Talk:IEEE 1394/Archive 2010

From the trenches

1. Early internal betas of NT5 aka Windows 2000 (NDIS compatible with Win98) included SCSI networking. The SCSI Bus theoretically supports multiple masters, but in practice this caused support problems. Simplifying, SCSI has physical and command implementations. ATAPI, iSCSI, and IEEE1394 use implementations of the SCSI (or SASI if you are old like me) command set. Using SCSI Bus devices, I can issue hardware device direct transfer requests (physical layer) to do sector to sector transfers example the 1st 15 tracks of a CD or example hidden copy protection or example forensic copy of a hard drive. IEEE1394 allows SCSI command set to piggyback on top of "high speed serial bus" specification (original reference I read was mfgr link from Microsoft WHDC, see my complaint below about references to copyright IEEE pages that you have to pay money to see). This IEEE serial bus physical layer does not require SCSI command set and devices may communicate via these other command sets in the original IEEE1394 standard. IEEE1394 physical layer also has difficulty with multiple masters: try getting a gender adapter and plugging one computer's Firewire into another's. Like USB it requires circuitry to make each computer see a slave. In looking at the 1394 standard, it seems it is a limitation of the OHCI specification and not a theoretical impossibility. 2. Although "physically" a tree, IEEE1394 is a logical bus topology with a transparent pass through circuit at each connection (like token ring or arcnet networking) like an 802.3 ethernet hub (or Cisco IP phone). Same as the older SCSI bus where you use seperate cables betwee devices but the 2 connectors on each device were internally wired together. 3. Like USB-to-go, IEEE1394 does require a master or that one device become a master. If I plug my 1394 Scanner to a 1394 Hard Drive it will not save the scan (or will I have power unless my computer is plugged in.) Some Cameras do have the ability to become Masters and save data to a DVD Recorder. 4. USB typically uses "soft" (recoverable) fuses on Motherboard, max ~3 watts per channel. PCI and PCI-express slots are typically physically specified at 10 watts or less which is why newer Graphics cards all have seperate 12 volt power connector on the graphics card. It is unlikely that your motherboard implements the full power the 1394 spec allows; and as noted in the IEEE1394.org FAQ the daisy chain circuitry in devices will nor pass on that power to the next device. 5. There are many limitations on transfer speed, the IEEE1394ta.org FAQ notes USB inferiority with no reference. I've seen cases where USB exceed 1394, specifically when drive contained all small files. Fact is 1394 add in cards typically includes a RISC co-processor chip, but newer hub chipsets include only recent hardware assist to USB. Also, Peripheral USB chips have improved from (basically) 4 bit Microcontroller to 32 bit Microcontroller (with DMA). Example is speed improvement in Kinux and Windows by changing the Swap drive (temp file location) from Firewire drive to "ReadyBoost" USB Flash drive. Like Adaptec 2920 versus Adaptec 2940, the latter had a co-processor and didn't load down the CPU. 6. The co-processor based accelerators (SCSI, Network, SATA, Capture cards, etc) are PCI bus masters that moved processed data into memory space buffers 8K to 64K at a time rather than having the CPU grab one byte at a time and rearrange it, or as with (WinNICs, WinModems, WinAudio ("AC97"), WinPrinters) having the CPU process each chunk of data. "Memory mapped data" is not a 1394 function but a function of the adapter card/chipset. 7. Intel demo'd their "drive bay" specification (CPU motherboard with only USB and Firewire I/O for each expansion bay and externally) with a Firewire monitor which had a piece of tape over the Apple name/logo. 8. Proposed USB 1.0 spec changed just before ratified so a lot of hardware incompatibility (like the scanner that embarassed Bill Gates at Win98 launch). Please reference USB 1.1 instead. 9. Again: references to copyright IEEE pages !. Most IEEE standards cost $90 or so and are copyrighted. IEEE members/manufacturers (Google books?) often post copies of the standard on their websites. Shjacks45 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

HANA Link broken

HANA Link broken (reference #1). Does 1394 have bit jitter compensation like the othe serial standards incorporate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shjacks45 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

FireWire connector pix need improvement

The USB connector article has good pictures of the various USB connectors, both as line art schematics and a picture of five different connectors in a row, (with a ruler superimposed beneath). It's obvious which are which, and how big they are.

