Talk:IEEE 1394/Archive 2007

DV-input?

Can someone please clarify in the article the relationship between firewire and DV-input? There is no mention of DV-input anywhere in Wikipedia, but a Google search finds 278,000 hits! Emmanuelm 01:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Does my recent addition to FireWire#DV answer your question? --68.0.120.35 04:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Throwing down the gauntlet

It appears the PC World has a better written article than we do! See http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,14371,00.asp if you don't believe me. What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup! I got more out of the first two paragraphs of PCWorld's article than I got out of your whole article. That's not too hard to fix though, just add a brief synopsys of the PCWorld article and leave the link. You seem to know what Firewire is so you aught to be able to put it in your own words without too much trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.178.156 (talk • contribs) 11 Nov 2005

That article is very out-of-date, considering it references the "upcoming Windows 2000" in it! So if anyone tries to use this article to suggest FireWire is "definetly faster than USB" note that at the time this article was written that was true: they are comparing USB 1.1 to FireWire -- the current standard is USB 2.0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.169.174 (talk • contribs) 20:04 18 Jan 2007 (UTC)

To continue the pissing contest, the current Firewire standard is FW800, twice as fast as the original Firewire 400. And even that is faster than 'Full speed' USB 2.0. --Imroy 20:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

PC drivers

I have read that Microsoft's native drivers (in XP SP2) do not support anything above S100, and that they have no incentive to fix this because of their relationship with Intel (and competition with USB spec). You get situations like Adaptec's 1394b product that ships without drivers so customers have no way of running it at S800 (or even S400 come to that). My sources are hardly authoritative (forum postings, e.g. [1]). If true, it's important information and should be included in the article, but I'd like to confirm it first. Any help? Stephen.frede 10:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. Microsoft KB article [2] confirms that SP2 dumbs down 1394b to S100. Of course, they don't state a reason, but it seems that allegations that MS has done this to help Intel compete against 1394b are true. They do give a workaround, so a reference to the KB article is worthwhile. I'll ponder how to phrase this without completely criticising MS and update the article tomorrow (unless someone beats me to it). Stephen.frede 11:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The wording currently used seems to imply a speed downgrade on all firewire, but the MS KB is talking about 1394b only. That means the 1394a FW400 (most commonly seen on PCs) would not be affected. The KB also characterizes the error as an SP2 _upgrade_ issue ("...Windows XP SP2 changes 1394b ports to S100 speed when you upgrade."), which would seem to not impact new installs of Windows that include SP2 already. I'll change these points unless anyone knows differently. Triplight 00:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No mention of FW1600 or FW3200

Why is there no mention of future Firewire speeds? --24.249.108.133 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL ? --68.0.120.35 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Device types, examples ?

What can be connected to FW, besides well known devices like hard drives, optical units and video cameras ?

xerces8, --85.10.26.132 11:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed hot plugging short circuit

"Because any hot-pluggable computer device has a risk of short-circuiting" I don't think this statement is factual. I don't see any reason why you *cant* create a hot-pluggable device which *cant* short circuit. In fact I don't see how this applies to USB. --Codeczero 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

S400 / S800 redirect here?

My Toshiba Libretto U105 laptop comes with a connector on the front which I have reason to believe is a Firewire port. However, it is not labelled with the official logo (as shown in the article); instead, it has a curious "i" with a dot superimposed (ASCII art below) and the text "S400".

  #####
 #######
 #######
  #####

 #######
 #######
 #######
 #######
 #####  ###
 ####   ####
 ####   ####
 #####  ###

Is this funky logo Toshiba's own idea, or something else entirely?

Also: Should "S400" (et al.) redirect to the FireWire page? Googling for S400 doesn't bring up any useful pages, except they're model numbers for (among others) a Canon digital camera, a Microtek flatbed scanner, and a HiTi ... something. The Belkin F3N400-06-ICE cable http://www.amazon.com/Belkin-F3N400-06-ICE-1394-S400-6PIN/dp/B00004Z62J appears to be the first genuine hit, except it's 6-pin whereas my connector looks more (or less) like the 4-pin example. era 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the iLink logo, which I believe is just another name for Firewire/IEEE1394? Certainly there's an image at [3] using it as part of a logo for iLink compatibility. Mark Grant 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

power on FireWire cards

I have a digital FireWire camera. It can draw all its power from the FireWire bus. (It's below 2 W.)

