Full Width [alt+shift+f] Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
86

Curing Mac mini M4 fomo with 3D printing

from Christian Selig [alt+shift+b] in technology

Spoiler: 3D printed! The colored ports really sell the effect If you’re anything like me, you’ve found the new, tinier Mac mini to be absolutely adorable. But you might also be like me that you either already have an awesome M1 Mac mini that you have no real reason to replace, or the new Mac mini just isn’t something you totally need. While that logic might be sound, but it doesn’t make you want one any less. To help cure this FOMO, I made a cute little 3D printable Mac mini that can sit on your desk and be all cute. But then I had an even better idea, the new Mac mini is powerful sure, but it can’t hold snacks. Or a plant. Or your phone. Or pens/pencils. So I also made some versions you can print that add some cute utility to your desk in the form of the new Mac mini. They’re free of course! Just chuck ’em into your (or your friend’s) 3D printer. It even has all the little details modeled, like the power button, ports (including rear), and fan holes! They’re pretty easy to print, it’s in separate parts for ease of printing the bottom a different color (black) versus the top, then just put a dab of glue (or just use gravity) to keep them together. If you have a multi-color 3D printer, you can color the ports and power LED to make it look extra cool (or just do it after the fact with paint). Here are the different options for your desk! Secret item stash The possibilities for what you can store on your desk are now truly endless. Individually wrapped mints? Key switches? Screws? Paper clips? Rubber bands? Flash drives? Download link: https://makerworld.com/en/models/793456 A very green sorta Mac First carbon neutral Mac is cool and all but what if your Mac mini literally had a plant in it? Every desk needs a cute little plant. Download link: https://makerworld.com/en/models/793464 Phone holder A phone/tablet holder is an essential item on my desk for debugging things, watching a video, or just keeping an eye on an Uber Eats order. Before, guests came over and saw...
12th Nov 2024

Stay updated

Get a weekly newsletter with the top 5 articles worth reading every week.

More from Christian Selig

I have thoughts on the iPhone Air

Hard to believe, but it’s been over 9 months since the current crop of iPhones came out, and I elected to grab the (apparently not super popular) iPhone Air, a new model of iPhone introduced for the first time. Rumor season for the new iPhones is in full swing, so it seemed like a good time to jot down my thoughts on the current model. Immediately, it’s really something to behold when you pick it up for the first time, it feels weirdly thin, pretty much everyone I’ve showed it to has been like “whoa”. You sacrifice a fair bit to get to that, from cameras to battery life, but I’ve always been a sucker for something novel, so when something as huge as the iPhone had a quirky new model I was really stoked to check it out. Heck, part of my frame of mind was that this device is going to have some serious limitations, which will probably also apply to the rumored upcoming folding iPhone which I also really want to check out, so it’ll almost be a warmup round to get me in the right headspace for a folding iPhone. I think that makes sense? Either way, over the last 9 months it’s been my primary phone day in and day out, and I wanted to jot down my thoughts on what it’s like to live with as someone who normally goes with the Pro phones, because there’s been some surprises. The design Picking up an iPhone Air for the first time is almost weird. Phones have had such a consistent slab design for so long that making it so, so dramatically thinner almost confuses your brain a little bit, like it’s an illusion or something. Forget putting a case on it, live with the danger. My favorite example was handing my phone to an employee at a local store to show her a product I was looking for, I could see kind of a confused look when I handed it to her followed by a “your phone is so thin”, almost like she thought there was something wrong with it. But, here’s my hot take. After the better part of a year it no longer feels thin, it just feels normal. Sure, when I pick up an older iPhone I’m lke “whoa this is so thick it feels like a relic”, but the Air doesn’t really feel noteworthy to me anymore. It’s like if you live in a cinnamon factory, I assume day one you’d be like “this is the best smelling place ever” but after a few months you’d go nose blind to it. My cat wouldn't even give the Air a chance, clearly a Pro phone fanboy That gives me pause, because it kinda makes me wonder that if any reasonably thin phone just feels normal after awhile, is it worth a bunch of compromises just to get it even thinner, when even that thinness feels normal eventually? I kinda feel like I thought about the thinness of my Pro iPhone the same amount after 9 months as I do now with the Air (which is to say, not really at all) but had a less compromised phone to show for it. And it’s weird, because with the old wedge-style MacBook Airs this feeling never went away for me, I loved those machines and every time I picked it up I kinda marveled, but that sensation kinda just went away with the iPhone Air, perhaps since I’m picking it up so much more than a laptop? The screen I’ve always been a normal-sized phone guy. The Plus/Max phones just feel unwieldy, but I do admit whenever I hold one I’m like “dang… maybe…”. The iPhone Air is the perfect solution to this, its screen size sits right in the middle of the normal Pro and Pro Max sized phones, and is one of my favorite parts of the phone. It’s large without feeling unwieldy (so awesome for games and videos), typing is a joy on the increased size, and it really makes me wish this size was the normal “small” Pro phone. Apple could then make the Pro Max phone 8" diagonal or something, I wanna test how far these Pro Max people will go. As a bonus my iPhone Pro can’t fit one of those tiny Xteink readers on the back, but my Air can perfectly! The cameras Camera quality feels as good as ever, it’s apparently not as good a main sensor as the Pro iPhones but I can’t really tell. It still has that distinctly over-processed look plaguing modern smartphones, but using an app like Project Indigo or Halide really helps here as they have modes that heavily reduce this distinct “phone” look. The real issue is that there’s only one sensor. I didn’t think I’d mind that much but unfortunately it turns out I do. On one hand, the iPhone’s main sensor has worse minimum focus distance than some Android phones, which means if you’re trying to take a photo of a document or something it often ends up blurry, you have to pull back a little bit then crop in after the fact. Since the sensor is 48 MP there’s tons of room to crop in (and even a built in faux 2x lens option) but it’s just kind of an annoyance versus either having an improved minimum focus distance or auto-macro mode using the ultrawide lens like on other iPhones. The ultrawide lens is not one I used a ton on previous iPhones, so outside of macro mode I don’t really miss it. I’m surprised though that I really miss the telephoto lens. There’s so many options where I want to see something that’s further away, like something when watching sports, or even a cool bird, and cropping in on the main sensor is such a far cry from a 5x telephoto lens. I’m in the minority here but I really wish Apple went back to having the secondary lens on iPhones be telephoto instead of ultrawide, and it makes me sad that going to the future folding iPhone will likely mean I still don’t get a telephoto lens back. Aside: camera plateaus have got out of control. This one rocks so badly if you try to interact with it while it’s lying down. I so prefer the Pixel style phones that have a consistent thickness across the full width of their camera plateau, because even though there’s a substantial plateau it doesn’t rock like a table with one short leg. The speaker (yes, singular) For the uninitiated, the iPhone Air has a single speaker up near the earpiece at the top of the phone. Pretty much every other modern iPhone (as far as I can remember) has one at the bottom as well, which means when watching video or something the audio doesn’t sound like it’s coming from one side of the phone. I was tempted to make an analogy to watching a video with only one AirPod in, but it’s not quite that bad, you do sorta get used to it, but it being subpar never fully goes away. What’s arguably worse though is with only one speaker the max volume is substantially lower, if you’re in an even remotely noisy environment (say, washing dishes) and you’re a little bit away from your iPhone good luck hearing things. Battery life Battery life confuses me. Coming from an iPhone 15 Pro which from everything I can tell was not revered for having the best battery life, I was pleasantly surprised with the iPhone Air’s battery life, it easily got me through a day where it sometimes felt the 15 Pro wouldn’t. This felt like an impossible feat given the thinness of the device, but improvements in electronics efficiency is remarkable. As time went on though, I started to be less impressed. Entering the spring season I started to notice getting the 20% battery notification a lot more often, and now in the summer it’s only gotten worse where it’s virtually every day. According to battery stats I’m still at 96% health. Is this an iOS regression that’s causing more battery usage? Am I just going out and on cellular more now that it’s gotten warmer? I honestly have no idea, but either way I wouldn’t call this phone a battery champion. I really long for a day where battery life is an afterthought in phones, some of the Silicon Carbide battery stuff seems really interesting here, so fingers crossed there’s some cool battery tech in the folding iPhone. Overall thoughts Ultimately, I love this phone, but I don’t think I’d recommend it to most people. Honestly, I’m not even sure I’d get it again over a Pro iPhone when it really comes down to it. If a fascinatingly cool design matters to you above all else, you should go for it. That sounds superficial, but I don’t think it is. Lots of people appreciate wearing a beautifully crafted mechanical watch over a $10 digital watch that is empirically more accurate and less fussy, there’s something just delightful about impressively crafted objects. I feel like we’re gonna be looking back at this phone even in 5 years remarking at its form factor versus 2031 phones, and there’s really something to say for a phone design being that bold. But it really does go back to that original MacBook Air that Steve Jobs pulled out of the manilla envelope. Absolutely amazing piece of engineering, as if something from the future came back proudly to show us what’s to come, but also something with enough compromises that your average person probably shouldn’t brave these waters. (Does anyone remember CoolBook?)

7th Jul 2026 • 2 votes
The Fitbit Air is interesting

