Comments On “IEEE 1394 vs. DVI” Article
Dear Gary: I am writing this in reference to Mr. Bob Perry’s article entitled “IEEE 1394 vs. DVI: A Comparative Perspective” in Issue 62, July. Dear Mr. Perry: Thank you for your article entitled “IEEE 1394 vs. DVI: A Comparative Perspective.” I found it informative and timely considering the copious references to these terms in recent issues of WSR. Understanding the technology and the issues that us consumers face allows us to make more informed decisions on how to spend our money. Unfortunately, there were several statements that you made that were incorrect. As you are explaining IEEE 1394 (or FireWire®) technology, you make comparisons to LAN technology. You say, “While a standard, LAN can only transfer TCP/IP packets.” First of all there are several standards that define types of Local Area Networking, for example IEEE 802.3 for Ethernet and IEEE 802.5 for Token Ring. Secondly, a LAN is a transport for data just like FireWire. You can transport TCP/IP, NetBios, IPX, and even raw data over LANs. I agree that FireWire is a “marvel of technology.” However, it is merely evolutionary, not revolutionary. Later on, you claim that IEEE 1394 is “unique” in being a “self-recognizing and self-configuring” connection. Universal Serial Bus (USB), which has become widely available on PCs can also recognize and configure devices that are plugged in. There are sometimes additional drivers required, but not always. Bluetooth is a wireless connection technology which has almost exactly the same abilities for recognition and configuration as FireWire. I do agree with you that IEEE 1394 has great potential, if correctly adopted, as a home A/V networking technology. I appreciate your comparison of the connection methods. As an “early adopter” that owns a HD monitor (Mitsubishi 55905) with analog-only inputs, the issues surrounding a mandate of DVI for decoder-monitor interconnection concerns me greatly. I remain reluctant to purchase a D-VHS VCR for precisely the reasons you list. Like you, I strive to make sure everyone is correctly informed on the technologies that enrich our lives.
Paul J. Nederveen
Mitsubishi’s Bob Perry Comments:
As implemented today in most consumer and small business applications, LANs transport TCP/IP packets. Most consumer applications of LAN technology for home networking focus on TCP/IP packets. While some fringe applications exist for other data types, they are truly an exception. As for evolutionary versus revolutionary, it’s a matter of opinion. I believe for the broad consumer market, it is revolutionary. I agree that USB is a great computer peripheral connection and is a big step forward for the computer world. For the average consumer (not technical folks—but our parents...) loading and updating drivers however is a pain. I believe true “self-recognizing and self-configuring” is exactly that—no consumer intervention. USB today seems to be more “self-recognizing and assisted-configuring.” In fact, many USB standard devices should not be connected until the consumer runs some separate configuration software. As for Bluetooth, it’s cool but short range and low in bandwidth, and also requires driver loading for many devices. All of us at Mitsubishi appreciate your support, as well as your comments and efforts to stay informed. This battle over selectable output control, and killing home recording/networking by turning off all outputs except DVI has just begun. The more informed consumers are, and the more vocal they remain will determine the outcome of the war.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com