Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FireWire Gets Ready to Go Wireless

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the anthropomorphic dept.

Wireless Networking 215

mindless4210 writes "The 1394 Trade Association has approved a specification for the development of wireless FireWire applications, which will let 1394-enabled devices, both wired and unwired, to connect with each other. The new spec will enable communication between a variety of devices, such as set-top boxes, HDTVs, tuners, and DVD players, all of which will be able to interoperate in home networks. Officials speculated that in the future there could be plug-in cards for set-top boxes enabling wireless connection to DVD players and hard-disk drives. The trade association also said it will work with the WiMedia Alliance to jointly develop collaborative products."

cancel ×

215 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122832)

First Post bitches!!1one Faster than all your pussy firewire.

HDTV Wardriving (4, Funny)

aardwolf204 (630780) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122836)


Great! Now that I've got this awesome free internet connection from my neighbors I can look forward to getting HBO without cables too! The future looks bright!

or... (1)

grepistan (758811) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122879)

FireWire local P2P? Torrent maybe? Sounds OK to me! You can keep your HBO, thanks, there's nothing on there worth watching anyway.

has anyone trademarked FireWireLess yet? Only a matter of time...

Re:HDTV Wardriving (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122977)

Wireless HBO: www.suprnova.org [suprnova.org]

Re:HDTV Wardriving (2, Funny)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123015)

And you can also claim the TV has been hijacked wirelessly and you have to watch HBO in the pop-up TV screen.

Because cell phones aren't bad enough (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122837)

Hi:
I wonder if this period will be remembered as the biggest soft tissue experiment in human history. Heck, I don't even sit next to people using cell phones or near micowave ovens.

Re:Because cell phones aren't bad enough (5, Informative)

TexVex (669445) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123100)

I wonder if this period will be remembered as the biggest soft tissue experiment in human history. Heck, I don't even sit next to people using cell phones or near micowave ovens.
Apparently you do sit near a computer monitor. Cell phones transmit RF at under one watt. You probably get more RF energy through your skull from all the nearby radio and TV stations. Do you really think microwave ovens could be sold anywhere, if they leaked even remotely dangerous levels of radiation? Radio waves and microwaves aren't even ionizing radiation (like X-rays and Gamma rays). Visible light is radiation as well. You should just wrap a towel around your head to avoid all this potential harm in the form of electromagnetic energy.

Re:Because cell phones aren't bad enough (1)

sandbagger (654585) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123183)

Isn't this rather like saying because some areas of the electromagnetic spectrum are safe all of them are? Personally, I encourage people I don't like to use cell phones as much as possible. Mmmm. Crispy neuons from your friendly hand-held microwave transmitter.

Re:Because cell phones aren't bad enough (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123243)

I'm more amused by the irony of a man telling me at length how my cell phone and WiFi connection are sending waves through my skull and giving me a brain tumor. All this while he smoked through two cigarettes.

Re:Because cell phones aren't bad enough (1)

slycer9 (264565) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123258)

The fact the people with pacemakers must stay away from microwaves is enough to give me pause.

SOMETHING's getting out, you can't deny that.

Re:Because cell phones aren't bad enough (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123325)

the energy absorbed is inverse square root to the distance away from the source. Hence a week source 0.03m away from the skull (i.e. mobile phone) is actually potentially more damaging than a strong one several thousand meters away (i.e. radio TV stations)

this is really interaesting (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122841)

and no body else has commented
tese
test asdf hi i am a n00b

Good name. (5, Funny)

aghorne (583388) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122843)

They need to get away from the 1394 name. It's confusing for people. They should call it FireWireless!!!

Re:Good name. (2, Funny)

gcalvin (325380) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122868)

Shouldn't it be just "Fire"?

Re:Good name. (1)

BiggyP (466507) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123045)

of course it should, /. front page news, "The 1394 Trade Association discover Fire!"

sure Fire's nothing new, but that doesn't stop most things hitting slashdot ;)

Re:Good name. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123277)

The question is how long it will take for them to file a patent [slashdot.org] on fire....

Re:Good name. (1)

BiggyP (466507) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123359)

probably around 5 Years [slashdot.org] , and even then it'll be awarded to Microsoft in error [slashdot.org]

Re:Good name. (2, Funny)

OneBarG (640139) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123281)

Fire is too common of a word. Needs to be something like FireFox. I'm sure the Mozilla won't mind changing the name of their browser again.