The Apple Watch is one of the most fascinating pieces of modern technology for me. A gorgeous screen, an abundance of sensors, and a bonkers amount of computational power in a tiny little package that fits on your wrist. It reminds me of the Vision Pro in that a good amount of the time I put it on I can’t help but smile at how far technology has came. But it’s also weirdly something I’ve never used a great deal. Every few generations I buy a new one and try it out for a few weeks, but I inevitably run into a few speed bumps: I just fundamentally don’t love notifications being an even more prevalent part of my life than they already are I’m not a fan of having another device to charge daily or near daily While I love wearing a cool mechanical watch from time to time, I’m not a fan of having something substantial on my wrist most days. I can’t help but notice it all the time (forget sleeping in it). Personality quirk I suppose So ultimately I end up just putting it on for sports (go volleyball!) and leaving it on the charger the rest of the time, hoping one day for a device that’ll be a better fit. There’s a new wearable in town A few weeks ago a bunch of YouTube videos popped up showcasing a new wearable device: the Fitbit Air. I initially brushed it off assuming it would be mostly for Android users (as Google now owns Fitbit) and there wouldn’t be much possible for iOS integration. Talking to some people though, I learned there’s an iOS app that actually integrates things pretty well (its feature subset is a lot smaller than something like a smartwatch that would require a lot deeper OS integration). So now I’m listening. On paper, it provides a bunch of handy sensors, a week of advertised battery life, all in a package that is really low profile on the wrist. Okay, you have my interest. That was enough for me to head over to Best Buy on launch day to pick one up. (They were almost completely sold out, so there’s clearly some interest for this thing.) The hardware It’s a bit bigger than it looks like in pictures, but it’s absolutely tiny compared to any smartwatch. It’s just small and sleek enough that I barely notice it’s there, sometimes I even catch myself wondering if I accidentally took it off, which is a great sign. First wearable I’ve been able to sleep in without a worry. The actual “unit” is just a little rock sized device that slips into one of a few different bands. I have the default “obsidian” colorway and really like it visually; it has a nice style while also not being loud whatsoever, but there’s a variety of bands (and presumably more cool ones to come from the community) you can choose from. I’ve played a few sweaty sports in it, and done a bunch of yardwork, and the band holds up better than I thought it would for fitness activities, it really seems like the default band is one you can get away with using for a variety of activities. Battery The claim is a week of battery life. Charging that infrequently sounds really awesome (imagine if phones could do that!) so I was really hoping that would be the reality. And indeed, it seems to be! From my estimates I’m losing around 10% per day, so a week should be pretty easy to hit. It also charges up quite quickly. I don’t really love the idea of wearing it into the shower, so that’s a great time for me to take it off to charge, and in a 15 minute shower it charged from 44% to 85%, so taking it off for a quick charge while showering seems like a great way to keep it always topped off. The only missing of the charging story is a decent charging stand. By default the device connects with a little magnetic Apple Watch style charger, but I kinda want a way to just plunk it down on my nightstand into something and was kinda surprised Google doesn’t immediately have an accessory for that. To remedy this I made a quick little 3D printable stand that came out quite nice if I do say so myself! Download link if you want to grab it. The Google Health app The Google Health app itself is probably the most disappointing part of the equation, and a real head scratcher overall. It’s not like, offensively bad, it’s just very mediocre and I’m not sure why they didn’t delay the launch a month or something just to work on the app a bit longer. There’s two main issues. The first is that it’s just really buggy. Sometimes tapping things does nothing, my sleep score almost always states “unable to record” until I sign in and out, at which point it’s magically available. The other is the design. I’m not the biggest fan of Google’s software design but even this is just so boringly bland, half the time it feels like an old HTML website where the CSS didn’t load. It is so aggressively bland that it’s almost depressing. Things pop in and out like janky web views when loading. Sections just seem to bleed into each other with no solid information hierarchy (especially the AI assistant stuff). Things are aligned inconsistently. Then again, I have similar complaints about the Gmail iOS app so maybe this is just Google’s design language as a whole? The other part is just bizarre design functionality decisions, like when selecting a workout there’s a ton of activities listed from biking to swimming to golf to tennis, if you’re looking for a specific sport, you’ll never find it, you just have to select “Sport” (aren’t tennis and golf sports??), and then after the workout is finished you can classify it as basketball, volleyball, soccer, etc. Why not just be like the Apple Watch where you can select, I dunno, the sport? Heck if you go to the “Fitness” tab or the app (where I would think you’d easily be able to start a workout) the top 25% of the screen is a “Start your health journey” call to action that upon tapping the “Set your goal” button opens an AI chat (what?) that has been spinning for 15 seconds now with “Preparing an answer” (an answer to what??). Then there’s another 40% of the screen dominated by a library of what seem to be guided video exercises rather than again, a simple list of activities to choose from. Why? This screen should be dominated by my fitness stats and the option to start a workout. There is a teeny bar to start different workouts, with workout options such as “Workout” or “Walk”. This makes a lot of sense to me, as I often go to the shoe store and ask for “shoe”. I’m just complaining at this point, but as it stands now my “Weekly Cardio” progress bar is 22% full, but has “Calibrating, 3 days left” in it and “+0” overlaid on the bar. How do I have any progress if the value is 0? Is the 0 something else? Why show me data if it’s not calibrated? Okay one more complaint. My resting heart rate looks to be around 58 bpm but under “Daily Readiness” my resting heart rate is rated as “poor”. Why? If I tap on that it says “RHR typically ranges from 60-100 … active people often have lower RHR”. Why is 58-64 poor then? It’s a bewildering app that on one hand does the job and lets you get to and see the things you want once you get used to it, but it feels like the most hodgepodged, design by committee app I’ve used in awhile. Like six different teams at Google got to do design passes on the app and kept shoehorning in things they wanted versus someone having an actual cohesive vision of what this app should be. It genuinely feels like it would be worth starting over completely from scratch. This is a minimal bracelet that is super easy to use (it just sits on your wrist), it needs a corresponding elegant, non-bloated, simple app. The experience of using it All that said, it’s pretty awesome to use. How do you reconcile that with complaining about software for a few hundred words? Because you don’t have to interact with the software that much, it mostly just works ambiently/automatically, and you open the app if you want to view the stats it collected. I wish that last part was better, but you learn to live with the jank. One of my biggest issue with the Apple Watch is the whole thing around starting and stopping a workout. Call me a dummy but I’d often forget to either start or stop a workout. The watch kinda seems to try to help with this, where 15 minutes after a volleyball match on the drive home when I can’t safely interact with my watch it’ll be like “Hey I think you’re done want me to stop? Yes/No” which is not ideal. On the flip side I’ve never even had to start or stop a workout with the Fitbit Air, it just knows I was working out and nails the start and stop time, at best I have to relabel the workout to the actual sport it was, but apparently this gets better as you train it with time. And where it’s so much less obtrusive than an Apple Watch it’s so easy to get stats on everything throughout the day and night as I just leave it on 24/7. As for the accuracy of the stats, all seems great for me there. Sleep data seems to reflect how I feel and has a really in-depth breakdown, and fitness activity seems to track pretty nicely with what I’ve come to expect from the Apple Watch. The only weird thing I’ve noticed (and maybe it’s the case with the Apple Watch too, haven’t tested) but you can really easily/accidentally cheat the pedometer steps by just shaking your wrist (I remember doing this with cheap little pedometers in middle school) which seems weird? If you talk a lot with your hands you might have inflated step counts. Elephant in the room: Google Being an ads company, Google doesn’t have the best reputation with data privacy, so I can see why some are squeamish about using such a device. Me? I’m not too worried about Google having access to my step count, heart rate, sleep stats, etc. as they don’t massively feel like super personal stats, and the little bit of unease that gives me is outweighed by the utility of this device, but I totally get how someone else might feel differently. Wishes from Google Beyond fixing the app (please), functionality-wise the Fitbit Air seems pretty much perfect to me so there’s not a lot I find myself asking for. One thing I really would love though is wrist notifications around phone calls. One of my favorite uses for the Apple Watch is when I’m expecting a phone call on a given day, I find even with the ringer on I’ll just miss calls from my iPhone by not hearing the ring or not feeling the vibration, but the Apple Watch vibrating on my wrist always gets through to me. The Fitbit Air has a similar vibration mechanism (used only for alarms I think right now) and if it could pair to your phone like a car can for reporting phone calls (and maybe even texts, but I’d personally turn that part off), that’d be super handy. Do I recommend it? I do! At $99 USD it’s a pretty handy device if you care at all about health stats. It’s not perfect (especially in the app department) but it’s honestly exceeded the expectations I had for it, so for the price and for how unobtrusive it is day to day I’m really enjoying it. At the same time, Apple has a much better (downright impressive) reputation around data privacy, and in my eyes a lot better ability to design nice software, so I’d love to see them design a competing bracelet as an additional offering to the Apple Watch ecosystem. I’m not sure what more in terms of OS integration they’d be able to do that would move the needle that much, but I’d just love to see Apple’s spin on such a device and I’d feel a bit better about the data privacy angle.

