 800" should be in its own little sub-section.  It has a different connector, different allowable topology, different allowable medium ... basically it's different from (normal) Firewire in a number of ways.  Also, it's not nearly as common.  If I was coming here for information about Firewire, I'd find it easier if I saw all the Firewire 800 stuff in its own section, could tell that that's not what I'm interested in, and could ignore that section.
Curious about the 1394b speeds... what's the fastest speed I can expect with a qualified 1394b cable? Article only mentions optical mode.
With 1394b, you can, get at tops, of course, 800 Mbits a second, which is just arround 100 MB/sec, which is faster than standard Ethernet, but not as fast as Gigabit. This is of course at best circumstance, in real life, I have been able to get an average of 70 MB/sec, which is more than fast enough for external harddrives and whatnot. CoolFox 05:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The 1394b cable (9-pin) supports (and has been actually tested) up to "S3200" speeds. No shipping silicon support this, however. Some prototype silicon has been demonstrated at "S1600" (roughly 1.6Gbit/sec). There is activity in the 1394 Trade Association to finalize the spec for S1600 and S3200 silicon.--Teener 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firewire 800 

message: Can someone please look up what power is supplied on the FireWire bus ?
How much can a FW device take, without violating the standard ?
What voltage? What current ?
I tried myself to find this information, but failed.
Thanks,
xerces8@butn.net (please notify me when this is added)
:Apple's FireWire documentation says 24-25 volts, but this article says 45W and 30 volts! Which is correct? I'll try to dig in on this issue. The article needs a citation on that fact. --Charles Gaudette 23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus Power values 

message: "Although USB2 claims to be capable of higher speeds (480Mbit/s), FireWire is, in practice, faster." sounds like a speculation of a FireWire fan. This piece needs to be expanded, as it sounds like personal opinion not like a fact. Given pure facts FireWire 400 at 400 Mbit/s and USB 2.0 at 480 Mbit/s (up to of course), using plain calculation it doesn't seem or give reasons why in practive FireWire 400 should be faster. This needs to be expanded
:It's true, but yes, an explanation would be good. Njál 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USB 2.0 

message: There's nothing about Open Host Controller Interface in this article seems like a bad thing to leave out. Dawhitfield 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OCHI 

message: I see the image of a 9-pin connector was removed on the 14th Feb. Could someone upload a new version with all the appropriate GNU info? Having images of 4-pin and 6-pin connectors and not 9-pin gives the impression that the 9-pin's somehow less important. And I've always thought that that was a really useful set of images for users trying to figure out what was on their PC. Njál 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9-pin image 

message: I suggest a subsection:
 ===Booting from FireWire===
under the section
 ==Operating system support==
detailing which OSs will boot from a FireWire drive. OS X will. Can Windows? Njál 23:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  booting from FireWire 

message: This section of the "USB" article states the following:
"However unlike USB Hi-Speed systems which can change the speeds on each branch a 1394a device on a 1394b system requires all devices to fall to 1394a speeds."
The FireWire article, however, makes no mention of this.  Can somebody qualified to address this please do so?  If the above statement is true, I believe the FireWire article should mention it.  However, if the above statement is fales, the USB article should be amended.
: corrected by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Serial_Bus&diff=93572479&oldid=93447728 Ste.Ri 13:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FireWire 400 devices bringing down the speed of FireWire 800 devices on a single FireWire 800 bus 

message: Windows and Linux CANNOT connect to each other as windows does NOT support ethernet over firewire. Windows supports TCP/IP over Firewire, without the Ethernet encapsulation. The Linux kernel driver eth1394 supports Ethernet over Firewire, which is TCP/IP encapsulated in ethernet.
Under section FireWire#Networking over FireWire, it states: "Due to unpopularity, Microsoft Windows Vista has removed support for networking over FireWire (source)", but farther down it's: "Microsoft Windows Vista will initially support 1394a, with 1394b support coming later in a service pack (source)". The microsoft.com link was updated in 2004, the news article was dated in 2006. Which is correct? - Democritus the Minor 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the second statement isn't about networking. So they're both correct. --Imroy 23:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Linux' current eth1394 driver is—despite its name—an IPv4 over FireWire implementation. It is interoperable with Windows and OS X and has been so for a while, although not initially. Ste.Ri 13:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethernet over Firewire 

message: Does anybody feel up to the task of putting together a section on the firewire pinout? I'd suggest something along the lines of the DVI article. I've already made the Pinout diagram for illustration (:Image:Image-FireWire-46_Connector_Pinout.svg). — Mobius 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firewire Pinout 

message: Where is this terminal located on a CPU?--StitchPedia 23:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where is it? 

message: I've just reverted an anonymous user's changes which claim that Windows Vista RC2 removed support for FireWire. The only source is a blog with absolutely no information. Is there anything to this claim, or just the bleating of clueless bloggers? --Imroy 10:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No firewire in Windows Vista? 

message: no consensus to move, proposal withdrawn. FiggyBee 22:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Retracted. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 22:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support - Per nom. Pbarnes 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "common name" argument stands, but I don't see that this article is in any way related to Apple beyond the role they played in its development and popularization. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
I just noticed that the article refers to the interface almost exclusively as FireWire. I'm not sure if this should be changed in the event of a successful move vote - after all, IEEE 1394 is obviously a bit cumbersome. Gotta love the IEEE for their wild, original names for things. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support - Per nom. Pbarnes 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "common name" argument stands, but I don't see that this article is in any way related to Apple beyond the role they played in its development and popularization. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments:
I just noticed that the article refers to the interface almost exclusively as FireWire. I'm not sure if this should be changed in the event of a successful move vote - after all, IEEE 1394 is obviously a bit cumbersome. Gotta love the IEEE for their wild, original names for things. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I notice that this entry now has a revised description of how FireWire came to pass. My entry, which has been dropped, says that the first signs of this was the creation of a IEEE 1394 working party around 1987. Michael Teener was chair of this and AFAIK, Apple was not a member. A draft spec of a very lowspeed 1394 protocol was created, but industry support was not forthcoming. Teener tried to get his employer, Nat Semi, to develop it but they didn't. Around 1990 he went to work for Apple and after some on-again off-again attitudes they decided to develop it, and did the bulk of the work (though apparently Intel holds a patent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancisXBacon (talk • contribs) 
There is a print of presentation slides (presumably given by Teener) at  where the first page lists an IEEE Study group of 1986 at the first step toward IEEE 1394, and Apple is not mentioned until slide 5, or the 1998-1991 period. 68.163.237.124 04:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of FW