Re:Good name. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123295)

Gah..."the Mozilla people"

Yeah, I should have hit preview.

Re:Good name. (0, Redundant)

Ada95 (183169) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122881)

Hey, that was my suggestion in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=97725&cid=8353 097

Re:Good name. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122956)

That could have unintended meaning in the UK.
Either a radio to sack employees, or a defective radio letting the smoke out, which, as any /. reader knows, means it won't work anymore, unless you catch all the smoke and re-insert it.
For the smoke is the spirit of the device...

Re:Good name. (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123086)

They need to get away from the 1394 name. It's confusing for people. They should call it FireWireless!!!
Yeah, neither Lega nor Leqa make much sense for a FireWire company ...

And it will be called... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122858)

(drumroll)... firewireless.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Re:And it will be called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122992)

Try the veal.

Yes but can it charge my ipod? (5, Funny)

aardwolf204 (630780) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122860)

Wireless FireWire

Yes but can it charge my ipod?

Re:Yes but can it charge my ipod? (0)

Laz7 (754088) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122891)

Where is Tesla and his wireless power transmission dammit ??!!

Re:Yes but can it charge my ipod? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123006)

I remember my dad saying something about that once. Is it true? God a linky?

Re:Yes but can it charge my ipod? (4, Interesting)

scrod (136965) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123042)

Heh, they're called microwaves. Ever wonder why aluminum foil and CDs spark when you put them in a microwave oven? You're inducing a current through them--they're acting as wave guides. It's the same principle as a radio or TV antenna. Passive RFID chips could essentially be said to be powered by wirelessly transmitted energy.

Gonna keep my porn in the attic (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122866)

On a hard drive of its own where the wife can't find it!

It shall be called.... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122867)

Wireless Firewire, aka Fire.

Huzzah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122872)

It's Bluetooth all over again!

New name? (3, Funny)

worst_name_ever (633374) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122875)

Wireless Firewire... wouldn't that just be called "Fire"?

Re:New name? (1)

Ada95 (183169) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122909)

Hey, that was my other suggestion: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=97725&cid=8353 097

Actually no... (1)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123028)

It'd be FireWireless

Re:New name? (1)

EverDense (575518) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123220)

Wireless Firewire... wouldn't that just be called "Fire"?

Yes, but no one can trademark the word "Fire"... Yet.

Re:New name? (1)

56ker (566853) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123333)

Yes but they could call it something cool instead related to fire that they could trademark - like Prometheus for example.

*drooool* (1)

justforaday (560408) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122876)

Guh! Wireless speeds of 400 Mbps...Any chance this can give you cancer?

Re:*drooool* (2, Interesting)

pbox (146337) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123249)

even tastier.

have you ever noticed what tastes good is going to give you cancer???

A future without cables and wires (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122882)

While it's a ways off, and there are glitches (Bluetooth security concerns, etc.), I for one will be happy as hell when I can go behind my entertainment center and not have to spend 15 minutes untangling cords and cables just to move something. Ditto for the computer setup. Imagine a truly wireless office, where nothing (keyboard, external monitor, network) is connected by wires or cables. Sure, there are some folks who will doubtless brag about how they already have such a setup, but I'm talking about widespread adoption.

Extending FireWire is one piece of the puzzle, and I for one am anxious to see the products that will result.

A somewhat pointless future (1)

grepistan (758811) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122990)

I suspect some of the products that result may well be really, really stupid. Like the $17000 internet fridge [lginternetfamily.co.uk] which has apparently not sold very well, IIRC only a handful have been sold in Australia at this point...

(insert obligatory "that must be every Aussie with internet access/power" joke here)

Still, as you point out, there are some very cool applications for this stuff. I just don't expect Big Business to create them!

Re:A future without cables and wires (5, Interesting)

hackman (18896) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122991)

This stinks of a future where you can't easily control which system your device is connected to? I have already had trouble with keyboards in neighboring areas fighting occasionally and getting some very strange behavior when batteries get too low.

I can't imagine (!!) how much harder it would be to setup your stereo with no wires.. i.e. does the video from the cablemodem go to the TiVO, VCR, Stereo, or TV first? The tv audio wants to automatically be grabbed by the stereo input, but dammit I want the TiVO to go to the stereo and the TV to go to the TiVO! It could be insane.. will we have to tweak 10 different bios interfaces to get this all connected right? Do I have to push buttons on the corresponding devices (like the wireless mouse) every time the house power surges?