2nd Jun 2026 • 2 votes
Rivian R2 wishes as an R1 owner

After 7 years with a Tesla Model 3, we picked up a gen 2 Rivian R1S in April of 2025. We still have the Model 3 as a second vehicle, but it’s been really cool experiencing a new electric vehicle from a very passionate new company. 2026 is a really exciting time for Rivian, as in the first half of this year they’re launching their R2 vehicle - a smaller, less expensive SUV offering that should have a lot more mass-market appeal. With a bunch of jourrnalists getting previews of the vehicle today, I thought I’d share what I’m really hoping for in this new vehicle having experienced their existing vehicle for almost a year, and a Tesla for the better part of a decade. None of these are in any particular order. Better audio We sprung for the “Premium Audio” package in our R1S and… it’s not premium at all. Whatever system just came with our Model 3 sounds demonstrably better, from where it feels like the sound is coming from (much more expansive) to the bass, the R1S just feels a lot weaker. Honestly for the base audio system it would be probably decent, but for a “Premium Audio” system it just falls short. They have been making it better and better with softwware updates of all things over the course of our vehicle’s life, where it’s noticeable better now than it was at the beginning, a recent update in December basically sounds like they figured out how to turn on the subwoofer in the trunk a little bit, but it’s still just not that much. With the Tesla sometimes I’d park and finish out a song before leaving the car because it just sounded so good, have never had that happen in the Rivian so I hope they bring some of that experience to the R2 even through another “Premium Audio” package for those who care. No dual motor EPA shenanigans So our R1S is dual motor, meaning it has a motor for the front wheels and a separate motor for the back wheels, meaning you get AWD. Rivian allows you to get more range by only using the front motor, turning it into effectively a front wheel drive vehicle and as only one motor is active you get a bit better range (about 10%). Sounds great, right? Choose between more efficient front-wheel drive on trips, but just use AWD around town by default. Well, the devil is in the details. In order to be able to market this slightly improved range, the EPA requires Rivian to automatically revert back to this front wheel drive/higher efficiency mode after a few hours. Kinda like gas vehicles and how they turn off the engine at traffic lights, and if you disable that it just keeps turning itself back on. So even if it’s the winter and you’re like, “Dang, roads are a little dicey, I want to be in AWD”, if you park the car for awhile and forget to set it to AWD, it just reverts to front wheel drive. It’s like if your iPhone kept reverting to “Low Battery Mode” every 2 hours even after you keep toggling it off so Apple could advertise that model having 10% better battery life. Note: the vehicle isn’t hard-locked to front wheel drive in this mode, if it slips it alerts you that it’s switching over to AWD (I don’t want to wait for it to slip), and if you floor it on the highway for instance it’ll engage the rear motors for extra grunt, but because it has to link up the rear motors to an already moving system, you can sometimes get a kinda weird clunk feeling as the rear motor connects itself at speed which isn’t very satisfying. It almost feels like a wheel slip in the rain. This is maddening, and is only the case on their dual motor vehicles. For tri and quad motor vehicles, they just don’t market them as having that extra 10% range, so all the modes are actually sticky! If you say “front wheel drive mode” (they call it “Conserve”) it stays there indefinitely, if you say “AWD mode”, it stays there indefinitely. Is this dumb? Yes. Do I blame the EPA? Yes. Do I also blame Rivian? Also yes, they’re making this trade off to be able to market extra range. If Rivian does this same stuff for the R2 dual motor just so they can advertise a few extra miles, I really hope they have a $10 option you can configure when you order called “Give me less marketed range with no actual range decrease but have the vehicle actually do what I tell it to”, but maybe with a catchier title. Spare compact tire Our Tesla lacks a spare tire of any sort, instead electing to include a repair method and roadside assistance. A few years back a nasty pothole absolutely destroyed the sidewall of one of our tires on a drive home, and where it was sidewall damage it simply wasn’t repairable, so we had to call Tesla roadside assistance. Unfortuantely Tesla roadside assistance was absolutely useless, taking ages to respond and then ultimately not having any providers in the area, so we just ditched the car and got a ride home with a friend and dealt with it the next day. After that I was like “I do not want another vehicle without a spare tire on board”. With our R1S on the other hand, we had another unlucky event where we popped a tire (also the sidewall if you’d believe it, I have some great luck) and sure enough, since we elected to get a compact spare tire it was super easy to deal with, just grab the included jack, throw the compact spare on, then the next day we just slowly drove over to a shop for a new tire. Completely uneventful. I was worried with the smaller body that you wouldn’t be able to in the R2, but Jerry Rig Everything showed room for a compact spare in the sub trunk, nice! Digital rear view mirror I don’t see this in any of the videos so it seems unlikely but I’m holding out hope it’s an option. Picture this: you approach your vehicle, since it sees it’s your phone it knows who you are, so it positions your seat, steering wheel, mirrors, Apple Music/Spotify account, and temperature preferences. You didn’t have to do a thing, the vehicle is just smart! Except… your spouse is 7 inches shorter than you so when you look in the rear view mirror you’re staring at the back seat. Is having to adjust your rear view mirror a big deal? No, but having the vehicle do everything else for you almost draws more attention to the final thing it’s missing that you still have to adjust every single time. This is a solved problem in inexpensive vehicles, just have a “digital rear view mirror” that requires no adjusting as it just shows a camera feed of the rear of the vehicle where the mirror is. Digital rear view mirror in a RAV4 by u/MildSpaghettiSauce Rivian’s cameras are legitimately so good, that at night it’s easier to use them for side blind spot monitoring when you change lanes than the actual side mirrors, because they let in enough light that you can actually make out details through the pseudo “Night Mode” camera vision that you can’t with the mirrors alone, it’s wild. I want that for the rear view mirror too! Do you still prefer an analog mirror? That’s totally cool, all the vehicles that offer this let you just toggle back to a good ol’ reflective mirror. No harm no foul. V2H story Not a lot of people realize one of the most powerful part of EVs: they’re mobile powerstations that can (theoretically) power your entire home. Take a Tesla Model 3 for instance, it has a 75 kWh battery. Tesla also sells Powerwalls to help you back up your home, each Powerwall is around $6,000 and has 13.5 kWh of battery capacity. Yes, that means your Model 3 is the equivalent of more than 5 Powerwalls, or $33,000 in equivalent batteries. That’s nuts! Ever have a power outage? With the average home in Canada using about 30 kWh per day, that could power your house through potentially multiple days and genuinely save lives. My Rivian R1S is a lot better than my Tesla here in that it actually has normal, 120V AC outlets, but they can only output a measly 1.5 kW, so even powering a hungry kettle could result in the breaker tripping. Much better than the max 120W my Tesla can do through a 12V cigarette outlet (good god how is that the best they can do), but it’s still not enough output to power a house effectively. It’s kinda like being in a drought with a massive water tower, but water only comes out in drips. Better than nothing, but we need output speed too. The R1 can output much more by pulling DC energy directly from the battery through CCS protocols like the ISO 15118 standard, and sure enough despite Rivian not talnking about it, folks with these systems have been able to connect the R1S directly to their house with the appropriate cable and send up to 24 kW to power their entire home, crazy stuff, hope Rivian talks about this more in the future as clearly the vehicle supports it even if they are quiet about it. I’m kinda curious what the R2’s story is here. The CEO of Rivian said in an interview (~1:20:20) that the R1 and R2 both have bidirectional EV charging in the realm of 20 kW (which again we’re finally seeing folks be able to take advantage of in the R1 recently), but unlike being limited to 1.5 kW of AC output in the R1, the CEO says the R2 will be able to do “10 or 11 kW”. That’s massive versus the 1.5 kW the R1 can do, but I’m not sure that made it to production in the end? Doug Demuro showed a Rivian graphic with a V2L adapter (at 26:22) but it’s only listed as 2.4 kW. Still a lot better than 1.5, but a far cry fro the 10 or 11 kW that RJ Scaringe said earlier. Either way, talk more about this Rivian! This is one of the coolest parts about EVs! Better suspension The R1S has a fancy air suspension, so picture a bagpipe over each corner of the vehicle that lets it inflate or deflate to change the height of the vehicle and theoretically make for a cushier ride. I say theoretically because honestly I find the gen 2 R1S kinda rough suspension wise. Like, hitting the same potholes around where I live in the Tesla Model 3 (with a much simpler coil suspension, no bagpipes) versus the Rivian R1S I honestly find the Tesla makes me wince less. I thought it might have been the massive 22" wheels that came on the Rivian and the correspondingly small sidewall on the tire, but we switched to a 20" wheel for the winter with a much larger sidewall and it’s better but still not great. Would love to see Rivian tune this so that the R2 is a super smooth ride, I’ve heard the newer Tesla Model Ys are incredible here and also just have a coil suspension like the R2 will have. Faster charging Brands love to brag about maximum charge speeds, our Tesla for instance got a software update to enable 250 kW charging, which is super fast. To put that in perspective, most new homes in North America have 200 amp service going into their home, 250 kW is the equivalent of upgrading to 1,000 amp service, and then pouring every drop of that power into your car. But, while that top speed is impressive, it holds that for like, minutes maybe before crashing down to much slower charging speeds. Our R1S is no different here, with good peak speeds but it doesn’t exactly hold them super well, there’s been tons of reports that the cooling method for the batteries in the R1S is just underwhelming, where the Rivian R1 models have a two battery packs stacked on top of each other with a single liquid cooling plate in the middle (so only the top or the bottom of the battery is touching the cooling surface), and that single plate often seems a little underpowered for cooling such a massive pack quickly. Kinda like thermal throttling in laptops! We typically see around 45 minutes for the battery to charge 10-80% at fast chargers. The R2 on the other hand appears to be moving to a smarter cooling method where the cooling liquid flows almost through a ribbon, weaving along the sides of each cell in the battery pack, meaning a lot more cooling surface area. And indeed, this seems to have paid off, with a Rivian employee saying they’re now under 30 minutes for 10-80% on the R2. Class-leading? No, Hyundai is under 20 minutes, but a fair bit better. And for folks without EV experience, honestly, this is mostly a non-issue. 99.5% of your charging is done at home where speeds don’t matter (it just charges overnight like your phone), it’s only if you’re going on a bit of a roadtrip where this comes into play. Better USB-C Okay this isn’t a big deal, but the R1S has a ton of USB-C ports everywhere, like there must be close to a dozen, which is awesome, but if you try to charge a power bank or a laptop or something over USB-C it’s just… not very fast. I haven’t actually measured but I’m assuming they’re only doing 12V (at most) instead of at least 20V which most chargers are at nowadays, which I really hope they improve. My MacBook charges so slow. Better phone charger This is the one part of the Rivian that I’m like “how did this even make it out of the factory”. And if you’d believe it the phone charger in my vehicle is the second revision, so this is their attempt at fixing it somehow. Basically they have a flat little area near the arm rests where you can place one or two phones to have them wirelessly charge. Sounds fine, right? I haven’t measured it, but from experience I believe the charging “sweet spot” is approximately 4 atoms wide. If the car is in motion at all, it moves from those four atoms and tries super hard to charge it but ultimately cannot, ultimately just making the phone get super hot and lose a bunch of battery life. One time we went camping and I was like “Okay, the vehicle is not moving, surely I can just set it here while I sleep and it’ll charge”. Nope, somehow even stationary the phone did not charge beyond 20% overnight and was super hot in the morning. What. They have managed to make a phone charger that is worse than not having one at all. I can’t even place my phone in the arm rest while I drive because it just cooks it, at least if nothing was there it could just be a storage location. No, mine is not broken, this is a common complaint from just about every Rivian owner, and they need to make this better for the R2. Just hot glue a MagSafe puck in there at minimum. Better Phone as a Key (PAAK) Rivian and Tesla do the (honestly very cool thing) where it uses your phone to detect your proximity to the car and lock/unlock it and recognize who the driver is to set preferences. It’s great, no having to carry around bulky car keys (don’t worry, there is a backup little credit card style key you carry in your pocket in case your phone dies or disappears). Rivian even recently updated theirs to use the first-party “Apple CarKey” functionality so you get bonuses like being able to unlock it for a few hours even after your phone’s battery died, and it uses “Ultra Wide Band” (UWB) so it can position your phone in relation to the car down to the centimeter. Tesla doesn’t do this and has their own proprietary thing that I think is based on Bluetooth but might use a bit of UWB on newer models (not on my car). But… Tesla’s is still much better. There’s two aspects of nailing good “phone as a key” support: firstly, unlocking the car as you approach (duh), and secondly, knowing who approached the car so you can set their preferences (seat, steering wheel, mirror positions, temperature preferences, music streaming account, etc.) Unlocking: B+ for Rivian here, sometimes even with the recent update I have to stand by the door for a few seconds and be like “Um, hello” before it sees me there and unlocks. Same phone, walk over to my Tesla, always unlocks instantly even though the Rivian should have a massive advantage with UWB. Identifying driver: D for Rivian here. Again, with UWB and centimeter-level positioning over the driver in relation to the vehicle Rivian should be able to know exactly who is approaching the driver door when my girlfriend and I (who both have Rivian keys) approach the vehicle, but 95% of the time when my girlfriend is with me (despite her always preferring to be passenger) it always sets her as the driver. Even weirder, sometimes she’ll yell out the window if I’m putting something in the frunk “Oh it actually recognized you this time!” with me set as the profile, but then when I sit down in the seat it reverts to her. What. Rivian needs to do better here for the R2. The pain is especially compounded by the fact that if you leave in a bit of a rush and somehow don’t realize the driver profile is wrong, Rivian won’t let you change your driver settings unless you slow down to under 3 mph, so you better get ready to pull over and stop the car if you need to adjust something. With Tesla you can always just swap profile and have your steering wheel, seat, mirrors, etc. move to where they should be, and that feels a lot safer than having to muck around with changing things via a touch screen or sit their tweaking controls on the side of the car seat. Smoother software Somehow despite my Model 3 being a 2018 model and probably running a Raspberry Pi compared to the hardware Rivian runs, moving around the OS in the Tesla still feels faster. With the Rivian there’s still lag just bouncing around screens with stuff sometimes taking a second or two to show up. I don’t get it. I really hope this improves on the R2, and thankfully it looks like it does, Doug DeMuro bounces around the R2’s UI here and it’s much faster than my gen 2 R1S with everything loading virtually instantly. Yay. CarPlay I’ve never had a vehicle with CarPlay, we rented a vehcile with it and it was kinda neat but Teslas and Rivians already have like every piece of software I’d want when interfacing with a vehcile (good, traffic-based maps and popular music streaming services), so with the exception of Overcast I don’t personally care about CarPlay at all. That being said, I know a ton of people do so I kinda hope Rivian looks into it even just as a little windowed experience because I think it would make a lot more people interested. Alexa is so bad About a month ago at their Autonomy Day Rivian previewed (among many other cool things) their new “Rivian Assistant”. This is sorely needed, their current system uses Alexa and. it. is. so. bad. With our Tesla, you can say “Navigate to Blah” and it will just automatically plot it and you’re off to the races. Best case with Rivian you’re like, “Alexa, navigate to Bob’s Cool Donuts in Dartmouth”, and Alexa is like “Would you like to navigate to Bob’s Cool Donuts, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia”, “Yes” where it repeats literally the only possible match back to you requiring confirmation every time instead of just… taking you there. A more typical case is “Alexa, navigate to Bob’s Donuts in Dartmouth”, “Would you like directions to Bob’s Donuts in Toledo, Ohio”. No Alexa, I want the one that’s a five minute drive, not the one a three day drive away. “Oh, okay, try being more specific next time” Better heat pump They do a decent job isolating the sound from the outside if you’re in the vehicle, but if it’s cold outside and you heat up your Rivian R1S, you can hear that sucker from a full block away in this super high pitched whine. I’ve understandably had multiple people ask “Is it okay?”. Better time placement The UX for knowing the current time in the cabin is not great. There is no clock on the main driver instrument display, and it’s in the furthest place possible on the middle display, so it’s not exactly easy to check. There’s tons of space on the driver display so I either wish they shoved it ther, or if you put in directions, I wish it showed you the current time there. Right now it just says “ETA 2:58 PM” which if you’ve been driving for 45 minutes and kinda have lost track of time is not particularly helpful, that could be in 5 minutes or in 25 minutes for all I know. It looks a bit better on the R2 (seen in MKBHD’s video) where they’re placing it on the middle display a lot closer to the driver, but I still wish they just put it on the driver display. Better second row release The R1S and many other modern vehicles have really stupid and downright dangerous second row releases, where the main door handles are electric, so it there’s an electrical issue and you need to get out of the vehicle, you obviously need a manual release. On my Tesla, there’s a (shocker) pull handle that is obvious and you can just pull to get out of the vehicle. Easy peasy (don’t worry Tesla has since changed to an inexplicably stupider, hidden design like Rivian) The R1 is incredibly stupid and you literally have to pop off trim in the rear door to get access to a cable you can yank. Yeah, good luck remembering that in dire circumstances, so I threw one of those window breakers in the back cubby. The R2 is better here, Jerry Rig Everything shows a little button patch you can pop off much easier to get to the cable, but still, just put the manual release that the front doors have, this is a basic safety feature and should not be complicated. Smaller This we know will be the case, with the Rivian R2 being about 2 feet shorter than the R1S. The R1S is a properly large vehicle, which makes it very capable, but I dunno, I do find myself wishing it was a little smaller quite often, so I honestly think if the R2 is compelling enough I might be trading in my R1. I’m so excited I genuinely think Rivian is doing such cool things, and the company behind it seems to have a real passion for building cool products instead of just sitting on Twitter all day, so I’m super excited to see what this mass-market vehicle does for them and I’m hoping for the best. Looks like they’re launching in spring (I guessed summer!) with more pricing and configuration details March 12th.