Is there a Cardbus FireWire card that I can plug this camera into and it "just works" ? (Letting the camera draw power directly from the laptop battery, so I don't have to be tethered to a power outlet).

• http://www.trendnet.com/products/TFW-H2PC.htm -- the card I selected because I hoped it supplied power, but apparently doesn't supply power after all. (Or is the one I have broken?)
• cards that have "4 pin FireWire connectors" -- definitely don't work for me, because they don't even have the power pins
• http://www.synchrotech.com/product-1394/cardbus-firewire_03.html -- Even though it has 6 pin connectors, the website specifically says it doesn't supply power
• "Top 5 FireWire Notebook PC Cards" -- I looked at the manufacturer's web site for each of these 5 cards. Each manufacturer fails to say anything about power or voltage or current supplied by the card. (Or am I not looking in the right place?)

If *no* Cardbus cards supply power, wouldn't that be a fact notable enough to mention in this article?

Is there a ExpressCard FireWire card that I can plug this camera into and it "just works" ?

--68.0.120.35 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Movie References

Is this section even needed? It's only one point long and its reference is to something which is probably just a complete coincidence, and has nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. I believe it should be removed. -- Permafrost 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this section from the article unless someone provides a good enough explanation why it should be there. -- Permafrost 09:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: it looks spurious to me. Mark Grant 23:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

camcorder to laptop

can a 4 pin/4pin cable be used to connect a laptop n a camcorder..my camcorder as well as laptop have it..but i cudn't find a wire..shud i search more or leave..ie if its hopeless.. 219.91.247.74 13:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 4-pin to 4-pin cables are often used to connect a camcorder to a laptop. Lots of people sell the appropriate cable -- see Google:firewire 4-pin cable. --68.0.120.35 04:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

MIL-STD-1394B

Lttldl, you found one link that says what you think is right. I found dozens ([4]). Plus, the source I used was Aviation Week & Space Technology, which I trust more than I trust you. Please leave it alone as is. Plus your edits as you made them do not actually make sense. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Joe, Have you try baking some mil-spec MIL-C-44072 cookies yet? Military specification or Defense Standard are authored and controlled by the Department of Defense, and since they are not classified or considered "sensitive", they are freely obtainable. The link that I have provided previously is where you can get the spec for free. It provides a quick and standard way for the DOD to instruct the contractors what to do in a contract. Here is the link again: http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/ . If you type in MIL-STD-1394 in the document ID field, you will get MIL-STD-1394B as "PROVISIONS FOR EVALUATING QUALITY OF CAP CROWNS". Since this document ID with revision "B" is already occupied by this piece of junk, it can never be re-assigned to a variant of firewire, or anything else for that matter. Of course, some stupid organization (besides the DOD) can call anything "MIL-STD-1394B", but when you talk mil-spec, DOD controlled document is what comes to mind in most people who work in/with the military. As for your google search, you can find a few "cap crown" referenced in the first page also. As for Aviation Week magazine, do you trust the controlling authority of the Mil-specs or a little article that only refenced it on the side. If my edits doesn't make sense, go ahead and make it make sense, but please remove the cap crown provision. Lttlldl 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

DMA/Memory Mapping

Under the 'Security issues' heading DMA is described as "where a device can use hardware to map internal memory to FireWire's "Physical Memory Space"". This is memory mapping, not direct memory access.

Also, this doesn't pose any more of a security risk than PIO as the driver has to initiate the transfer and the OS arbitrates access to the mapped memory locations. A device can't initiate a transfer without the driver's help, and if you can get an untrustworthy driver onto someone's system you could've put whatever you wanted on with that. 203.5.217.3 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FireWire S800T (IEEE 1394c)

Someone knowledgeable might want to revise this part. It's almost unreadable for anyone who isn't an engineer, and is useless as part of an encyclopedic entry. I'll try to improve it a bit, but an expert might best handle this. focoma 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading it a little more carefully, I was able to decipher the gibberish. I've made it a lot more readable now. focoma 02:34, 15 July 2007 (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)

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)