I don't think this will solve the worlds problems, or even the ones you propose it will solve.

Indeed! (2, Insightful)

grepistan (758811) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123037)

Merely lacking wires doesn't automatically make everything magically easy to configure... in fact in some ways having wires leading from device to device actually helps configuration in many ways, and especially helps with troubleshooting.

I can't really see the average non-VCR-programming type being able to easily set up any more than about 3 wireless devices. Hell, I can program my VCR but it takes half an hour to get my TV, PS2, stereo, VCR and DVD player set up together...

If everything went WiFi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123168)

I can't imagine (!!) how much harder it would be to setup your stereo with no wires../I?

Hosts
192.168.1.101 TV
192.168.1.102 AMP
192.168.1.103 DVD
192.168.1.104 DVR
192.168.1.105 AUX

Tell your AMP to play output from the TV
Tell your TV to watch and listen to either it self, your DVD, DVR, AUX, whatever.
Tell your DVR to watch the TV if you want to record something, or tell it to watch it self.

Re:A future without cables and wires (2, Interesting)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123263)

dude, there would not be any battery problems. these bandwidths would be used for devices like AV etc.

the range would need to be very short like 3 feet (does the proximity really need to be that far away?) so that your neighbors' Cable signal does not leak into yours, other than that, I see perhaps devices that are servers (Cable boxes, sat boxes, Stereo receivers, CD players, DVD players, DV camcorders, computers) and devices that are clients (Speakers, TVs, computers)

this would alleviate any cross talk issues and if you are really paranoid, you can add in a ID lock so that a device can not accidentally try to connect to your computer when you want it to connect to your TV, etc.

Re:A future without cables and wires (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123498)

You'd have a configuration program, maybe running on a separate device which has a nice visual display of how everything is linked.
Maybe it could re-route everything too.

Beats a mass of cables any day.

Re:A future without cables and wires (1)

j3ll0 (777603) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123009)

I would imagine that this setup could be marginally dangerous and possibly even more expensive to ensure.

why?

In order to get the ease of interoperation that I guess you are looking for, you would need each device to identify itself and it's interfaces to the other components in your rack. So the cluey burglar simply wardrives your neighbourhood.

51cm CRT...nup.....4 head VCR....nup....104cm plasma...pass me the crowbar!!!!

Re:A future without cables and wires (4, Insightful)

mhesseltine (541806) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123033)

I for one will be happy as hell when I can go behind my entertainment center and not have to spend 15 minutes untangling cords and cables just to move something. Ditto for the computer setup. Imagine a truly wireless office, where nothing (keyboard, external monitor, network) is connected by wires or cables.

As others have mentioned, that's a great vision for signal cables. However, all of those devices still need a power supply of some sort. So, either you

  1. Have a universal battery pack/charger and run all those things off battery power
  2. Implement solar cells and let them store/use power from radiated light in the room
  3. Setup a Tesla coil and have wireless power
  4. Build the products with fuel cells that can be run from butane/propane/etc. and keep them filled.
  5. or
  6. Some other, as of yet undiscovered, power source.

I agree, I'd love to be able to move my computer stuff around without worrying about pulling the speaker/monitor/mouse/keyboard/network/etc. cables. However, until power is taken care of, you're still going to have one cable for each appliance.

Hey, lemme dream a bit here! (5, Interesting)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123438)

Setup a Tesla coil and have wireless power

Yeah, the power thing is a bitch. You're absolutely right about the inherent difficulties. But I can't think about something that actually happened to me in my youth. I was about 7 or 8 years old, and I was haing a conversation with my mother.

"Man, I wish you could just play whatever movie you wanted to on your TV." (This was the mid-1970s, mind you) I continued, trying to be practical. "But it'll never happen."

Mom looked over at me and said, "Do you think the settlers crossing the midwest in their covered wagons could have even imagined television? Sometimes things that seem impossible turn out not to be so impossible after all."

Of course now I can pop a DVD of practically any movie I want and watch it at my leisure. I don't claim to have the answers to making the world wireless, but I have learned not to rule things out.

Re:Hey, lemme dream a bit here! (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123459)

But I can't think about something that actually happened to me in my youth.

Obviously I can't think. ;-)

I meant to say, "obviously I can't help but think..."

Re:A future without cables and wires (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123482)

1 cable per appliance is a hell of a lot better than a half-dozen.