9th Feb 2026 • 1 votes
CKSyncEngine questions and answers

I didn't know what to put as a header so here are some iClouds (interesting clouds) in Maine I’ve had a lot of fun working with CKSyncEngine over the last month or so. I truly think it’s one of the best APIs Apple has built, and they’ve managed to take a very complex topic (cloud syncing) and make it very digestible and easy to integrate, without having to get into the weeds of CKOperation and whatnot like you had to in previous years. That being said, there’s a fair bit of work you still have to do (through no fault of Apple, it’s just that a lot of cloud sync work is application-specific), such as how to handle conflicts, how to integrate the CKRecords into your flow, responding to errors, etc. More interesting for a blog post, perhaps, I also had a fair few questions going into it (having very little CloudKit knowledge prior to this), and I thought I’d document those questions and the corresponding answers, as well as general insights I found to potentially save a future CKSyncEngine user some time, as I really couldn’t find easy answers to these anywhere (nor did modern LLMs have any idea). Apple sample project When in doubt, it’s always nice to see how Apple does things in their nicely published CKSyncEngine sample project: https://github.com/apple/sample-cloudkit-sync-engine Other awesome resources are Jordan Morgan’s blog post at Superwall, as well as the awesome work by Pointfree on their SQLiteData library which is open source and integrates CKSyncEngine as the syncing layer. These are great resources to understand how to implement CKSyncEngine which this article won’t be going over. I want to go over questions and edge cases you may encounter. Conflict resolution If you’ve used NSUbiquitousKeyValueStore (my only prior exposure to iCloud), CKSyncEngine is thankfully a lot smarter with conflict resolution (and by “conflict resolution” I mean “what happens when two devices try to save the same piece of data to the cloud”). With NSUbiquitousKeyValueStore if you had super valuable, years old data stored at key “blah” and you downloaded the app onto a new device and somehow set new data to the key “blah” (for instance, existing data hadn’t been downloaded yet) you would completely blow away the existing “blah” data, potentially jeopardizing years of data. Not great, which made me wary of storing much of value there without a ton of checks. CKSyncEngine is a lot smarter, where you’re dealing with CKRecords directly (more on that below) and thus can save metadata from them, so if you try to overwrite “blah” and your metadata is not up to date, CKSyncEngine will return a failure with the newest version of that data asking you what you want to do (overwrite your local data with the newer cloud version? tag your version with the newer cloud metadata and re-upload it so it works?), rather than blindly overwriting it. This makes it virtually impossible for a new device to come onto the scene and write “bad data” up, messing up existing data. (And serverRecordChanged is the error in failedRecordSaves you hook into!) It does beg the question though, “What do you do when there’s a conflict” and that’s what I alluded to earlier with Apple not being able to do everything for you, and you need to make some decisions here. For me, it depends on the data. For the vast majority of the data, always having the “server version win” is perfectly fine for my use case, so I overwrite the local version with the cloud version. But there’s some situations where I want to be a little choosier, for instance for integer that can never decrease in value (a good example would be how many times you’ve died in a video game), I have a system where it just chooses the higher value between the cloud version and the local version, and chooses that. You could write a long blog post just on this though, the important part is to choose the right system for your application. An app that creates a lot of singular data but rarely ever modifies it will need a dramatically different system than one that has a large, single body of data that is frequently being edited on multiple devices concurrently. And remember that CKSyncEngine being effectively a database means you can store a lot more information than the paltry 1,024 keys/1MB total limit that NSUbiquitousKeyValueStore allows, so you can create a much more robust system that’s appropriate to your app, but not necessarily any more complicated! Deletion conflict resolution Note that deletions just fire without any conflict resolution at the CKSyncEngine level; if you say to delete something with recordID "blah", CKSyncEngine will trust you know what you’re doing and just delete it (and not compare metadata or anything as it doesn’t even ask for it). CKRecord handling One of the only awkward parts of CKSyncEngine is that it operates through CKRecords, which are quite old a construct (much more Objective-C than Swift) you have to decide how to incorporate that into your existing data store. They’re basically a big old string dictionary of data with some metadata. For me, I mostly use GRDB (SQLite), and you have a nice, easy, hybrid solution where you have your local records with an extra column called something like cloudKitInfo, which is just the CKRecord distilled down into its pure informational metadata. This strips out all the CKRecord of large image and text data, and you’re basically just getting the bare essentials: the metadata fields like its record change tag for conflict resolution when you upload it If you don’t save these metadata fields you’re going to have a Very Bad Time™ when you go to upload, as your items being uploaded will have no matching metadata, so CloudKit will think you don’t have the most up to date version of that record and give you a conflict error every time. So my process generally looks like: When you get a new CKRecord from iCloud to sync with your local store, you extract all the data you care about from the dictionary fields (e.g.: item.postTitle = ckRecord["postTitle"]) into your local Swift object, and then extract the CloudKit specific metadata. extension CKRecord { func systemFieldsData() -> Data { let archiver = NSKeyedArchiver(requiringSecureCoding: true) encodeSystemFields(with: archiver) archiver.finishEncoding() return archiver.encodedData } } item.cloudKitInfo = ckRecord.systemFieldsData saveToSQLite(item) Then, when you go to upload an item after you changed it, you create a CKRecord by initializing it with your existing cloudKitInfo, then set the fields. let unarchiver = try NSKeyedUnarchiver(forReadingFrom: cloudKitSystemFields) unarchiver.requiresSecureCoding = true let restoredRecord = CKRecord(coder: unarchiver) restoredRecord["postTitle"] = myNewPostTitle This has the nice effect of letting you do basically everything in Swift, and just tacking on the necessary parts of the CKRecord to make the system work properly, without duplicating the entire CKRecord with all of the heavy data fields it may contain. Backward/forward compatibility One big worry I had was what if in version 1.0 of my app I have a structure like the following: struct IceCream { let name: String let lastEatenOn: Date } And then in version 1.1 of the app I add a new field: struct IceCream { let name: String let lastEatenOn: Date let tastiness: Float // New! } If a user has two devices, one that is updated to version 1.1 and another on 1.0, if I save a new IceCream on version 1.1 of the app with both a name of "chocolate" and a tastiness of 0.95, and sync that back to the device on version 1.0, where they eat the ice cream, then sync that back up, crucially that version of the app doesn’t know about the tastiness variable! So it might effectively sync back up IceCream(name: "chocolate", lastEatenOn: .now), and then when version 1.1 gets that, the tastiness is effectively lost data! Noooooo! How do we handle this? I dreamt up some complex solutions, but it turns out it’s incredibly easy thanks to the way CKRecord works. CKSyncEngine never documents this anywhere directly, but it obviously uses CloudKit under the hood, and CloudKit has dinstinct saving policies under CKModifyRecordsOperation.RecordSavePolicy documented here. And no matter what policy you choose (we don’t get a choice with CKSyncEngine) all of them detail the same behavior: CloudKit only saves the fields on CKRecords that you explicitly set. In other words, on version 1.0, when we create our CKRecord that represents our local data, it would look something like this: let ckRecord = // create CKRecord instance ckRecord["name"] = "chocolate" ckRecord["lastEatenOn"] = Date.now Note that we didn’t set tastiness at all, so when it goes up to iCloud, the tastiness field won’t be touched at all as it’s not present, it will just remain what it was. The only way the tastiness field would get reset is it we explicitly set it to nil. So when version 1.1 pulls down this change that version 1.0 made, the CKRecord it pulls down will still have the tastiness field intact. It’s essentially a factor that old versions of the app can only touch what fields they know exist, so no harm no foul. The only catch is you can’t go in the other direction: don’t delete tastiness in verson 1.2 of the app if earlier versions expect it to always exist. Give it some innocent default value. Enums are bad Enums are a finite set of values, so unless you’re positive that it will never change, don’t use enums in values meant to be cloud-synced. Why? Say you have this enum in version 1.0 of your app: enum IceCreamFlavor { case chocolate case strawberry } And in version 1.1 you add a new flavor: enum IceCreamFlavor { case chocolate case strawberry case vanilla // New! } What happens when version 1.0 has to decode IceCreamFlavor.vanilla? It will have no idea what that case is, and fail to decode, which you could just treat as a nil value, but if you then try to sync that nil value up, you risk overwriting the existing, good value with nil data (unlike the “Backward/forward compatibility case” above where it was a value stored in a different field, this is all operating under the same field/key). Bad. Instead, just store it as a string, and you could try to initialize an enum of known values with the string’s raw value if you desire. One instance of CKSyncEngine You can only have one instance of CKSyncEngine per CKContainer otherwise they start tripping over each other with it not being clear which instance receives the sync events. Just try to keep everything under one CKSyncEngine instance, which isn’t too hard, but can feel a bit limiting if you were wanting to have different parts of your app handled completely independently. You could have multiple CKContainers in your app (and a CKSyncEngine instance for each), but that feels messy and from what I understand not really how Apple intended containers to be used. Should you not call CKSyncEngine methods if the user isn’t signed into iCloud? Apple’s sample project still does! It seems harmless. From my testing, they get enqueued, but are never actioned upon (they never fail unlike normal CKRecordOperations, they just sit waiting forever), and then the queue is wiped when the user signs in. What happens if they sign out/sign in while your app is quit? No worries, you get the appropriate accountChange event on the next app launch. What is the difference between the account change notifications? You can either get signedIn, signedOut, or switchAccount. signedIn happens when they had no account and signed into one. signedOut happens when they had an existing account and signed out. switchAccounts is a “coalescing” one (you won’t get signedIn/signedOut and switchAccounts), where if your app is running/backgrounded you will get signedOut then signedIn if the user changes accounts, and you won’t get a switchAccounts notification. You only get switchAccounts if your app was quit and you relaunch the app at which point you’ll get the switchAccounts notification (but neither of the other two). How does state serialization work? Every time anything happens with CKSyncEngine you’re given a stateUpdate event, which you’re expected to persist to disk. This encodes the entirety of your CKSyncEngine’s state into a serialized value, so when the app launches the next time it can start off right where it was. It’s essentially a super charged git commit tag/checkpoint, so iOS knows where your CKSyncEngine exists in time (does it need to pull down any new changes?) and maintains any pending changes/deletions that might have not completed. If your app crashes part way through applying a change, your app simply will not have been issued the new “save checkpoint” notification, so the next time your app relaunches it will simply be restored to the last CKSyncEngine state you saved and retry. It also initializes synchronously, so if you had any pending items in your serialized state and you initialize CKSyncEngine, you can view your pending items immediately. Also note that if you initialize CKSyncEngine without any state serialization, you always get an “account change: signedIn” notification even if the user didn’t explicitly just sign into their iCloud account. CKSyncEngine re-initialization Per Apple’s sample project, re-initialize your CKSyncEngine (and delete any old state serialization) when either the user signs out, or switches accounts, but not when they transition from signed out to signed in, presumably because in the latter case there’s nothing really to invalidate in the CKSyncEngine when there is in the other two states. How does error handling work? Apple’s sample project indicates that there are a number of transient errors that CKSyncEngine handles automatically for you, like rate limiting issues, no internet connection, iCloud being down, etc. Nice! .networkFailure, .networkUnavailable, .zoneBusy, .serviceUnavailable, .notAuthenticated, .operationCancelled, .requestRateLimited In most of these cases it means the item just gets immediately added back to the pending items queue and CloudKit will pause the queue for a certain amount of time before retrying. Other ones, you do need to handle yourself, even if they seem like they should be automatic. A good example is quotaExceeded which you get if the user ran out of iCloud storage and you tried to save something. In this case Apple pauses the queue until the user frees up space or buys more (or after several minutes, specified by retryAfterSeconds) but does not add your item back, which seems weird to me, so just add it back. But you also can’t just add it back, as that would put it at the end of the queue, so you have to insert it back at the beginning of the queue so it’s the next item that will be retried (since it just failed). Only, there’s no API for this, so grab all the items in the queue, then empty the queue, then re-add all items back to the queue with your failed item at the front. For other failures, like quotaExceeded, they’re immediately removed from pending items once they fail, so if you want them to be retried you have to add them back manually. (Remember, the pending queue survives app restarts as it’s serialized to disk through state serialization, see above.) Embedding record types into record IDs A small point worth noting is that weirdly CKSyncEngine does not provide the actual recordType (only the string ID) when requesting the fully built CKRecords (which we need in order to tell which SQLite table the ID belongs to), so we can prepend the table to the beginning of the ID string, for instance IceCream:9arsnt89rna9stda5" so we can discern it at runtime. Let things be automatic You can manually pull/push to CKSyncEngine with fetchChanges() and sendChanges() but be careful. You can’t call these inside the CKSyncEngineDelegate methods per CKSyncEngineDelegate documentation: CKSyncEngine delivers events serially, which means the delegate doesn’t receive the next event until it finishes handling the current one. To maintain this ordering, don’t call sync engine methods from your delegate that may cause the engine to generate additional events. For example, don’t invoke fetchChanges(_:) or sendChanges(_:) from within handleEvent(_:syncEngine:). You can get stuck in weird, infinite loops. In practice I’ve found CKSyncEngine is really great at queuing up changes almost instantly without you having to babysit it and manually pull/fetch, just let it do its own thing and you should get great performance and not run into infinite loop bugs by trying to do things yourself. (Also note that the quote is kinda confusing, but it refers to those fetch and send changes methods specifically, adding new items to the queue within the delegate is fine and something Apple does in their sample project.) Zone deletion reasons When a “zone was deleted” event occurs, ensure you inspect the reason, of which there are 3: deleted means we (the programmer) did it programmatically, commonly done as it’s the easiest/quickest way to delete all the records in a zone purged means the user went through the iOS Settings app and wiped iCloud data for our app, which per Apple’s recommendation means we should delete all local data as well (otherwise it would just sync back up after they explicitly asked for it to be wiped, likely because they were running low on storage), and in the purged case we also delete our local system state serialization change token as it’s no longer valid (this is a full reset). encryptedDataReset means the user had to reset their encrypted data during account recovery and per Apple’s recommendation we treat this as something the user likely did not want to have to do, so reset/delete our system state serialization token and reupload all their data to minimize data loss. Responding to account status changes CloudKit also has a NotificationCenter API for monitoring account changes (Notification.Name.CKAccountChanged) but you don’t really need this at all if you’re using CKSyncEngine, everything comes through the accountChange event that the NotificationCenter API would otherwise provide (just distilled down to signedIn, signedOut, or switchAccounts where the NotificationCenter API is a bit more granular). You can use both, but I haven’t found a need. Note that you should react appropriately to the kind of account change that occurred. For instance, following Apple’s sample project recommendation, if you receive a notification that they signedOut, that could mean they signed out of their iCloud account to give their sibling an old iPhone to play around with, and they may have private data they don’t want their sibling to have access to, so we should take this as a queue to delete local data (if they want the data back, when they sign back into iCloud it will be re-downloaded). Also note you can get the status of the user’s iCloud account at any point using try await CKContainer.default().accountStatus(). Batch sizes CKRecords can be a max size of 1 MB, but also note that uploaded batches are limited to 1 MB in size, so if you enqueue 10 items to be uploaded, each 1 MB, iCloud will upload them in sequential, 1 MB batches (I sort of expected a single, 10 MB upload that included all the records). So that’s uploads, but conversely on the download size, iCloud is happy to download batches much larger than 1 MB in size! I’ve comfortably seen 100 MB+, which can happen when syncing an initial, large library. Conclusion If I think of any more notes I’ll add them, but hopefully a bunch of these things (that I had to find out through trial and error) save some other folks time when implementing CKSyncEngine!

7th Jan 2026 • 1 votes
App Clip Local Experiences have consumed my day

Okay, I have to be doing something astronomically stupid, right? This should be working? I’m playing around with an App Clip and want to just run it on the device as a test, but no matter how I set things up nothing ever works. If you see what I’m doing wrong let me know and I’ll update this, and hopefully we can save someone else in the future a few hours of banging their head! Xcode App Clips require some setup in App Store Connect, so Apple provides a way when you’re just testing things to side step all that: App Clip Local Experiences I create a new sample project called IceCreamStore, which has the bundle ID com.christianselig.IceCreamStore. I then go to File > New > Target… > App Clip. I choose the Product Name “IceCreamClip”, and it automatically gets the bundle ID com.christianselig.IceCreamStore.Clip. I run both the main target and the app clip target on my iOS 18.6 phone and everything shows up perfectly, so let’s go onto actually configuring the Local Experience. Local Experience setup I go to Settings.app > Developer > App Clips Testing > Local Experiences > Register Local Experience, and then input the following details: URL Prefix: https://boop.com/beep/ Bundle ID: com.christianselig.IceCreamStore.Clip (note thne Apple guide above says to use the Clip’s bundle ID, but I have tried both) Title: Test1 Subtitle: Test2 Action: Open Upon saving, I then send myself a link to https://boop.com/beep/123 in iMessage, and upon tapping on it… nothing, it just tries to open that URL in Safari rather than in an App Clip (as it presumably should?). Same thing if I paste the URL into Safari’s address bar directly. Help What’s the deal here, what am I doing wrong? Is my App Store Connect account conspiring against me? I’ve tried on multiple iPhones on both iOS 18 and 26, and the incredible Matt Heaney (wrangler of App Clips) even kindly spent a bunch of time also pulling his hair out over this. We even tried to see if my devices were somehow banned from using App Clips, but nope, production apps using App Clips work fine! If you figure this out you would be my favorite person. 😛

