System-on-chips for everyone!

Apple has demonstrated that the system-on-chip design (seen in their new MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac Minis) is popular.

What does system-on-chip design mean for other forms of computing? Will other manufacturers adopt that design?

An obvious market for system-on-chip design is Chromebooks. (If they are not using it already.) Many Chromebooks already use ARM processors (others use Intel) and moving the ARM-based Chromebooks to ARM-based system-on-chip design is fairly straightforward. Chromebooks also have a narrow design specification, controlled by Google, which makes a system-on-chip design feasible. Google limits the variation of Chromebooks, so it may be that the entire Chromebook market could be served with three (or possibly four) distinct designs.

Chromebooks would benefit from system-on-chip designs in two ways: lower cost and higher performance. One may think performance is unimportant to Chromebooks because Chromebooks are merely hosts for the Chrome browser, but that is not true. The Chrome browser (indeed, any modern browser) must do a lot, from rendering HTML to running JavaScript to playing audio and video. They must also handle keystrokes and focus, tasks normally associated with an operating systems's window manager. In addition, browsers must now execute web-assembly (WASM) for some applications. Browsers are complex critters.

Google also has their eyes on games, and improved performance will allow more Chromebooks to run advanced games.

I think we can safely assume that Chromebooks will move to system-on-chip designs.

What about Windows PCs? Will they change to system-on-chip designs? Here I think the answer is not so obvious.

Microsoft sets hardware specifications for Windows. If you want to build a PC that runs Windows, you have to conform to those specifications. It is quite possible that Microsoft will design their own system-on-chip for PCs and use them in Microsoft's own Surface tablets and laptops. It is possible that they will make the design available to other manufacturers (Dell, Lenovo, etc.). Such a move would make it easier to build PCs that conform to Microsoft's specifications.

A system-on-chip design would possibly split designs for PCs into two groups: system-on-chip in one group and traditional discrete components in the other. System-on-chip designs work poorly with expansion slots, so PCs that use such a design would probably have no expansion slots -- not even one for a GPU. But many folks want GPUs, so they will prefer traditional designs. We may see a split market for Windows PCs, with customizable PCs using discrete components and non-upgradable PCs (similar to Chromebooks and Macbooks) using system-on-chip designs.

Such a split has already occurred in the Windows PC market. Laptop PCs tend to have limited options for upgrades (if any). Small desktop PCs also have limited options. Large desktops are the computers that still have expansion slots; these are the computers that let the owner replace components such as RAM and storage.

I think system-on-chip designs are the way of the future for most of our computers (laptops, desktops, phones, etc.). I think we'll see better performance, lower cost, and improved reliability. It's a move in a good direction.

What do we do about Mac Pro?

In all the excitement about Apple's new MacBook Pro computers, we have forgotten an obscure member of the Macintosh family: The Mac Pro.

I haven't looked carefully at the specifications, but it seems that the new MacBook Pro, equipped with the M1 Max processor and lots of memory, surpasses the performance of the Mac Pro computer.

And thinking about the Mac Pro, it seems that Apple has created a bit of a problem for itself. Or at least for the Mac Pro computer.

The Mac Pro is the one computer in Apple's product line that offers expansion slots. The other computers (MacBook, Mac Mini, and iMac) are slotless. The M1 versions of those computers are 'fixed' in that they cannot be upgraded with new hardware. What you buy is what you get... for the life of the computer.

Apple's system-on-a-chip design of the M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max integrate everything into that chip. There are no off-chip functions. It contains CPU, GPU, memory, disk, and a handful of extra things. Computers based on M1 designs have no expansion slots.

But the Mac Pro still has expansion slots, slots that don't play well with system-on-chip designs.

What does Apple do about the Mac Pro?

I see three possible futures:

First, Apple may design an M1 system chip that supports expansion slots. I see little point to this, as the primary use of expansion slots is for GPUs, and Apple's integrated GPU provides superior performance. One would do better to purchase a MacBook Pro with the M1 Max chip.

