![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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, [1] 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. [2]
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)
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)
Apple included internal FireWire ports on some of their G4's [1] and Sonnet Technologies has it on some PCI cards. [2] The article really should have some mention of this, noting that it was intended to encourage the development of internal FireWire devices, but nothing materialized. I'm not certain how to include it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.117.60 ( talk) 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should mention the existence of the 1.6Gbps speed and the fact that hardware exists. I don't have time to update it right now. Cmgross ( talk) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should be changed to IEEE 1394; and Firewire should redirect here. This isnt a sales site for Apple.
Wageslave ( talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that Firewire was an evolution in the SCSI protocol, adapting it for serial applications. Even the SCSI article says this. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 16:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted [3] this edit for three reasons:
The article currently reads:
But today all (?) consumer camcorders and most professional SD camcorders use USB, if I'm not mistaken. Could someone who knows the history update the article? -- Macrakis ( talk) 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The 1394 Trade Association has released 1394-2008 which is a single specification for Firewire that replaces all previous versions of the spec. Details at: http://1394ta.org/press/TAPress/2008_0709.html I don't have time to update the article now but it should be tweaked at some point to reflect this, even if it is mostly book-keeping. Cmgross ( talk) 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Target Disk Mode anyone? Turns an ordinary ibook into a device (normally the host). How does it pull this off? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.62.200 ( talk) 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
could someone please add the max cable length? Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 07:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
We should keep them as a historical/time line list when the new 1394-2008 paper that includes all comes out. -- Flightsoffancy ( talk) 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Everything I can find on IEEE's website ( my search results) suggests that the maximum number of devices is 63, rather than 16 as the article suggests. However, I haven't been able to find if this is an addition of 1394a or not and don't want to make an incorrect modification. Can anyone shed light on this? Nate886 ( talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a Macbook Pro purchased new September 2008. The iSight Camera is not connected to the FireWire bus but to the USB. (According to System Profiler.app) --00:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.0.248 ( talk)
Technically the protocol is the same and an adapter cable will let you hook the 4 and 6 pin devices with a 9 pin FW controller (computer, etc), but is there any device, audio systems I have read, that do not work with FW800? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightsoffancy ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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, [1] 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. [2]
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)
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)
Apple included internal FireWire ports on some of their G4's [1] and Sonnet Technologies has it on some PCI cards. [2] The article really should have some mention of this, noting that it was intended to encourage the development of internal FireWire devices, but nothing materialized. I'm not certain how to include it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.117.60 ( talk) 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should mention the existence of the 1.6Gbps speed and the fact that hardware exists. I don't have time to update it right now. Cmgross ( talk) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should be changed to IEEE 1394; and Firewire should redirect here. This isnt a sales site for Apple.
Wageslave ( talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that Firewire was an evolution in the SCSI protocol, adapting it for serial applications. Even the SCSI article says this. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 16:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted [3] this edit for three reasons:
The article currently reads:
But today all (?) consumer camcorders and most professional SD camcorders use USB, if I'm not mistaken. Could someone who knows the history update the article? -- Macrakis ( talk) 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The 1394 Trade Association has released 1394-2008 which is a single specification for Firewire that replaces all previous versions of the spec. Details at: http://1394ta.org/press/TAPress/2008_0709.html I don't have time to update the article now but it should be tweaked at some point to reflect this, even if it is mostly book-keeping. Cmgross ( talk) 15:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Target Disk Mode anyone? Turns an ordinary ibook into a device (normally the host). How does it pull this off? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.62.200 ( talk) 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
could someone please add the max cable length? Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 07:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
We should keep them as a historical/time line list when the new 1394-2008 paper that includes all comes out. -- Flightsoffancy ( talk) 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Everything I can find on IEEE's website ( my search results) suggests that the maximum number of devices is 63, rather than 16 as the article suggests. However, I haven't been able to find if this is an addition of 1394a or not and don't want to make an incorrect modification. Can anyone shed light on this? Nate886 ( talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a Macbook Pro purchased new September 2008. The iSight Camera is not connected to the FireWire bus but to the USB. (According to System Profiler.app) --00:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.0.248 ( talk)
Technically the protocol is the same and an adapter cable will let you hook the 4 and 6 pin devices with a 9 pin FW controller (computer, etc), but is there any device, audio systems I have read, that do not work with FW800? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightsoffancy ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)