8th Sep 2025 • 50 votes

More in technology

Refurb weekend II: Alpha Micro Eagle 300 and friends

This Refurb Weekend is a sequel in two ways. Six years ago I fixed the power supply and case fan in my 68EC030-based Alpha Microsystems Eagle 300, a more modernized and substantially faster Alpha Micro running AMOS, their unique DEC-inspired multiuser operating system. These blue-collar boxes were very common in many vertical markets due to their tightly integrated business-specific software packages, and are especially unusual for running their big-endian 68000-series processors little-endian (for data file backwards compatibility with their WD-16 ancestors). The 1990s-era Alpha Micro Eagle family improves on the originals with later 68K and even ColdFire CPUs, plus Ethernet and faster SCSI. The second way it's a sequel is to our previous Alpha Micro refurb weekend, a double header restoring an Alpha Micro AM-1000 and AM-1200, two members of Alpha Micro's most popular series of computers and some of the closest things they made in the early '80s to desktop workstations. From the outside, the Eagle comes in a PC-style case, but it's not a PC: ampm.floodgap.com using the webserver provided with AlphaTCP — yes, Alpha Micros can be networked — and its own on-board Ethernet. At the time the cooling fan failure was putting a lot of strain on the hard disk because it was overheating, and since this was my first Alpha Micro and I wanted to keep it in good nick, I decided I would put a SCSI2SD in it after the repair and get rid of the spinning disk entirely. Fast-forward to last fall, a little over a year ago, when I tried to do exactly that with a ZuluSCSI. And then it wouldn't start. thought was a replacement unit I could raid for parts, but it turned out to be something rather more special — and then I was even more fortunate when I got the Eagle 300 back out of storage to make one last attempt at reviving it. To cap it off we'll go stick ZuluSCSIs in everybody else, including my Motorola ColdFire-based Eagle 450, the first ColdFire server ever produced and what used to be the fastest Eagle in the house until the new hotness came. I even converted the external BlueSCSI the AM-1200 was using to an internal ZuluSCSI too. Now nearly everybody's got a solid-state boot disk and they're all a good bit more zippy, so we'll gawk at the internals, compare 68K CPU and storage benchmarks and most importantly learn from my mistakes, because as my late father always said, "I'd rather be lucky than good." On a more solemn note, we'll also observe a moment of silence for one of the line's creators who passed away last year. It's time for a Refurb Multi-Weekend Sequel. Alpha Microsystems, founded in Orange County, California in 1977, produced what were considered some of the earliest "poor man's minicomputers," smaller and more affordable multi-user systems that run a bespoke, Digital Equipment Corporation-influenced operating system named AMOS. In our previous entry we discussed their history in detail. First-generation Alpha Micros like the AM-100, designed by Dick Wilcox who also wrote most of the operating system, used large S-100 cases and a CPU chipset called the WD-16, derived from the Western Digital MCP-1600 chipset — the same one used in DEC's LSI-11 CPU — but with higher performance microcode developed by Rich Notari. These machines thoroughly outclassed low-end PDP-11s yet were substantially cheaper, and Alpha Micro found a ready audience initially with hobbyists and then later corporate turnkey environments, where its integrated AlphaBASIC and database functionality gave it a competitive advantage. As the WD-16 had little elbow room to evolve, in 1982 Alpha Micro introduced new systems based on the Motorola 68000, porting AlphaBASIC and AMOS to run natively, but swapping address lines to make it appear little-endian for compatibility with WD-16 data files and AlphaBASIC P-code. These new machines included the AM-1000, Alpha Micro's most popular single model, and by 1984 it constituted the majority of the over 20,000 Alpha Micro machines then in active use. An idealized Alpha Micro office from the 1980s might look like this photo, from their actual advertising of the period. The main system is an AM-1042E, the S-100 box sitting on the pedestal next to the printer, using an AM-100/L CPU with an 8MHz 68000 (the same as the AM-1000, which was integrated into a desktop case), and in the factory-standard configuration shipped with 512K of RAM and a 60MB Winchester ST-506 hard disk. The system served some number of local users connected directly via serial ports, in this case the two administrative assistants with AM-60 terminals (a modified and rebadged Wyse WY-100). The fact everyone here was in the same room with the machine was helpful, because AMOS is a strictly real-memory operating system and executable code ran from where it was loaded in the user's fixed memory allocation — there was no memory protection. Although the admin assistants' explicit permissions were limited by which account they were logged into, using the same style of project-programmer numbers as DEC (e.g., [1,2] being the operator account), an errant job of theirs could readily stomp on another and it was not rare for busy systems with buggy software to regularly crash. On the other hand, this also made it fast and efficient with little separation between you and the hardware, and even Alpha Micros with fairly modest specifications could support hundreds of simultaneous users. Alpha Microsystems tried multiple times to broaden the line technologically, though these efforts were largely for naught. Early attempts to put equivalent hardware onto a PC ISA co-processor card, with software to interchange between MS-DOS and AMOS, yielded only an expensive and poorly-selling PC that wasn't good at either OS (eventually the company gave up producing turnkey systems and just sold the card). In 1984 Alpha Micro introduced UNIMOS, a licensed version of AT&T System V UNIX which ran on modified AM-1000 hardware with an MMU, but it was likewise too expensive and garnered little interest from new users nor demand from existing ones. The cost of its development, the Unix license and its associated royalties, and a simultaneous lawsuit from DEC over AMOS's similarities subsequently caused lasting damage to the company, and by the end of the decade Alpha Micro found itself almost entirely dependent on legacy AMOS users. In the wake of Wilcox's 1990 retirement and original investor Bob Hitchcock's own departure in 1991, new management tried once more with Unix systems based on the Motorola 88000 — which Motorola abandoned shortly afterwards for the PowerPC AIM alliance, and so no hardware ever shipped. anybody — yes, really, just two months after the '030's October introduction — initially offering a 20MHz CPU, 32K of L2 cache and supporting up to 360 simultaneous terminals, but even the lowliest 30-user configuration started north of $40,000 [about $117,600 in 2026 dollars]. By contrast, Alpha Micro was uncharacteristically tardy in adopting the 68040 and didn't release the 33MHz AM-4000 until 1993. It was nevertheless nearly as expensive, and for most small offices, which were now increasingly Alpha Micro's financial anchor, that kind of money was simply beyond consideration. In 1993 the company settled on a two-board approach to solve both problems at once. The CPU board, dubbed the Roadrunner and designed by engineer Joshua Stumpf, contained the new processor, standard RAM SIMM slots, L2 cache (if present), and SCSI controller. This board was specifically designed to also fit in legacy machines, specifically the desktop AM-1000, AM-1200 and AM-1600 and server AM-2000 and AM-3000 systems, and initially came in a 68030 and two 68040 versions. A second board served as the CPU board's system interface, linked together using a custom "X-BUS" interconnect over twin 34-pin cables. For legacy installs, this second board was an active interposer physically replacing the original processor, which in elderly units sometimes needed to be desoldered (though that was also true for the few third-party CPU upgrades then extant, like InterLink's Dimension-030, so the Roadrunner was at least no worse). But this second board could be a whole new system architecture of its own, and that was what the I/O board was, designed by Rod Hewitt. It carried the power supply connectors, controlled the system front panel, contained the System Security Device for licensing (more on this later), presented built-in external ports for parallel, SCSI and (for certain loadouts) Ethernet, had an internal port for an optional floppy drive, and provided SIMM-format "paddle card" slots for option cards. Best of all, these boards were smaller and — by using off-the-shelf commodity hardware — cheaper to manufacture, and could be paired into multiple configurations, together becoming the company's long-promised updated low-end and mid-range systems. reasons I've related elsewhere, and I managed to land it for just a couple hundred bucks in fully working order. (Boy, are those days gone.) Based on the software still on the hard disk, this machine was previously used at a chain of three party stores in Washington state as a centralised rental and point-of-sale system, a common turnkey application. On arrival it sported the same loadout as in this article's first picture except for its original smaller-capacity Tandberg QIC tape drive, which in Alpha Micro parlance is called a tape streamer. Since these systems don't boot from CD, QIC tape is your only way to cold start and restore most 68K Alpha Micro computers if the hard disk fails. These systems also don't support the old Alpha Micro VHS backup system, hopefully to be the subject of a future article, which was ubiquitous in their early hardware. There is a single hard disk in the second 5.25" bay, though these first-generation systems also supported 5.25" and 3.5" floppy drives using an AM-219 controller board. original Refurb Weekend. our previous Alpha Micro foray we discussed the SSD's role, a chip installed in every 68K (and later x86) Alpha Micro, even the earliest S-100 boards, used by the operating system and any installed VAR software packages to enforce copy protection and license caps. The SSD number on the rear is just a serial number, printed on the rear plate for convenience and engraved on the SSD chip inside, which I'll show you in a moment. This number is not the key stored inside the chip, up to 256 bytes in length, which only Alpha Micro recorded. When a VAR wanted to lock an install to a particular system, they would provide their private code to Alpha Micro plus the user's SSD serial number, and Alpha Micro would look up the key and generate an alphanumeric PIC (Product Installation Code) that the VAR either used for direct installation or to provide to the user. During the installation process the PIC (usually irreversibly) encoded a binary overlay for the protected executable(s), making it impossible to run them on a system where the SSD didn't match. To facilitate logic board swaps and upgrades, the SSD is socketed and easily transplanted into a new board, but PICs were expensive then and unobtanium now, another reason hard disk backups were so critical. % curl -I http://ampm.floodgap.com/ HTTP/1.0 200 OK Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2026 23:43:03 GMT Server: AMOS-HTTPD/1.3C(111) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/html Last-modified: Sun, 11 Oct 2026 23:42:00 GMT Content-length: 30242 Content-encoding: 7bit in our most recent article. In this picture it's also attached to an AM-401 CD-ROM, which is the trusty Toshiba XM-5401B in an external case, though only specific ROM versions are supported. It can't boot from this drive, but it can read AMOS-formatted partitions, and with external software can also access ISO 9660 filesystems. Onscreen is a performance estimate using the built-in SI.LIT tool, which we'll be using to benchmark our new solid-state disks when we get them in there. Here's that output. .si dsk0: SI--AMOS System Information, (C) Copyright 1990, Alpha Microsystems Inc. Version 3.0(114) Computer Type: Eagle Main Processor: 68030 Co-Processor: None MMU present: Yes Operating System: AMOS 2.3A(484) Boot PROM revision: M00 Number of SSDs: 1 Total Memory: 16384 K-bytes Resident Monitor Memory: 6218 K-bytes Computing Index (CX), relative to AM-100: 36.9 48 bit FP Index (4X), relative to AM-100: 36.3 Floating Point Index (FX), relative to AM-100/L: 5.6 Disk Index (DX), relative to ST-506: 15.3 I don't know why it identified the 68EC030 as having an MMU, because it doesn't, but we're mostly interested in the "computing index" figure (SI's equivalent of an integer score) which is 36.9 times faster than Alpha Micro's original AM-100, and the "disk index" hard disk throughput test, which rates the spinning disk it came with as 15.3 times faster than their early ST-506 drives. Remember these figures as a baseline; we'll be referring to them again. On the front panel in both pictures you can see the number "0" in the LEDs. That's where the system status is displayed, initially by the firmware, then the OS monitor during boot and then in operation. We'll come back to this as well. original Refurb Weekend involved replacing the old AT supply with an ATX one and a converter. Since that post I found a NOS AT supply for cheap and I needed the ATX supply for something else, so I removed the converter and installed the new AT supply. This is that unit. The CPU and the 53C710 are both clocked by an 80MHz crystal divided down to 40MHz; there are also 16MHz and 50MHz oscillators on the board which appear to be used for the PLD and bus logic. Likely for cost reasons there is no L2 cache, though another thing to keep in mind is — so I'm told — that for compatibility reasons with 68000 and 68010-era AMOS software it is not possible to enable the data cache (or at least not without substantial difficulty). In fact, we observed exactly this phenomenon when looking at the driver for the InterLink Dimension-030 CPU upgrade, which puts a 68030 in an AM-1000: it never set the data cache bit in the '030's CACR at all. Although some machines can accept an external L2 cache, including one we'll look at in detail, anything it would provide is strictly I-cache. but is functionally equivalent in AMOS. not). I have such an example later on. Other serial paddlecards can also be installed. The AM-314 provides only four serial ports, but is not merely a cut-down AM-318 — the AM-314 can also be configured for RS-422 (the AM-318 is strictly RS-232) and supports all RS-232 handshake lines (the AM-318 only RTS/CTS), and in certain configurations can trigger a remote reboot from a connected distant console by grounding pin 1 with pin 7. By contrast, the more exotic AM-338 provides an IBM Binary Synchronous Communication "Bisync" link, typically used for Remote Job Entry (RJE) or CICS connections with IBM mainframes, but could theoretically have also worked with some early point-to-point networks like BITNET. It connects to an AM-339 which provides the physical port. a future article. Notice how many of these PCBs say "Made in USA"! A different era. from my SGI Indigo^2 retrofit to see if it could sit on them. It did, so I sheathed them in electrical tape as a "bed," put the ZuluSCSI into initiator mode, connected the old hard disk and the ZuluSCSI to my copy rig, and left it to image the drive to the SD card. didn't change: the boot sequence wasn't starting. I freaked out, immediately powered it off, and checked everything inside that I'd touched to find I had not properly reconnected the CPU board's power connector. original. I dug up Rod's old E-mail to see if there were any clues in it and recalled what he'd said about the PLDs being dynamically reprogrammed on every startup — from the CPU board. I also knew from the service manual that