Talk:1-Wire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1-Wire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

"computer bus" isn't correct according to the wikipedia definition of "computer".

iButton is a Registered Trademark, and should be written iButton®. Mickraus 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:MOSTM. Mdwyer 23:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSTM supports what I said. It should be written iButton®.

I don't see it. "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." Uless there are such a things as a generic iButtons, I'm afraid you have misunderstood it. Compare with the Kleenex article.

For what it is worth, though, I do see your point, I just don't agree with the method. Later today I'll try to change it around a little to make it more clear. --Mdwyer 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that but my response wasn't clear. My thoughts were the same as your latter point: there has to be some way of indicating in the article that the item referred to is a registered name; perhaps its initial mention should have a footnote or other cross reference which says it is a registered trademark of Dallas Semiconductor Corp. -Mickraus 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional editorial solution to this is to use the vendors preferred capitalization at all times, and the TM or Circle-R symbol on first non-title usage. No other editorial commentary is really necessary. On another point, is this lede too long, or what? :-)
--Baylink (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related trademarked term[edit]

"MicroLan" is a trademarked term, reserved by Dallas for talking about connected 1-Wire devices, and/or the net thus comprised. Wouldn't it be good if the Wikipedia entry made some reference to this, so that people coming to the encyclopedia to learn about MicroLans would be taken to the right page? Search on "microlan" today, and you're told there's nothing for you.

I once tried to add something but my approach wasn't, apparently, wiki-correct.

PS: "MicroLan" added to article, but maybe not the right way to get it into the index... or is indexing not instantaneous? If someone knows that something must be done to make the article show up on a search for MicroLan, please do it? (PS by Tkbwik 11:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What you're looking for is to put a redirect at MicroLan pointing to this page.
--Baylink (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Baylink... a bit late in the day! Redirect page now in place.Tkbwik (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Links (Item now obsolete... I decided to add the link, as there'd been no comment.)[edit]

While AAG (http://www.aagelectronica.com/aag/index.html) is an excellent source of 1-Wire devices, I can't see why it is wiki-correct to have a link to that, but a link to my NOT FOR PROFIT guidance on 1-Wire programming was deemed "inappropriate".

Beautiful, those pages aren't. Informative? YOU try reading the Dallas documentation and doing something with the chips without help. I'd be grateful if someone would be willing to examine the pages, and create an external link to them, if they dare. They're at....

http://sheepdogguides.com/dst1main.htm

82.2.140.233 15:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The hardware level of the protocol..."[edit]

I don't quite understand what this is telling me... "The hardware level of the protocol is often performed by special software in the bus master and a resistor. "... probably 'cause I'm not a trained engineer, but could an engineer try to make that information a little more accessible, please? Tkbwik 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bit confusing, I rewrote the paragraph to describe the physical implementation. Armstrong1113149 (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The most significant byte is a standard (for the 1-wire bus) 8-bit CRC"[edit]

Isn't it more common that the most significant bit is the identifier and the least is CRC?? I see that there is a reference to iButton, but if it is one from few cases then it should be noted.Moreover, Polish and Spanish wiki states that MSB is the identifier. Eleleszek (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I read some articles about this topic. It seems that the version where CRC is in MSB is correct. Eleleszek (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Written like an advertisement"[edit]

I disagree with the statement in the box at the top of the article. Anyone else agree? Disagree? Should it be removed? Tkbwik (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notice should be removed. The article looks like a simple technical description to me. I don't see any advocacy (Like "Buy these -wonderful- devices in wholesale lots at -only- 19.95." (Parody) Ray Van De Walker 22:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, this article has provided enough information for me, including a an explanation of this "one wire" thing that had really got me confused. I'm going to remove the tag, but feel free to put it back. 79.79.133.16 (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this statement. Yes, the article might need to be refined, but it isn't an advertisement. Sbmeirow (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a "simple technical description" and that is the problem. It needs to be an encyclopedia article, not a manual, see WP:NOTMANUAL. Totally missing is: history, context, external opinions on 1-wire, how important or widespread it it compared to other standards like I2C, etc. As far as I can see, all references and links are either the manufacturer or the users. Adpete (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. I've noticed this on lots (in fact most) other Wikipedia technical articles. It doesn't make it right though. Adpete (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in image[edit]

I think there is an error in 1wire.png. As I know bit frame always starts with the falling edge. That fact is not correctly marked at the end of the first and the last 0 during send. Bglazar (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Bglazar[reply]

You are correct (middle of the 3 waveforms). See my comment above - the article shouldn't try to be a technical description, because errors will be made. Adpete (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly named company[edit]

https://www.onewire.com/ is a fairly recently started LinkedIn-type employment board. Pär Larsson (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Application?[edit]

This article is entirely written from an engineering POV, there is no reference to the use of Dallas keys. The most common application is in retail (particularly in hospitality) to allow fast login to EPOS terminals by sales staff. It is not uncommon to have >200 logins per hour by different operators to a single terminal using this useful technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.193.120 (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for external links?[edit]

Listed as reason for deletion of link for LabVIEW 1Wire application suite "OneWire Utilities":

'at least one WP:RS out of the just 9 ghits for "labview" "interface innovations" "1wire"'

It is quite common to list resources for language applications for hardware. This happens to be the only commercially available one for LabVIEW and 1Wire.

Another external reference: http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/211522

Furthermore, there are several links here that are hardware/software vendors for 1Wire products. How are these more relevant? Colin R (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mac MagSafe[edit]

The power supply plug for different types of MacBooks, called MagSafe and (since June 2012:) MagSafe 2 drive their pair of LEDs (indicating: red or amber = charging / green = battery full) via 1-wire from the MacBook, says the article. --Helium4 (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]