Re:A future without cables and wires (0, Offtopic)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123392)

I for one am very proud of your mutltiple uses of the phrase "I for one". I for one welcome our new opinionized singular overlords.

WiFi? (3, Insightful)

thedillybar (677116) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122887)

Why so many wireless protocols/systems?

Can't we refine one and use it for all these different applications? Or are these different protocols content-specific? (i.e. some protocols are good with video, others are better with raw data?) I haven't seen anything showing this.

Re:WiFi? (1)

cr@ckwhore (165454) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122940)

I agree with this, and it's my opinion that 802.11a/b/g with TCP/IP or UDP is a generic enough transport that any type of data should be able to be handled effeciently ... plus, just as the original poster wrote, 802.11a/b/g will "enable communication between a variety of devices, such as set-top boxes, HDTVs, tuners, and DVD players, all of which will be able to interoperate in home networks".

So, what am I missing here? How is this any better than just building 802.11a/b/g enabled devices?

Re:WiFi? (1, Troll)

pnatural (59329) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122942)

Too much interoperability means too little chance for profit.

Put another way: companies stand to make more money if you need to upgrade your hardware a lot.

So yeah, it would be great if there was One True Connector, One True Protocol, One True Operating System. But it just ain't gonna happen because it means less money.

Re:WiFi? (1)

imnoteddy (568836) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123211)

So yeah, it would be great if there was One True Connector, One True Protocol, One True Operating System.

There is One True Operating System, but Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Linus Torvalds disagree on what it is.

Re:WiFi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123214)

Well, if your One True Operating System were Linux, who cares? The programmers who slave night after night coding don't make any money off of it, so profit isn't a motive.

Re:WiFi? (4, Informative)

Raindance (680694) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122952)

Basically, yes, some are good for some things; others, for other things, and this usually centers around error tolerance- of the data you want transferred, and of your connection method.

Firewire, for instance, has error-checking and error-correction built into its spec (it'd be smarter about errors than, say, WIFI). You can build in the same with other protocols but you take a bigger performance and output hit and firewire might end up as more fundamentally reliable regardless. Some protocols do better with broadcast mediums as well.

Someday perhaps we'll standardize on one wireless protocol when we've enough over-the-air bandwidth and processing power as to make tradeoffs trivial, but that day has not yet come.

RD

Re:WiFi? (2, Insightful)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123040)

Why is it good for us? Think competition.

USB2 wouldn't have come so soon if FireWire wasn't around. And FireWire 800 wouldn't be here if USB2 hadn't shown up.

Next, we're going to see competition between FireWireless and 802.11. Expect furthur improvements.

Like I said... (2, Informative)

Revvy (617529) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122890)

Build it and they will come... (5, Interesting)

j3ll0 (777603) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122898)

Really, Ethernet has achieved dominance over the wired infrastructure.

The 802.11 (x) standard has achieved pretty much dominance over the wireless infrastructure.

It seems to me that this may be just another competing standard that will introduce incompatibilities and vendor lockin down the track. How is this magically different to bluetooth, wap, etc????

Kewl....all the early adopters can run off and buy this kit....I'll try and find a cost-effective consumer solution that is secure.

Re:Build it and they will come... (1)

nevek (196925) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123187)

And the inferior USB has taken dominance over firewire.

I dont think firewire is going to have much success in the future.

Its applications are a little too specific, its great for video editing and external hard drives, but not really needed for printers, keyboards, mice or digital cameras because you dont really need high bandwidth and usb is allready on everything.

Re:Build it and they will come... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123233)

Cum, and the world will build a path to that woman's door.

Talk About iPodjacking! (1, Insightful)

sithkhan (536425) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122900)

Imagine the 5th generation of iPods with this capability. One could set up their iPod as the default music server in the car, walk in their home, change settings from inside the home, and drive off with no need to remove their iPod! This is the solution I have been seeking! The future is here, and although it lacks flying cars, I AM IN IT!!! T3H FUTUR3!!1!!!!

Wireless (fill in the blank) (3, Interesting)

gumpish (682245) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122910)

Can someone explain how "Wireless Firewire" is related to wired 1394, or how "Wireless USB" is related to USB, other than they are schemes approved by the same organizations? Is it all just marketing or do the technologies really have something in common?

Re:Wireless (fill in the blank) (1)

justforaday (560408) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122946)

Can someone explain how "Wireless Firewire" is related to wired 1394, or how "Wireless USB" is related to USB...