the X-BUS cables, the only connection between the I/O board and the CPU board, had to be correctly connected or the service manual warned damage could result. A horrible theory stirred in my head: perhaps I had managed to accidentally corrupt the PLDs by effectively bringing up the I/O board without the CPU board, where the boot PROMs used to reprogram them are located. However, that also suggested a solution — there are many undocumented jumpers on the AM-319 and I wondered if one of them could be used to trigger a clean reset of the programmable logic. in a future article). He also had an interest in digital television, developing TSReader, a way to analyse the MPEG-2 transport streams commonly used for satellite, cable and IPTV transmissions. ZTERM and in particular TSReader became far and away his most popular software packages. However, a few years prior and unbeknownst to many, he had quietly entrusted a copy of the TSReader source code to a friend officially "just in case," and sold ZTERM to MicroSabio, a long-time Alpha Micro support company that maintains A-Shell, a way of running AlphaBASIC applications on modern operating systems. The reason became clear later — he was dying, and it was not treatable. The source code for TSReader was duly posted after his passing and remains today as his most popular legacy. Rest in peace, Rod, and thank you. Without Rod's guidance, though, there wasn't much more I could think of to do at that point. I unplugged it, pulled the clock battery and let it sit for a couple days to see if that was enough to reset the PLDs, assuming that was the actual problem, and it didn't. It still seemed like it should be repairable if I could only figure out how, but as there was little point in having it sit fruitlessly on the workbench I removed all the remaining cables from the system board and moved the machine to cold storage until I could come up with something else. In the meantime I turned to my alternative system to get ampm.floodgap.com back up and running, though to discuss it we need to bring the history forward some more. only in the E500: a junior-varsity 68040, which is what the E400 was, didn't have much appeal. Both the E200 and E400 were quietly dropped. For large installs that required substantial numbers of serial ports, the existing AM-319 board had to be expanded. The revised AM-319-20 board, providing four built-in serial and parallel ports with a UPS monitor port and a higher-performance DP83902 Ethernet NIC, still had two paddlecard slots, but these slots were widened to 60 pins and could now be part of a bus connected to an external chassis. Alpha Micro had long sold the AM-990, a large capacity case (in this image as used for the AM-4000, though I apologise I don't have a better image of it) and the AM-990 Jumbo, which was even larger. A new higher-performance serial card was developed to take advantage of the widened paddlecard slots, an optically-isolated eight-port card called the AM-359. Twelve AM-359s could be installed in the AM-990, yielding 96 ports when connected to a fan-out in one of the AM-319-20's paddlecard slots (the four on-board ones made an even hundred); the Jumbo could take another twelve AM-359s for another 96 ports connected to the second, a whopping total of 196 serial ports when combined with the base four. If you needed even more, the AM-3501 sidecar chassis could take you well beyond. There was no point in supporting the 68EC030 with such a monster: this new Eagle, officially the Eagle 550 Super Eagle, was 68040 or bust. that large, a Super Eagle in the standard case could support up to 60 ports, four on the AM-319-20 and then seven AM-359 cards in the usual position. The E550 Super Eagle additionally came as a separate upgrade kit for the E500 and the few E400s that sold, essentially a system board swap, though when sold as a turnkey system it was always with the 40/80MHz CPU. The E550 introduced a new Seiko timekeeper chip as well which not only maintained the time but also the "CMOS settings," the first Alpha Micro with an on-screen setup utility in ROM allowing boot configuration. Subsequently the company was tardy once again in adopting Motorola's newest 68K CPU, this time the superscalar 68060, which had come out in 1994 aimed squarely at the Intel Pentium but didn't reach Alpha Micro customers until mid-1997. This took two forms, a new 66MHz '060 Roadrunner upgrade option for the E550 Super Eagle and the AM-4000 (lesser Eagles need not apply), and a new AM-6000 large system. Interestingly, the AM-6000 is strongly based on the E550, reflected in its internal designation as the AM-3500-6000 making it a "stealth" Eagle. The '060 Roadrunner not only included the new CPU but also 64K of L2 cache, support for up to 256MB of RAM in four SIMM slots, and 68-pin Fast and Wide SCSI-2 using the NCR 53C770. along with E100s and a smattering of E500s and Super Eagles. However, it was not lost on company management that Motorola believed the 68000 family was fast approaching a performance wall. This was made most clear by their then-enthusiastic participation in the PowerPC AIM alliance, but also the rise of ColdFire, which Motorola had first announced in 1994 as well. ColdFire was in its own way Motorola's oblique admission that 68K was losing desktop competitiveness to x86, an attempt to scale the ISA down to embedded markets where its familiarity could be an asset. Approximately 20% of the instruction set such as BCD and certain addressing modes were eliminated, meaning the canonical ColdFire could not be fully binary-compatible with any extant 68K. On the other hand, such cuts enabled the core to execute nearly every remaining instruction in a single clock cycle, and the initial die was a miniscule 4.4mm² at 0.5μm, a third the size of Motorola's own 68300-series CPU32+. Some amount of this work was done by altering the microcode of the 68040V, a fully static 68LC040. Mindful that ColdFire's incompatibility might impair adoption, Motorola chose to create a bridge first-generation chip from this altered 68040V where omitted user mode instructions were left in, demonstrated on die photos. While the new chip had smaller 2K instruction and 1K data caches than the 68040V, and the MMU was also eliminated, this deviation from spec was still sufficient to run regular 68EC040 code at the user level. Motorola called this first-generation ColdFire chip the MCF5102, produced on a 0.6μm process, and introduced it in 1995 drawing 0.8W at 20MHz and reaching 33MHz. Clock-for-clock there was no way this chip could eclipse an '060, and the emerging "true" ColdFire 520x series couldn't run existing Alpha Micro software, but the MCF5102 was still faster than an '030 and nearly as fast as an '040 — in fact, we'll prove it. On top of that it was cheaper and AMOS didn't need the MMU anyway, making for a plausible mid-range machine that wouldn't imperil (much) sales of the E500 or E550. alt.sys.alpha-micro, though credit must be given to John F. G. Leighton, then Alpha Micro's VAR marketing manager, who chose to print the review unedited in marketing materials, even Rod's gentle complaints. Since this is the only E450 I have personally laid my hands on, we will be referring to his comments liberally as a point of comparison, and consequently the E450's history is probably the best documented of any 68K Eagle. It rolled out to users in October at the annual meeting in nearby Riverside, California. This particular system was a gift from someone who inherited it from an 9-1-1 emergency dispatch centre and wanted to find it a good home, another way that running an Alpha Micro-powered web server has paid off. I was able to quickly get into the system (if it's not clear by now, I love hacking into Alpha Micros) and reconfigure it, and it had lurked as the E300's work spare and a test unit since then. Like the E300 it has a bootable tape drive, but this time it's a more modern DDS/DAT. E450, and it claims not to have an SSD at all (untrue). As such, I'm not sure I can believe the stated manufacturing date of September 2002, and at least one date inside directly contradicts it. It's possible this was a case with a transplanted board. 1999 as prerequisites for the AM-370, an unidentified off-the-shelf 100Mbit PCI NIC that goes into the "slot" at J5. To access these PCI slots, that rear panel I pointed out needs to be removed. The AM-370's availability implies all shipping E450s should have had them by then — there was even an alleged board-swap program to do so. I've yet to find another one, so I don't know if that's true, but it would be interesting to find out because with this card or the OEM equivalent you would have two fully operational NICs and multihoming was reportedly supported. I also don't know what's going on with the unpopulated "option connector" at P5 to the right/east of the AT power connectors. other slots. The E450 is one of only a few Alpha Micro systems that can accept an optional external L2 cache, though as mentioned this cache is only enabled for instructions, and the form factor does not match any PC cache stick — in fact, it's the same as a 72-pin SIMM, so don't put the wrong one in the wrong place (Rod also objected to this). The only size supported is 64K, the same cache stick used for the AM-6000 and the '060 Roadrunner, part #PDB-00701-00. I've never seen this cache stick and comparison of his numbers with my cacheless E450 suggests it only yields around a fourteen percent boost, not nothing but not much, likely because it can't do anything for the data cache (though stand by for a very important observation on actual clock speed). The E450 also has two 72-pin SIMM slots, which need not be paired and support up to 256MB, though as with the earlier systems the machine needs to be jumpered to tell it how much is there. The tag on the one in J11 (service order 13009, apparently) is dated January 18, 2002: that makes this machine at least eight months older than its alleged manufacturing date, and to have received an upgrade suggests it's even older than that. Between the two sticks this system has 72MB of RAM. Below/south of the RAM SIMMs are the three paddlecard slots. Also in this image is another obvious non-populated area: a pin-grid array marked "PGA040" at U89 in the northeast/upper right hand corner. That sounds like somewhere the CPU would go, and the footprint looks like an '040. So where's the actual processor? fast is it doing it, though? While Rod's review stated his prerelease system was apparently running at 33MHz, the oscillator closest to the CPU can be seen clearly in this photograph, and it's ... 25MHz. There are no other crystals on the board except for the serial port one you saw earlier, the official marketing announcement has a board layout that also clearly labels this crystal as 25MHz, and nothing in the MCF5102 user's manual says the chip does anything tricky with the clock. As it happens, the only place in Alpha Micro documentation where the E450's CPU speed is given is Rod's review: everywhere else, even the data sheet, simply says it's a ColdFire and nothing more. Since mine is only 14% slower than his, and his had the cache, his can't possibly have been running at 33MHz either. The E450 is a 25MHz ColdFire, full stop. In a backwards way, however, this is nothing less than validation of how performant early ColdFires could be. Recall that our E300, a 40MHz 68EC030, had a "CX" computing index score on the SI.LIT benchmark of 36.9. The same benchmark on this E450 with a 25MHz MCF5102 gets a score of 59.9, and Rod's with 64K L2 came in at a whopping 68 (Alpha Micro said 68.5; either one is around 14% higher). By contrast, the E550 Super Eagle, with a full 40MHz ("80MHz") 68040 Roadrunner clocked 60% faster and 32K of L2 cache, officially gets ... 79.9 (note from the future: my figure is 83.6) — the full cached-up faster-clocked 68040's performance on the same code is only around 33-40% better, and just 16-22% or so if the E450 has its cache too. Put another way, the CX/MHz ratio of the faster 68040 was right around 2.0, while the CX/MHz ratio of the MCF5102 is 2.4 without the cache, and almost 2.75 with it. Likely because the lower clock speed would have looked bad in marketing materials, similar to why General Magic never mentioned the clock speed of the DataRover 840, Alpha Micro simply chose not to mention it either. Still, this machine's surprising efficiency proves ColdFire, at least early on, definitely had legs. I'm not sure how Rod got it wrong except that an earlier version may indeed have run that part, though with these numbers, if there had ever been a production 33MHz E450 it might have seriously endangered sales of Alpha Micro's remaining '040s — perhaps that's why they didn't use it even though the faster part existed. Best guess is that the AM-138 was originally designed for the 68040 and then quickly retrofitted for ColdFire, leaving the PGA region as an "R&D test point" (as documented). our prior entry, and he referred me to a longtime Alpha Micro vendor that they still partner with for existing installations. It took a few months, but this vendor was able to locate what appeared to be another E300 with working boards and we negotiated a price and getting it shipped. "everything console" connected to the top left port (G1) via the dongle at the typical speed of 19200bps. Good, it booted fine, we got a dot prompt, we can get into it, networking is already configured, and (as is typical for most Alpha Micro installations of the era) there is no password on the operator account. I powered it off and now that we know where the system thinks the console is, we'll get a proper self-test readout. I powered it back on with the reset button held in and the self-test came right up. The self-test can autosense the baud rate by mashing the spacebar when the front LED flashes "5b," and then the test runs, with the LED showing the current state and additional details sent to the serial port. ---------------- SYSTEM SELF-TEST ---------------- Version 2.1(120) Prom Rev. N00 for the AM-174 board. polling complete. Boot configuration: Processor - 68040 Memory detected - 32M bytes Primary serial ports - 4 SCSI Controller press [space] to bypass memory test MEMORY TEST passed - 32M bytes TIMER TEST passed SERIAL PORT TEST Primary serial ports - 4 Port # 0 passed Port # 1 passed Port # 2 passed Port # 3 passed SCSI Controller Controller Self-test passed SCSI drive Self-test passed Find diagnostic cylinder passed Write/read test passed 40?! This is not a Eagle 300! We need to open this thing up. didn't expect was the CPU board on the bottom: it's a full 68040, just like the test said. Bclk for the bus clock, and then a second exactly twice as fast labeled Pclk as the so-called processor clock. In the 68020 and 68030, which accept a single clock signal, their internal ALU runs at only half the bus speed such that the 40MHz 68EC030 in the Eagle 300 actually has an ALU running at just 20MHz. For the 68040 Motorola removed this limitation to run its ALU at full bus speed, but the chip designers also studied trace data to optimize for the most common instructions, implementing a 7-stage pipeline where most effective address calculations and fetches occur with no penalty. The upshot of this was to cut most instructions' cycle count in half or more. The 2x processor clock is truly used, but not to speed up the ALU, so it's wrong to say the 68040 is "double-clocked." In a two-part 1990 article in IEEE Micro, Motorola explains that "Pclk provides timing reference points within each Bclk period," employing it for synchronous sub-cycle timing, and furthermore explicitly states that "all internal operations cycle at the Bclk rate." Still, the fact this clock signal was present at all gave Apple an excuse to tout both timings for '040 Macintoshes, and Alpha Micro cheerfully reported just the faster one, even though the chip only appears to