Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
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
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.
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computingprior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.
Expand: Add section on usage or production data, such as statistics on the number of IEEE 1394 devices manufactured last year.
The content of IEEE 1394 coding system was merged into FireWire on 2011-02-21. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion
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. Stephotalk11:57, 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.
Latest comment: 15 days ago11 comments8 people in discussion
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 reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The listed reason is that it is a trade name. This is not a valid rationale, we use the WP:COMMONNAME, regardless of whether this is a trademark. FireWire has always been the common name of this topic.
Leaning against. The referenced move was in 2008. More recently, there was an RM in 2022 that confirmed the current article name, so the comment about a bold move is just a distraction. One other aspect discussed in the 2022 RM is the suggestion that "FireWire" is a term that is specific to Apple branded products, while IEEE 1394 is a brand-neutral name. IEEE 1394 is also a well-known name for the subject, not just the average obscure standard number. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Firewire name only applies to Apple products. Possibly it was trademarked so that other could not use it? The name "1394" was well-known and often used when this protocol was in common consumer use. Has anything changed since the 2008 and 2022 discussions? Stephotalk00:56, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support Per WP:COMMONNAME, I knew it as FireWire and wasn't even aware it was Apple-only, which indicates just how commonly the name became used. IEEE 1394 is gibberish to most readers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
My memories are the exact opposite. I saw most PC's of the era (desktop and laptop) advertised with 1394 ports and only later did I realise that this port also talked to "FireWire" devices. I have vague memories of Apple cracking down harshly on PC manufacturers who didn't pay a license fee to use the name, so many (most?) PC manufactures skipped the FireWire name and only used the 1394 name. In many cases, recollections like yours and mine often depend on whether you were in the Apple camp or the PC camp. Stephotalk23:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, admittedly all my exposure to it was via Mac computers in school so that lines up.
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.
Latest comment: 15 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For everyone going through the logs of this article in the future, I would like to apologize for the corrupted move and all the confusing entries I've created, all that should have (and in the end did) happen was the above RM. If anyone finds leftovers of my mess please ping me and I'll happily clean this up! Best, squawk7700 (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2026 (UTC)Reply