Second, Apple may keep the Mac Pro with its current arrangement, either with an Intel processor or an ARM processor, and the expansion slots for external GPU cards. But I see little point to this, for the same reason as above: the MacBook Pro with the M1 Max processor is the better deal.

A third possibility is that Apple designs a new system-chip for the Mac Pro, one that doesn't support expansion slots but provides performance that surpasses the M1 Max. Such a design would be quite similar to the Mac Mini: a small, non-expandable block that requires keyboard, mouse, and display. (The Mac Mini Pro? The Mac Mini Max?)

That last option is equivalent to Apple discontinuing the Mac Pro. I think that is a definite possibility. The new M1 Max system-chip may be enough for even the hungriest of power users. The Mac Mini may be the new Mac Pro.

The Next New Thing: Resilient Supply Chains

Lots of news stories talk about problems with "supply chains". Various events have disrupted supply chains in multiple industries. (Automobile manufacturers cannot get all the computer chips they need for their cars, limiting sales.)

It seems to me that the next phase is to increase the resiliency of supply chains. Manufacturers will want to ensure reliability of deliveries, to ensure the reliability of their sales.

But resiliency in a supply chain is not easy.

Let's take the example of laptop PCs. PCs have a number of components, and a vendor buys these components and assembles them into laptops. Those components include memory, disk drives (perhaps SSDs), keyboards, power adapters, and displays (and many more components, but you get the idea).

A naive approach to a resilient supply chain would be to find two (or more) sources for all of the components. Two makers of memory, two makers of disk drives, two makers of keyboards, etc. With multiple suppliers, you feel greater confidence in your supply. A disruption to one supplier might no affect the second, so if supplier A cannot meet your needs, you can call on supplier B.

This assumes that supplier A and supplier B have independent sources for their products. But that may not be true. If they supply you with disk drives, for example, they must buy various pieces to make a single drive: platters, read/write heads, arms to move the heads, actuator motors, etc. Suppose both suppliers get their disk platters from the same source? A disruption to that source would affect both suppliers, and (indirectly) the laptop vendor.

Resiliency -- true resiliency -- requires multiple sources all the way down the chain. Managing the multiple sources (and ensuring that the different sources are unique) requires information that is not generally available in today's contracts. Obtaining that information may not be easy, as suppliers may be unwilling to reveal their sources.

Convincing suppliers to coordinate their activities may require time and effort (and may run afoul of anti-trust and anti-competition laws) and may increase the cost of supplies. A large purchase with a single vendor may see a pricing discount based on volume; a purchase split across multiple suppliers may see lower discounts, and some suppliers may want higher prices. 

I expect manufacturers will work on resiliency, but say little about it. Resiliency doesn't play well in advertisements, as "green" or environmentally safe processes do, or fair treatment for workers.

In the end, resiliency is a trade-off of cost and effort for reliability.

What Apple's new products tell us about Apple

Next Monday, Apple will make an announcement. Many expect a new version of the MacBook Pro, one based on a new M1X system-on-a-chip.

I have some ideas too.

I expect a new Macbook Pro, based on the M1X. I also expect that the announcement will focus on graphics: pictures, videos, and especially games.

I do expect some discussion of performance. Will Apple compare the new Macbook to its previous model? Or will it compare the new Macbook Pro to a Windows PC?

If the latter, will Apple compare it to top-of-the-line PCs? Or to comparably priced PCs? Or to "the most popular PCs on the market"? Each is a different comparison. Which Apple picks will tell us how Apple views competition to the Macbook. If they compare to top-of-the-line PCs, they signal performance. If they compare to comparably priced PCs, they signal value. If Apple compares its top laptop to "the most popular PCs", Apple signals... that it is selling on emotion and not reason.

Let's see what Apple does, and says, in this announcement.

More pixels is not always better

Apple, some time ago, introduced their new iMac computer. They made a point of showing five video streams open at the same time (for editing).

That seems a pretty specialized application.