run at that comparative speed from its larger 4K L1 cache, unhindered ALU and reduced cycles per instruction. On this board, Pclk is provided by the same 80MHz crystal we saw on the AM-172, divided down by two to yield Bclk in the same way the 68EC030 board does for its single 40MHz clock. (For the E400's AM-174-00, this crystal would have been 66MHz divided down to 33MHz.) The single parity FPM SIMM slot and 16MHz and 50MHz oscillators are also present, as well as the same 53C710 SCSI controller, here a genuine NCR part. However, new for this board is 32K of L2 cache at the upper right/northeast corner, implemented with two IDT 71B74 8K cache-tag RAMs together providing 29 bits (512MB) of address comparison, and then four Cypress CY78C185 8K SRAMs for the cache itself. Remember, however, that in AMOS all cache is I-cache. Effectively this 40/80MHz AM-174 makes our new system a full Eagle 500, so why is it labeled as "only" an E300? I don't how how these systems originally shipped from the factory nor whether the E500 designation actually appeared on the back, but Alpha Micro did run a promotion in late 1997 where you could upgrade any Roadrunner '030 to a Roadrunner '040 by swapping the CPU board. My guess is this is one of those systems, and because that upgrade kit wouldn't have changed the plate on the back itself, the reseller simply noted it to be a working E300 and sold it to me as such. While that wasn't exactly what I was hoping for, it's a really nice bonus, as evidenced by the system benchmark (taken on the SCSI hard disk it shipped with): That score officially makes it the new fastest Alpha Micro in the shop by far (this is where that prior 83.6 number came from, compared to the E450's 59.9 and E300's 36.9). It seemed a shame to carve it up as spare parts, so let's have a little look around. A surprising thing about the system configuration file (SYS:AMOS32.INI, a/k/a AMOS32.INI[1,4]) is that only one terminal is actually defined, which makes you wonder what those two RJ-21s are doing. Best guess is that this machine passed through a couple hands and ended its prior service as a single user's toy, much as my own machines are now. In a related phenomenon an annoyingly small number of terminal types are defined, all inconvenient, likely to save memory. On the other hand, the full AlphaTCP suite (based on SpiderTCP and SpiderStreams, best known as the Windows NT TCP/IP stack before 3.5) is defined and present, and we saw it running before, so we ought to be able to make use of that. That's its IP address, and we saw Telnet was running (TCP:TELNED.LIT), but there's a snag: The TCP:CONFIG. file sets up TCPEMU, AlphaTCP's master daemon, acting as its service description file (really a sort of up-script). This line for the Telnet daemon causes an automatic log-on from a Telnet session and inconveniently forces the FWYCOL terminal type, intended for a real Wyse WY-370. That's also the terminal setting for the single serial port which our "everything console" doesn't speak, meaning I can't visually edit anything without making a big mess. Ironically, that AM-75 colour head my E300 uses is itself a modified WY-370, but no longer speaks that terminal emulation either. But we have another option! Now knowing its IP address, I set up a small wired network to my MacBook Air. Although some terminal programs like Kermit 95 can speak WY-370 over Telnet, using MacWise — now freeware and runs on Tiger and Power Macs all the way to Tahoe on Apple silicon — I managed to discover that its TeleVideo 925 emulation will partially match FWYCOL. This was just enough to, with some care, edit TCP:CONFIG. and remove all the defaults so that I could manually select the terminal type on Telnet login. I then reset the FTP user credentials in TCP:FTPUSR., uploaded a copy of ANSI.TDV from the Eagle 450, and changed the TDVDEF line in a test copy of SYS:AMOS32.INI to allow it as a terminal type, which at last got me a proper session. I'm not sure of this system's most recent owner and the seller didn't know either, but there were two interesting domains in its TCP:HOSTS. file (identical to /etc/hosts) for that IP address. One domain name belongs to someone who appears to have been a recording engineer (!). This domain still exists, but is only partially functional, so I've chosen not to link it here. The other domain name was for a personal genealogy site, now parked, and that site appeared to be what it was currently offering via the Web server on HTM:, mapped to PPN [7,77]. However, because the HTML files were not on an extended directory device, I can't tell when the site was created because the old AM file system doesn't preserve modification times: Looking up this domain in the Wayback Machine, it seems to have been active in the early 2000s. Still, not bad assuming it was still serving it then. differently on the AM-172 and AM-174s, so it seemed safer just to never separate them in the first place. I wasn't even going to move the SSD and hard disk — since TCP/IP networking was already set up on the E500, I could just upload the site to the E500's hard disk instead. Only the E300's power supply, serial port cards and Tandberg QIC streamer would stay. Once the new transplanted system was working, then I'd see about doing the ZuluSCSI upgrade again. It tried to boot. Startled, I powered it off, connected the everything console, and turned it back on with the reset button held in to force a self-test. Except for the missing hard disk, it passed the self-test — even the SCSI controller tested good. I decided to push my luck and connect the ZuluSCSI, and this time it did throw a 2d. I freaked out again, powered it off, let it sit and then gingerly turned it back on. It still did it. However, when I disconnected the ZuluSCSI, it went back to trying to boot, and a repeated self-test was still clean. This was clearly new behaviour — beforehand, it wouldn't do anything, not even enter the self-test, let alone attempt booting. Recall that error 2d had two mentions in the manual, the second one referencing the primary and secondary boot devices. Since the self-test said the SCSI controller was fine, this made me suspicious that there was something about the ZuluSCSI's configuration the machine didn't like. Knowing some systems can get finicky about sluggish devices immediately after power-up, I reconnected the ZuluSCSI and powered the E300 back on. Code 2d duly appeared, but this time instead of turning it off, I hit the reset button just to see what it would do. SI.LIT had actually dropped to around 10, which was 33% slower than its original hard disk. .scsi Dispatched SCSI port: SCSI id 7: (reserved) SCSI bus host adaptor SCSI id 6: No device or unable to report SCSI id 5: No device or unable to report SCSI id 4: No device or unable to report SCSI id 3: SCSI-2 (tape) TANDBERG TDC 4200 =08:01CREATED12119 SCSI id 2: No device or unable to report SCSI id 1: No device or unable to report SCSI id 0: SCSI-2 (disk) ZULUSCSIHARDDRIVE 2.3BZuluSCSI .si dsk0: SI--AMOS System Information, (C) Copyright 1990, Alpha Microsystems Inc. Version 3.0(114) Computer Type: Eagle Main Processor: 68030 Co-Processor: None MMU present: Yes Operating System: AMOS 2.3A(484) Boot PROM revision: M00 Number of SSDs: 1 Total Memory: 16384 K-bytes Resident Monitor Memory: 6218 K-bytes Computing Index (CX), relative to AM-100: 36.8 48 bit FP Index (4X), relative to AM-100: 36.3 Floating Point Index (FX), relative to AM-100/L: 5.6 Disk Index (DX), relative to ST-506: 41.2 .si dsk0: SI--AMOS System Information, (C) Copyright 1990, Alpha Microsystems Inc. Version 3.0(114) Computer Type: Eagle Main Processor: 68030 Co-Processor: None MMU present: Yes Operating System: AMOS 2.3A(484) Boot PROM revision: M00 Number of SSDs: 1 Total Memory: 16384 K-bytes Resident Monitor Memory: 6218 K-bytes Computing Index (CX), relative to AM-100: 36.9 48 bit FP Index (4X), relative to AM-100: 36.3 Floating Point Index (FX), relative to AM-100/L: 5.6 Disk Index (DX), relative to ST-506: 100.4 six times faster than the original hard disk). There's no obvious caching in the Blaster's firmware that I could see, and although the AMOS system-wide disk cache was on, the test is supposed to be unaffected by OS-level caching. On the other hand, when I rebooted AMOS from software, its score went back to 41 and 100 thereafter. More on this phenomenon later. Termination power was sufficient to power the Blaster. But what the Blaster didn't fix, even with its later firmware, was the 2d code the E300 kept throwing from a cold start. Although booting after a manual reset was still fine, it refused to start after a power cycle without assistance, which I need it to be able to do if there's a power outage when I'm not around. .ini file, but since the issue appeared to be what the E300 thought was the secondary device and I knew the streamer was connected and working, I had a look at the back boot DIP switches first. The previous setting was #1 and #3 on, which would attempt a boot from the (non-existent) floppy drive first, and then try the SCSI hard disk. This had always worked before, but we have no floppy drive and I'm not likely to find an AM-219 anytime soon, so I tried the other boot position where it attempts a boot from the streamer first — again, known good electronics — by switching #4 on. And that worked: now it boots reliably. The conversion is complete. So, with the E300 resurrected and finally successfully converted to solid state, let's really push our luck here ... by doing the same with the others! (I should note I excluded the E100s this time around; I haven't found a special task or physical location for them yet.) SI.LIT disk score of 30.9. For this system I bought a ZuluSCSI Wide, which tops out at 34 MB/s read and 15 MB/s write, and which I already use in my Apple Network Servers with a similar NCR 53C825A. .scsi Dispatched SCSI port: SCSI id 15: No device or unable to report SCSI id 14: No device or unable to report SCSI id 13: No device or unable to report SCSI id 12: No device or unable to report SCSI id 11: No device or unable to report SCSI id 10: No device or unable to report SCSI id 9: No device or unable to report SCSI id 8: No device or unable to report SCSI id 7: (reserved) SCSI bus host adaptor SCSI id 6: No device or unable to report SCSI id 5: No device or unable to report SCSI id 4: No device or unable to report SCSI id 3: No device or unable to report SCSI id 2: SCSI-2 (tape) HP C1533A A907 9 SCSI id 1: No device or unable to report SCSI id 0: SCSI-2 (disk) ZULUSCSIHARDDRIVE 2.3WZuluSCSI .si dsk0: SI--AMOS System Information, (C) Copyright 1990, Alpha Microsystems Inc. Version 3.0(114) Computer Type: Eagle Main Processor: 68040 Co-Processor: None MMU present: Yes Operating System: AMOS 2.3A(484)-15 Boot PROM revision: D00 Number of SSDs: 1 Total Memory: 73728 K-bytes Resident Monitor Memory: 4366 K-bytes Computing Index (CX), relative to AM-100: 59.9 48 bit FP Index (4X), relative to AM-100: 58.2 Floating Point Index (FX), relative to AM-100/L: 7.9 Disk Index (DX), relative to ST-506: 51.0 .si dsk0: [...] Disk Index (DX), relative to ST-506: 52.2 . the last Alpha Micro article we booted our AM-1200 desktop system using a BlueSCSI attached to its external 50-pin Centronics-style SASI port, which with some tweaks to the settings file can be made compatible enough for its very old bus. But I'd like to use that device for other things, so we'll put the old ZuluSCSI card — more than fast enough for this thing — inside. To avoid me having to dismantle it every time I want to switch the disk image, I disconnected one of its unused serial ports and threaded a USB cable there. SUB0:. It's as fast as the BlueSCSI was, probably because both devices can easily saturate its slow SASI bus: AMOS 1.4 misdetects its 68010 as a 68000 (AMOS 2.3A detects the CPU correctly), but like the E450, there was no second test bump either. "everything console." I should point out that the E500 has a slightly later version of AMOS than the E300 and E450 and we get a little more explanation with the bus readout: While all three systems support synchronous SCSI, this version of AMOS actually reports it, along with the width (8-bit, because it's only Fast SCSI, not Wide). Now, what about performance? The ST32272N we replaced is a 7200rpm drive while the ST310151N in the E300 was only 5400rpm, thus accounting for the E500's better baseline disk score, and the E500's faster CPU probably explains its slightly higher first-run result of 46.3. But the second run is even more lopsided than what we saw with the E300, a massive 180.7. Since two of the systems were doing it, it was time to dig in a little more. The ZuluSCSI Blaster has a debug mode switch which echoes status and current operation to a connected machine over USB serial at 115200bps, so I hooked up both the E500's serial console and the USB port of the Blaster simultaneously to the MacBook Air to watch what SCSI operations occurred during the benchmark test. very unusual: there wasn't any. In fact, even though the baseline score had sunk down to a dismal 10 or so because of all the debugging data it was emitting, the second run was still a blistering 180.7. This really sounded like operating system caching, but except for the AM-1200 where I wasn't running it to save memory, the other three systems were running the standard disk cache as virtually any performance Alpha Micro would — and allegedly SI.LIT should be unswayed by it. For some reason the E450's cache configuration wasn't locking UFDs (user file directories, i.e., PPNs), but turning that off on the E500 and E300 didn't make a difference, and all three were caching everything else including the MFD (master file directory). However, when I turned off caching altogether at runtime (using the CACHE.LIT tool and disabling with OFF), though the scores got really low, they were now consistent from run to run. Do note our observation isn't enough to fully explain the E450, which also runs the OS disk cache, but didn't have a second run bump. If you disable the cache on the E450, although its overall score declines, it still remains consistent from run to run. One possibility is that the driver for its later SCSI controller just isn't as aggressive. Although the overall issue certainly calls into question how useful SI.LIT is as a disk benchmark, despite being likely the only Alpha Micro benchmark tool you can expect most recent systems to come with, the question then becomes how comparative disk performance on an Alpha Micro should be measured. Was it still fine for me to continue with my usual practice of leaving the cache on and testing immediately after boot? It's probable that there'd be little in the cache by that point, whatever would be there would likely be similar from system to system (assuming the same version of the operating system), and likelier still that whatever was present in the cache wouldn't be very germane to SI.LIT. Under my current knowledge of AMOS I think these numbers are still broadly comparable; I just have to keep in mind that the score on subsequent runs is likely to be bogus. precisely even with our E450 here). The E100 was discontinued shortly afterwards in 2001. SI.LIT CX score of 816 (!) on dual Athlon 2800+ CPUs. Later AM-113 SuperFalcons were just serial ports and a socket for the SSD; the main system was now more than suitable to service them, and Motorola wasn't making any more 5102 CPUs either. The Eagle 800 that same year ran the same technology in miniature, bringing the great experiment to a close with the discontinuation of the last E250 and E450 systems, and today's systems sold by the reformulated Alpha Microsystems LLC use the same x86-based architecture. Over their production lifetime, analysis of known serial numbers suggests around ten thousand 68K Eagles were ultimately sold, and now I've got five of them. Rest in peace, Rod. They're still great machines.