The current FireWire article has some (but not all) connector images, but these are not as well lit (it's hard to see the connectors), have no rulers superimposed beneath, and no single image of different connectors in a row. I came to this article to identify whether or not a female connector was FireWire 800, but the current picture is too vague for me to tell what I have -- the picture shows much more cable than connector. --AC (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Firewireless

What should we do about Firewireless? Redirect it here (with some added info about it)? Jwoodger (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been redirected here now Jwoodger (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

FireWire connector pix need improvement

The USB connector article has good pictures of the various USB connectors, both as line art schematics and a picture of five different connectors in a row, (with a ruler superimposed beneath). It's obvious which are which, and how big they are.

The current FireWire article has some (but not all) connector images, but these are not as well lit (it's hard to see the connectors), have no rulers superimposed beneath, and no single image of different connectors in a row. I came to this article to identify whether or not a female connector was FireWire 800, but the current picture is too vague for me to tell what I have -- the picture shows much more cable than connector. --AC (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My post was zapped (or rather archived) by some bot called MiszaBot, which was unhelpful. Restored. Meantime, would anyone know how to turn this "feature" off.? --AC (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am *not* an expert, so use this at your own risk. However, in good faith, I don't believe any harm can come -- just did it myself, to be sure. Assuming you have Windows (you didn't say), open the Device Manager. Depending on which version of Windows, this might be accessed through Control Panel > System > Hardware > and look for the Device Manager button near the top. Or right-click My Computer, click Properties, and again, go to Hardware and then Device Manager. This is in XP. The path might have changed in Vista or 7, but ther is a quickie that should always work: Click Start > Run, or otherwise get to the Run box, and type devmgmt.msc, then enter.

Now that you're in Device Manager, look for an entry referring to IEEE 1394. In mine, it says, "IEEE 1394 Bus Host Controllers". Click the Plus sign (+) to expand it. Mine then lists "Texas Instruments ...blah blah ... 1394 Host Controller". Right-click that, then click "Disable". Click "yes" at the confirmation box, and you're done. To prove it, open Network Connections from the Control Panel, and the icon for the "1394 Connection" should have disappeared. To reverse this, just right-click the same entry and click "Enable". The 1394 Connection icon should reappear in Network Connections immediately. No reboot required.

Hope this helps. Again, no tech support, no guarantees, no warranties, no liability. If you don't agree to those terms, don't do this. Hope it helps. Unimaginative Username (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not true to say that 1394 capability has returned to Windows 7?

Is it not true to say that 1394 capability has returned to Windows 7?

Referencing to older wording:- Networking over FireWire

FireWire can be used for ad-hoc (terminals only, no routers except where a FireWire hub is used) computer networks. Specifically, RFC 2734 specifies how to run IPv4 over the FireWire interface, and RFC 3146 specifies how to run IPv6.

Mac OS X, Linux, and FreeBSD include support for networking over FireWire.[33] Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 include native support for IEEE 1394 networking.[34] Windows Me and Windows 2000 do not have native support but may work with third party drivers. A network can be set up between two computers using a single standard FireWire cable, or by multiple computers through use of a hub. This is similar to Ethernet networks with the major differences being transfer speed, circuit length, and the fact that standard FireWire cables can be used for point-to-point communication.

'On December 4, 2004, Microsoft announced[35] that it would discontinue support for IP networking over the FireWire interface in all future versions of Microsoft Windows. Consequently, support for this feature is absent from Windows Vista and later Windows releases.[36][37]'''''''Bold text'

THE LAST PARAGRAPH ABOVE NEEDS EDITING IF IT IS TRUE THAT THIRD PARTY APPLICATIONS< DEVICES< AND MICROSOFT ITSELF DO IN FACT ONCE AGAIN SHIP DRIVERS FOR 1394 IN WINDOWS 7.

Sorry this is my first comment a a wiki, and I do not yet know how to use these editing features.

Michael groupmha@gmail.com Italic text 207.216.13.193 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixes

-Removed lame comment comparing firewire 600 speed to usb as such: "ps3 is faster than xbox, no shit sherlock"

USB 2.0 as "obsolete"

I noticed a comment on the wiki saying that USB 2.0 is now "obsolete" -- I don't think this is the case. If anything, it will take a long time for USB 3.0 to be adapted. Therefore, I've removed the comment. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)