Most folks probably want to read email, write a few documents, and work with a few spreadsheets. And maybe use a few web sites. Some folks will edit sound, some will edit video. A few of those may edit two video streams at the same time.

The number of people editing five video streams at the same time is a tiny fraction of the total number of users (of any brand of computer).

We should keep in mind that pixels are not free. The exist. They have to be manipulated. Our computers need the circuitry to drive the pixels, and the RAM to hold values for the pixels. That means more memory circuits, and power to drive those circuits. That power (in a laptop) comes from the battery, and more pixels and more circuits drawing current means a shorter battery life.

(The extra power may be small -- very small -- and it may be that we can save power by reducing screen brightness.)

The design of a computer is a series of trade-offs between capabilities, size, power, and cost. A computer with a very small physical size (such as the Apple Watch) can perform a number of tasks, but it will have a small display and a limited amount of memory. A capable computer with a powerful processor and lots of memory will require more space and a higher cost.

When Apple or any manufacturer designs a computer, they decide on various factors and make various trade-offs. Apple, with their iMac, has selected certain points on the cost/capability curve. Those decisions affect every purchaser of an iMac. A user who wants to edit five video streams at once may appreciate the large number of pixels and the powerful graphics processor. A different user, who has desires more mundane, won't use the video capabilities to their fullest extent, but has to pay for them anyway.

Of course, this logic applies to any consumer good, from computers to televisions, from washing machines to automobiles.

Apple knows this. Apple knows that the higher cost of the iMac will convince some people to buy other computers (some Apple, some other brands). Therefore, Apple is willing to give up those customers, in exchange for the bragging that was in their advertisement. They must think that the advertisement was the better deal.

I'm not convinced. While I have several Apple computers, I'm not looking to buy an new iMac (or a new Macbook, or a new Mac) in the near future. I am instead considering Microsoft's new Surface, either the tablet or the laptop version. Because more pixels is not always better.

Windows and Linux are not the same

We like to think that operating systems are commodities, that Windows performs just as well as mac OS, and they both perform as well as Linux. I'm not sure about mac OS, but I can think of one significant difference between Windows and Linux, and that difference may affect the lifespan of the hardware.

Specifically, the difference in Windows and Linux may affect the hard disk drive, when it is an SSD (solid state disk). SSDs have a limited lifespan, in the number of reads and writes. This is important because Windows and Linux show different behavior with disk activity.

My experience is that Linux has minimal disk activity. Linux loads, creates a login session, does a few more things (I suspect that it runs 'apt' for an update) and then sits and waits. No disk activity.

Windows is quite different. It loads and creates a login session (just like Linux). But then it keeps doing things. Computers with disk activity lights show this activity. (Is Windows downloading updates from Microsoft servers? Checking for malware? I don't know. But it's doing something.) And it does this for at least 30 minutes.

That's before I log in to Windows, and before I launch any applications, or check my e-mail, or visit web sites.

After I log in, Windows does more. One can see the disk activity (on PCs that have status lights). When I check the CPU usage (as shown by Task Manager), I see lots of different tasks, many with vague names such as "Local Service".

Not all of this is caused by Microsoft. My work client has supplied a laptop that runs Splunk, McAfee, and a few other third-party applications (all installed by my client) and they wake up and do things every few minutes or so. All day long.

The immediate thought from this disk activity is: this cannot be good for SSDs. Each read operation and each write operation chips away at the lifespan of the SSD. (Old-style spinning hard disks are much less susceptible to this effect.)

The constant activity in Windows means that Windows will "consume" an SSD much quicker than Linux.

I certain that Microsoft is aware of this issue. I'm guessing that there is not much that they can do about it. Windows was designed to run lots of tasks on start-up, and throughout the day. (Also, it's not really Microsoft's problem. The fact that Windows "burns out" SSDs means that people will replace the disks, or possibly replace the whole PC. People will view this problem as a problem of hardware, not a problem with Windows.)

I tend to keep computers for a long time. For computers that run Windows, I look for systems that use the older hard disks and not SSDs. That's my strategy. Let's see how it works!