windows dosn't support 1394b?!?

i read an acticle that says they havn't released drivers for the system yet to support 800 mbp/s yet? is this true?

and also do i need a 64bit slot to support the full 1394b speeds? i have an abit ic7 max3 board is that 64bit?

64bit is determined by the cpu, not the board. But no the IC7 series doesn't support the 64bit chips, I believe those are the LGA775 chips

so then i can only get 1394a speeds? that dosn't make alot of sense to me... actully they are 478 socket chips.. i have a 3.4

Oh ok, I thought that it was just LGA775 that was 64bit for inel. Never mind me thne :S

edit: But yes, I'm guessing with your board it won't support the b standard

actually I believe overclucker is talking about a 64bit pci slot sometimes refered to as a pci-x slot (note: not pci express they are 2 different things.) most of these slots are reserved for server boards though I have seen some desktops have them. As far as I know your board will not have one though I could be wrong. It would look like a backwards pci slot if you had one. The advantage of these slots is a faster transfer speed. I'm not sure if it would be required for 800MB/sec transfer though that number is much mor elikely a theoretical limit than one obtained in practice.

As far as MS goes here's what they have to say about it
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;885222

so it microsoft "does support it"? and does anyone know whats the transfer speed limit on PCI? thats all they seem to have for firewire 800, is pci cards

looks like 133 Mbytes/sec which is still probably faster than any device would be sending the data. Realisticaly there won'tt be much difference between 1394a and 1394b in real world applications.

http://www.quatech.com/support/comm-over-pci.php

true, thats what i was thinkin, if you have ATA133 HDs then you can only get 133mbp/s maybe if i had SATAs then their would be a bigger difference, or fibre channel..hehe.. thats like 3gbp/s, i'll be using that for my next system