Talk:IEEE 1394/Archive 2012

Discussion on top level POV tag

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)

Pictures of plugs, please

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)

The Future

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)

Editing the Notes

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)

POV issues with "Comparison with USB" section

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)