Oh, you mean like being able to interoperate with their wired counterparts?

slowdive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122973)

Hey, your username isn't inspired by the slowdive album of the same name is it? Good stuff.

Re:slowdive (1)

justforaday (560408) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123025)

Hey, your username isn't inspired by the slowdive album of the same name is it?

your choice. a slowdive album or a bridal shop in metairie, louisiana... :-p *gazes at his shoes*

Re:Wireless (fill in the blank) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122983)

Oh, you mean like being able to interoperate with their wired counterparts?

wouldnt that just take a simple compatability layer? the original poster may have a point there....

Re:Wireless (fill in the blank) (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123216)

It means that the standard came from the same standard organization that set the original, so you can be pretty sure that they didn't do anything stupid that'd lock out the wired-generation devices from using a wired-to-wireless bridge.

In short, basing on an existing wired standard means all the wireless standard needs to do is to define a radio link that emulates a wired link. Only the radio bridges need to be aware that wireless is being used, the other end of the bridge can just claim to be a typical powered or unpowered hub. There'd likely be some sort of way to issue an "Are you wireless?" query to hubs so that appications that can't tolerate the small delay wireless creates can scream about not having a good enough connection, and things like that... but most of the heavy lift operations can just lean on the wired standard.

Uhm...yay? (1, Redundant)

AtOMiCNebula (660055) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122913)

Great...I love FireWire, and it amazes me how fast it lets me work with my iPod and DV Camcorder, but is there really a need for another wireless standard? We've got 802.11a/b/g, Bluetooth, and now soon wireless FireWire and wireless USB. Is there a reason why the industry can't just pick a wireless technology, and then use it? Or is it just the idea that FireWire products don't want to use USB tech, yada yada yada...

The industry doesn't sound very standardized to me right now...

And I thought MythPC was cool... Wait... (2, Funny)

aardwolf204 (630780) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122919)

Snider speculated that there could be plug-in cards for set-top boxes enabling wireless connection to DVD players and hard-disk drives.

Great, so I wasted all my time on a SFF MythPC for nothing... J/K. Actually, come to think of it, my home theater is almost wireless already. I pulled back the entertainment center the other day to plug in the X-Box and decided to do some cleaning up (Gasp!). It was like a fight to the death between the lonely geek and the green glowing tenticle creature from bad anime pr0n. Anyway, I ended up pulling out about 4 composite A/V cables, an S-Video cord, numerous cat-5 cables, and some Molex plugs that werent being used.

How the molex's got there is beyond me. I think the cat may have had something to do with it. Little Kerberos has had her evil eyes on me since then, maybe I distrupted her evil plan to take over the world... Or at least the home network.

Re:And I thought MythPC was cool... Wait... (1)

grepistan (758811) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123099)

> Little Kerberos has had her evil eyes on me since then, maybe I distrupted her evil plan to take over the world... Or at least the home network.

That's cats for you always planning something. Great name, by the way! My cat is called Aristotle.

On a more on-topic topic, the cable beast behind my stereo is not to be touched under any circumstances. It swallows things, like mislaid cd cases and videos. One day I'm going to return to find that it's swallowed up the TV.

Re:And I thought MythPC was cool... Wait... (1)

aardwolf204 (630780) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123145)

One day I'm going to return to find that it's swallowed up the TV.

I would be more worried about it swallowing up aristotle.

Anyway, try explaining to a chick why your cats name is Kerberos and you'll get a blank look for a minute and then a cute "Oh, Kerby!" smile. ... =/

Re:And I thought MythPC was cool... Wait... (1)

grepistan (758811) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123178)

No, he knows he's not to go near cables! He's very well behaved, unlike the cable beast. One strange symptom is that my stereo's RCA-in jacks are old, sad & corroded and tend to drop in and out whenever the washing machine is on, or someone steps on the floor in the wrong spot. We always blame it on the cable beast though.

I'm always having to explain to people who my cat is named after! *sigh*. And then to spell it to them if required...

Greetings from the Philippines! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123352)

I had a cat once. His name was "dinner". He was delicious with soy sauce.

Re:Greetings from the Philippines! (0, Offtopic)

grepistan (758811) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123505)

Humour error #11672 : joke missing. Please obtain some content or piss off.

w00! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122930)

maybe this will be the introduction to wireless mouses and keyboard :P

Worthless (3, Insightful)

macbot3000 (562097) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122933)

Since the MPAA and RIAA will ensure that no hardware will ship that can transmit content to anything else.

