This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.
"FireWire is capable of safely operating critical systems due to the way multiple devices interact with the bus and how the bus allocates bandwidth to the devices"
This is unsupported by a reference and the rest of the paragraph implies that the standard is used for aircraft controls by linking the ability for isochronous communications in IEEE 1394 with the general use of isochronous communications in aircraft systems.
Now, I have no idea whether aircraft use 1394 to perform these types of communications, but the article does not cite a suitable reference to support this.
The article claims that IEEE 1394 is the successor to Parallel SCSI. It is not. SAS and SATA are the successors, especially in the largest-volume markets for storage devices: those of desktop PCs and servers (which also use FC). The claim might be true in the Apple universe, where Apple just had to make it the successor. It will be difficult to find market share (of actual satellite devices) in numbers and currency after such a long time. The numbers for computers with IEEE 1394 ports cannot reflect actual usage, so numbers for devices with only IEEE 1394 will be most useful. For now, I have only inserted notes on missing sources. I also have to provide some for my claims. ;-) --92.211.192.188 (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 6 external links on IEEE 1394. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I've got a picture of a 1394b cable with 9 pins. I don't see a good place for it in the document, should I include it somewhere? If so, where? McKay (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same connector. The holes are just exposed contact spring holes, the contacts themselves are on top of and below the center block. --Zac67 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Afraid the linked Ngram search only covers lowercase. Here's a corrected link. FireWire appears approximately four times more frequently than the IEEE designation throughout the corpus, and i.LINK barely at all. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apple developed it but the name Firewire was only used for Apple products. Just like the i.Link was only used by Sony and Lynx was only used by Texas Instruments. Stepho talk11:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What was it called when found on, say, Dell computers? FWIW a quick Google search seems to imply that FireWire was still used five times more often than IEEE-1394. —151.132.206.250 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more along the lines of what users or the media called it when referring to off-brand use. Seems dubious to treat technical specs as common use. Like, did Dell support forums have talk of FireWire devices, or did HP laptop reviewers tout its i.LINK support? Or did they avoid brand names when not discussing those brands? —151.132.206.250 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC) (edited 20:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose - The article is about more than the Apple implementation so the IEEE 1394 title is a better fit. Though IEEE 1394 was used less often and is less snappy, it is sufficiently recognizable so as not to WP:ASTONISH readers. ~Kvng (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. IEEE 1394 is a clearer term when discussing the standard as a whole, as "FireWire" is indeed Apple's name for the product and generally only is used to refer to the 400/800 implementations of it and not more recent specs. In its heyday, many manufacturers seemingly avoided use of the FireWire name if they could avoid it. That all being said, the term remains the common name of the standard as originally implemented. I think I prefer the present state -- that FireWire redirects to this page, and the terms "FireWire," "i.Link," and "Lynx" are all in bold in the leading paragraph. - - mathmitch7(talk/contribs)18:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