Maybe it will be useful for high speed channel changing.

Interesting Paradox... (1)

Kjuib (584451) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122939)

Wireless Firewire... this reminds me of: If cats always land on their feet, what if you taped (duct tape) two cats back to back... what would happen then? If toast always lands butter side down, what if you buttered both sides and dropped it? If Firewire is cool wire, what if it was Wireless? Sounds to me like answers for another dimension...

Range? (5, Interesting)

mrdrivel (742076) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122945)

While the article kindly reminds us that Firewire runs at 400 Mbps, there is no mention of range. How much data can you transfer through the air before you start to cook things?

Having everything on your desk talk via wireless Firewire seems feasible. But is it possible to have an entire house run at 400 Mbps, walls, RF sources, and all?

Seems like this might be an 802.11g type deal with 54MB on paper and a much lower real life value.

Protocol Adaptation Layer (PAL) (1)

aardwolf204 (630780) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122949)

"Small start-up entrepreneurial companies are already going full bore on it. You'll be seeing some prototype products before the end of the year."

Oh! By the end of the year, I'll mark it on my calendar, these guys are always on time, especially when something is pushed out 6 months ahead of time!

The new Protocol Adaptation Layer (PAL) for IEEE 1394 over IEEE 802.15.3 was approved Monday.

PAL... Great, better mark that one off the calendar, looks like its not going to like my NTSC setup :-P

Security? (1)

kdougherty (772195) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122953)

Won't having wireless DVDs and such streaming across the waves just promote stealing data and movies?

Re:Security? (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123286)

Not if it's short-range like Bluetooth. Or better yet, encrypted.

All lies (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9122959)

Liar liar wireless bra and panties on fire.

Its not fireWIRE at all. Better names would be:

FireFi
WiFire
Fireless
FiFi
FireTooth
NAWP (not another wireless protocol)

This is a hacker's dream come true!

Can't they all just get along? (3, Insightful)

jshindl (157371) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122968)

Why are there two standards that seemingly do the same thing? Firewire and USB are both industry standards, yet they seemingly are designed to connect peripherals to PCs. They both do a great job, but it doesn't make sense to have two competeing industry standards. After all, the point of a "standard" is to get everyone on board. Time for everyone to start working together! :)

Firewire versus USB (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123113)

is like SCSI versus IDE all over again.

Re:Can't they all just get along? (2, Insightful)

updog (608318) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123248)

I don't understand why people complain so loudly about having a choice. Competition is good, folks! Get several protocols out there in the market, and let the best one win (hopefully).

Sure, the market might fragment initially, but at least the better standard stands some kind of chance to gain dominance. Imagine if everyone settled on FireWire for the high-speed peripheral bus, and USB never got a chance? We wouldn't have the benifits of USB, namely bus-powered devices, lower cost, support for many devices on the same bus; and then much later, high-speed USB which can finally compete with FireWire regarding bandwidth.

Re:Can't they all just get along? (1)

MasterOfDisaster (248401) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123395)

Firewire (Wired) is bus-powered. Provides much more juice over the bus, as well. The 6 - Pin version, at least.

Re:Can't they all just get along? (3, Insightful)

pHDNgell (410691) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123425)

Imagine if everyone settled on FireWire for the high-speed peripheral bus, and USB never got a chance? We wouldn't have the benifits of USB, namely bus-powered devices, lower cost, support for many devices on the same bus; and then much later, high-speed USB which can finally compete with FireWire regarding bandwidth.

This makes no sense. One of the benefits of USB is bus-powered devices? Like my iPod?

Lower cost? What makes USB lower cost than firewire (cost != price)?

Many devices on the same bus? Like my video camera being controlled by my powerbook as it spools video off onto an external disk (or two)?

High-speed USB that's theoretically similar in speed to firewire being developed while the new firewire standards were being developed is a benefit? That makes the latest USB (theoretically) a little more than half the speed of the latest firewire.

I mean, I'm all for competition and stuff, but USB never seemed to be in the same space as firewire.

Re:Can't they all just get along? (5, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123463)

Why are there two standards that seemingly do the same thing? Firewire and USB are both industry standards, yet they seemingly are designed to connect peripherals to PCs.

Simple. The two busses have little in common.

Firewire:

  • peer-to-peer design (all devices are created equal)
  • low CPU overhead due to an intelligent controller with DMA
  • requires smarter hardware due to peer-to-peer design
  • heavily standardized protocols for storage, audio, video.
USB:

  • host-device design - devices can only talk to host, not each other
  • higher CPU overhead since the host controller is relatively dumb
  • really inexpensive hardware (both host and device), ideal for low-cost devices
  • standardized protocols for pretty much everything, but particularly human interface devices
Firewire is well-suited to audio/video applications and storage, since those applications require heavy throughput, which would severely tax the CPU when using USB.

USB is well-suited to low-speed devices like keyboards, mice, and inexpensive still cameras, scanners, and other consumer devices, since cost is the primary factor in their design.

Just my $0.02.

Re:Can't they all just get along? (1)

t1m0r4n (310230) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123501)

Why are there two standards that seemingly do the same thing? Firewire and USB are both industry standards, yet they seemingly are designed to connect peripherals to PCs.

If I had my druthers, the world would be FireWire. Last time I did serious computer purchasing, FireWire was way better than the original USB. I went with FireWire although it was much more expensive. So, really, they weren't the same. (USB2 is better than the original USB, but now I am so biased I would probably still opt for FireWire if I was shopping for a new pooter.) It's more like comparing IDE and SCSI. They do the same thing, but SCSI is hard to beat in various situations despite the cost savings of IDE.

Firewire with no wires = no power. (5, Insightful)

Anubis333 (103791) | more than 10 years ago | (#9122971)

One of the great things about firewire is that it can power devices.. I guess this is no longer the case. Time to break out the ol ac adapter with your new 'firewireless' adapter. Not to mention, any device I can think of would need a PS, or are they going to release external HDs with giant batteries now?

Re:Firewire with no wires = no power. (5, Funny)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123077)

One of the great things about firewire is that it can power devices.. I guess this is no longer the case.

Actually, read the spec. Firewireless can power your devices, too. You just have to buy the optional, 4 foot tall Tesla coil, and plug it into a 480 volt commercial power adapter.

I can say "read the spec" because I'm pretty sure you haven't... this is SLASHDOT!

Re:Firewire with no wires = no power. (2, Funny)

murph (16036) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123247)

You can power your wireless Firewire devices with your cordless extension cord.

--murph

Mesh capability? (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123000)

Is it going to retain FireWire's mesh-networking capability?

Re:Mesh capability? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123106)

The link in your sig is broken, it will go to the journal of who every clicks the link, not your journal.

Use http://slashdot.org/~Short%20Circuit/journal/

802.15.3 = UWB (5, Informative)

FreeHeel (620639) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123070)

"Enter 802.15.3, a specification being groomed for IEEE standard status that provides ad hoc wireless PANs - short range (1-50m) and ad hoc, in other words. 802.15.3 builds on the 802.15 standard by adding QoS specifically to allow the PAN to carry digital imaging and multimedia data. It also builds in data security, implementing privacy and authentication services. 802.15.3 operates in the 2.4GHz band at 11, 22, 33, 44, and 55Mbps.

Unlike 802.11 connections, 802.15.3 is designed for peer-to-peer operation rather than routing data through an access point, whether that's a base-station or a client machine configured as one. Access points can become network bottlenecks.

The final spec. is expected to be submitted for IEEE approval in June. In the meantime, an alternative spec., 802.15.3a, is under development to create a higher data PHY to replace the 55Mbps 2.4GHz PHY in 802.15.3. It's increasingly likely that 802.15.3a will be based on ultra-wideband (UWB) technology, but it has to get through selection procedures this month and in July first. However, it has the potential to reach data rates of 100Mbps and ultimately the 400Mbps (at 5m) offered by standard 1394 wired links."

Team targets 802.15.3 for wireless video networks [theregister.co.uk]

here we go again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123127)

Apparently, apple is one of the driving forces behind the IEEE1394 trade consortium and owns a couple of crucial patents. I suspect they're going to leverage their high marketshare in the mobile business to get yet another competing standard out there. Just after I bought a WiFI router :(

Typical.

Wardriving Burglars? (2, Interesting)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 10 years ago | (#9123396)

Burglars could wardrive for the best equipment, and hit specified houses. Great idea, but I would think that a wired alternative, like the existing coax you already use, might be the better choice. With handhelds, tho, this makes a bit of sense -- play your Sony Walkman through your stereo when you walk in from the car, for example. Aren't toys wonderful?

YUO FAIL IT.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9123468)

'Ye+s' to any [goat.cx]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?