17 hours ago • 1 votes
from plesiochronous to synchronous

Up until the 1960s, telephone calls were carried as analog signals. There was a great deal of frequency division multiplexing onto open wire, and sometimes coaxial cables, but in the post-war period buried multipair telephone cables began to dominate. While the network was surprisingly functional—long distance calls from coast to coast were still quite intelligible—there were fundamental limitations to analog carriers. The quality of the call would degrade with each step, a problem that was much more acute for the sensitive digital connections that were already the apparent future of the telephone system. These were digital signals modulated over the top of telephone lines: the telephone system itself still handled them as analog calls, just ones that required special care for quality. During the Second World War, it became apparent that many of the long distance network's challenges could be greatly simplified by using digital signaling as the basis of the entire long distance system. In 1943, Bell Labs contributed to the design of an early encrypted voice communications system called SIGSALY. Unlike the "voice scramblers" and other analog techniques of the early phase of the war, SIGSALY was recognizably similar to modern encryption. The voice data was quantized into numerical values, so that digital arithmetic could be used to encode it. In the quest to build a cryptosystem for voice, Bell Labs incidentally built the first applied system for PCM digital voice transmission. After the war, it was an obvious next step to refine this technology and apply it to regular service. This didn't necessarily mean direct digital service, at least not at first: most subscriber loops remain analog to the present day. For the first years of the digital network, even the exchanges themselves switched purely analog signals. Between offices, though, encoding the analog channels into digital ones solved problems from audio quality, to microwave path overloading, to flexibility in traffic routing. Digitization became a core part of AT&T's concept of a carrier, just like frequency division multiplexing had in the 1920s. That's the background to the 1962 introduction of T-carrier, the first digital carrier in the commercial telephone system. The Digital Hierarchy Back in the article on T-carrier (which you should read if you are at all interested in this topic!), I explained that T1, T2, T3, etc. are hierarchically larger-bandwidth connections that carry the DS1, DS2, DS3, etc. digital signals respectively. Let's quickly review this hierarchical concept and, just to keep things interesting, add the further confusion of the D1 channel bank. A D1 channel bank is the physical piece of equipment that digitizes 24 voice channels and multiplexes them into a DS1 signal, which will be carried over T1 carrier. Similarly, four DS1 signals can be combined into a DS2 signal and carried over T2. Seven DS2 signals can be combined into a single DS3 signal and carried over T3. And so on, at least as far as they were able to get with the technology of the time. The DS2 level maps generally to the D2 channel bank, but that relationship can be confusing as the subsequently developed channel banks added features as well as capacity. The D2 channel bank could multiplex 96 channels onto a DS2 signal, but it also increased the overall quality of the audio channel to meet the technical requirements for general mixed toll service (the D1 had originally only been approved for conventional voice channels, not other applications like data-grade leased lines). In order to make that improvement, the D2 had to reduce the amount of quantization noise introduced into the signal. The D1 channel bank had used PCM audio with seven bits per sample, and calculations showed that eight bits per sample would be required for a toll-grade connection 1. In a way, that looked easy: DS1 already used 8-bit units. But the eighth bit, not used as part of the PCM sample, was reserved for signaling purposes. No bother: the D1 channel bank hadn't really used the full signaling bandwidth anyway, so it could comfortably be reduced to meet a compromise position. The D2 channel bank used 8 bits for most PCM samples, but every six frames the last bit of each sample was reserved for signaling use rather than audio. This created a slight increase in quantization noise, and a significant decrease in signaling rate, but the resulting numbers for both fell within acceptable margins. A perfect compromise, but one that feels technically inelegant: in a sense, the D2 channel bank used 7.833 bits per sample. Ouch. This must have given the Bell System's engineers similar discomfort, but the aesthetic offense was worth it for backwards-compatibility. By the time the D2 channel bank was fielded in 1970, there were a huge number of D1 channel banks and T1 connections in service. Backwards-compatibility to existing T1 lines was a firm requirement. The D2 multiplexed 96 channels, four times a D1, and could carry those channels over four T1 links—in fact, initially, this was only the option. T2 and subsequent carriers were not fielded until after the D2. This backwards compatibility provided an upgrade path, as well as a way to subdivide the 96-channel capacity. You might realize that it is also a completely alternate explanation of the "hierarchy." You might wonder why the multipliers at the levels of the hierarchy are so inconsistent—24, 4, 7, 6. Reading the thing about signaling bits in every six samples above might have stirred deep memories of a concept called "robbed-bit signaling," a general concept of stealing occasional bits for other purposes that was widely used with T1. These are all smells, indications that a system was not architected, but grown. The "digital hierarchy" of T1, T2, T3, etc. is not some elegantly-designed system, at least not nearly as much as T4-era Bell Laboratories Record articles like to make it sound. It's mostly a result of happenstance, as the history of the Dn channel banks shows: each new channel bank, the D3, the D4, was designed to carry many more channels than those before. They were also required to be backwards-compatible with the use of the older channel banks and carriers. This process of exponential improvement with backwards compatibility led to the digital hierarchy as a natural consequence, not as a designed outcome. Plesiochronicity This emergent concept of layers of successively larger muxes explains the digital hierarchy, but we now need to consider the problem of timing and synchronization. In any system based on digital sampling, you have to be aware at the point at which those samples are taken in order to combine multiple signals. Consider the scenario where several simultaneous phone calls are being combined into a single digital mux for transmission. When the phone calls reach a D1 (or D2, D3, etc) channel bank, it samples all of the inputs at an appropriate time to build its DS1 (or higher) output stream. Nothing about this case is particularly complicated, except that it does require that all of the calls involved in the digital stream are sampled under the control of the same clock. But what about cases where lines need to be digitized in different locations? Say you have two smaller offices in a city, that need to deliver inter-office traffic to a tandem in the next city over. An obvious approach would be to digitize the calls in each of their local offices, send them as digital signals to one of the offices (perhaps the city's main downtown exchange), and then combine all of those digital signals together to be sent to the tandem switch. Doing this with channel banks wasn't very desirable: you would actually need to convert the calls back to analog, and then back to digital, in order to relay them from the first digital leg to the second. The first digital telephone leads were like this: completely point-to-point, without the possibility of switching or routing in the digital realm. That wasn't so big of a limitation early on when all of the switches were analog and digital leads just made the lines between them denser, but it prevented the construction of the fully digital network that Bell Labs envisioned. What was clearly needed was some sort of mux that could take four DS1s, already in that form, and combine them into a DS2. Repeat this for the higher levels as well, and you have the basis of a system that can combine and separate traffic as needed to meet the level of demand between various offices. But what about the sample timing? If you have four DS1 streams from four different places, at least back in the 1970s, they are not going to be synchronized. The four D1 channel banks would each be operating on their own sample clocks, and because of the imperfection of the physical world some of these clocks would run slightly faster or slower than others. When our four DS1 streams arrived at our notional multiplexer, the four streams would be not only out of phase, they would actually run at slightly different speeds. We can imagine a lot of modern solutions to this problem, probably by buffering relatively large blocks of samples in memory and then transmitting out of that buffer. In the '70s, things weren't so simple: first, memory was expensive and slow compared to the bitrates involved, and second, the latency involved in such extensive buffering was not considered acceptable in a network that had previously been all-analog and thus had no more latency than that implied by the speed of light. The solution to this problem, the Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy or PDH, is not easy to understand from our contemporary perspective. Many textbooks on networking and communications make some nod to PDH, but it's often short and cursory, and leaves you with a nagging feeling that the whole thing doesn't make much sense. PDH is hard to relate to for two reasons: first, it was developed to solve a set of problems that (due to broader technical advancements) we no longer have. Second, even within those constraints, it is a solution that has been obsoleted by newer approaches. PDH is not something that anyone would design today, and in retrospect, it's probably best to think of it as a hack. PDH was an interim measure, if you will, that bridged a gap between the development of digital channel banks and the later development of a good approach to synchronizing a digital network. It would have been more convenient if those two systems had been designed at the same time, but in practice, they weren't: digital long distance lines were in common use a solid decade before AT&T had a reasonable architecture for a digital network. You can already see that they were thinking through these requirements in the late 1960s, leading to the concept of the PDH as a hierarchical network architecture, but most of the actual technology to provide that network was built later, in the '70s and '80s. For a while, there was just, you know, something that worked. A duct tape fix. Conceptual bailing wire. So what even was the PDH? It is helpful to start by defining the word "plesiochronous," which every textbook has to do since the term was invented by Bell Labs to describe their design. I will spare the roots, but plesiochronous means "almost synchronized" or "approximately synchronized." And that's what the PDH was: it was a synchronous digital system with some slop. There was a little wiggle room. A DS1 signal is 1.544 Mbps, so if you multiplex four of them, you might expect 6.176 Mbps. You would be wrong: a DS2 is actually 6.312 Mbps. The overhead here comes from the plesio part of plesiochronous. To understand how that works, we should look at the design of the multiplexer from the beginning. AT&T practice would call a multiplexer from the DS1 level to the DS2 level an M12, for, well, multiplexer from 1 to 2. In practice M13s seem to have been more common equipment, which were often implemented internally as seven M12s feeding one M23. In any case, the M12 takes in four different DS1 streams and then bit-interleaves them, such that every 4th bit of the output is the next bit from one of the inputs. This is simple to reason about and has the advantage that virtually no buffering ever happens. But what if one of the inputs is running slightly fast, and another slightly slow? The first thing to know is that the output stream is intentionally slightly faster than all of the inputs. A typical PDH system allowed a 50 PPM plus or minus variation in the rate of the inputs, which means that the output had to be at least 50 PPM fast relative to the sum of the inputs. That way, the multiplexer will never "fall behind" because an input is providing bits faster than the output can interleave them. The other thing to know is that the multiplexer must perform a function known as either stuffing or justification. It is said that the term justification was introduced within AT&T because it sounded more technical, while stuffing was more popular with the actual engineers. Certain parts of each outgoing frame are defined (by standard) as stuffable, and they're sometimes called gaps. These are sections where the multiplexer is allowed to either include real data, or to include some nonsense data called stuffing bits (or, if you want to sound more technical, justification bits). By choosing to either include real data or stuffing in the gaps, the multiplexer can actually adjust the "real" output data rate up or down. That way, it converges onto the correct average (the sum of the inputs) despite the "timing noise" of the inputs varying slightly up and down in real speed. If that didn't make sense to you, here's a different way to think about the same thing: we can imagine the DS2 output frame as consisting of four "slots" into which the four DS1 input frames are inserted (this isn't quite intuitive because they are interleaved bit-by-bit, but the math works out the same). Under the PDH design, these slots are all slightly wider than the input frames, so that there is "free space" for the input frames to be shifted a bit in either direction or stretched out. That allows the multiplexer to "catch up" on a fast input or to "draw out" the frames from a slow input. Thinking about it in terms of a wide slot that you can place the input into as desired also gives more value to the term "justification:" you can shift bits around, or add extra space in between them, just like you would to justify text. The actual implementation of this idea is pretty complicated, because the demultiplexer on the other end needs to know which bits were stuffed so that they can be discarded. That's why PDH specified gaps at fixed positions: the control signaling included a set of flags that indicated whether the fixed gaps were used for data or stuffing. When the multiplexer decided whether or not to use a stuffable bit (based on whether or not the input was getting ahead of the output mux), it also had to store that decision for the end of the frame so that the flag could be set correctly. PDH wasn't an elegant solution, but it was a solution, and multiplexers were designed up to the DS4 level based on the PDH approach. We all owe PDH a huge thanks for providing the clunky stopgap that allowed the construction of a nationwide digital telephone network. That said, well, it had quite a few downsides. First, PDH was never all that well standardized. Researching PDH is tricky because there aren't a lot of documents that provide conclusive detail about the actual implementation in the US, mostly just summaries, conceptual sketches, and examples from Europe. As far as I can tell 2, Western Electric never really offered a standalone PDH multiplexer. Larger integrated systems from Western Electric (like, say, a microwave carrier equipment bay) might include a PDH multiplexer, but it's not clear to me if WE even made them—the advertisements and pricing information I can find for PDH multiplexers are from other vendors like Farinon and NEC. In North American practice, it doesn't seem like PDH was ever robustly standardized, and there were implementation differences between equipment from different manufacturers. That's probably one of the reasons for the scarcity of information on PDH equipment: you wouldn't usually buy a single PDH multiplexer, but instead would specify a specific model as part of a larger system. That meant that the PDH network was far less flexible than AT&T had hoped. The problem was even bigger when you looked overseas: AT&T tended to field the best thing that Bell Labs and Western Electric could come up with, and then promulgate that as a standard later on. The European telcos tended not to adopt new American developments until they were mature, giving them the opportunity to make standards before any equipment was in place. Thus the European versions of US telephone carriers are often a bit better, and PDH is no exception. In fact, the US, Europe, and Japan used three different hierarchies for PDH signaling. The European standard put more channels into a stream (the "E1" at about 2 Mbps), and used a consistent multiplier of 4 for each level. European PDH practices even got a complete published standard from CCITT. The Japanese system used the same DS1 standard as the US but with different multipliers (4, 5, 3, 4 instead of 4, 7, 6). PDH could thus not be used for international calling without completely remuxing everything. Another shortcoming of PDH had to do with that remuxing. The decision to bit-interleave the input frames together, stuff some bits, and then put flags on the bit stuffing into the interleaved stream, meant that a PDH multiplexer effectively "scrambled" the input streams. If you had, say, a DS3 stream and wanted to extract a single voice channel from it, you had a lot of work in front of you. It simply wasn't feasible with the electronics of the era to analyze the stream to determine the interleaving and stuffing bits at each level. Instead, you would have to put the DS3 through demuxers all the way back down to the bottom of the hierarchy, pull out the channel you wanted, and then remux it all the way back up. Pulling a single channel out of a DS3 could require two 11.5 foot tall equipment bays, and even further quantization noise due to the nature of the robbed bit scheme. Two things happened that pushed PDH to its limit: first, fiber optics. AT&T was famously a late adopter of fiber, and 1970s documents on the digital hierarchy talked about conveying it over T-carrier, microwave, and coaxial. We have talked about coaxial before, but L-carrier was an analog system. Digital coaxial did emerge as the T3, T4, and T5 carriers, but these were relatively short range and mostly only saw use on shorter inter-office links. Things were changing, though: by the time DS3 equipment was appearing in telephone exchanges, competitors were already evaluating fiber optics. AT&T dipped their toe in the water in 1976, with an experimental DS3 fiber optic link in Atlanta. The next year, both AT&T and competitor GTE had DS3 fiber lines in service (in Chicago and the LA area, respectively). Outside manufacturers started offering T1-over-fiber equipment around 1980, and in 1983 AT&T had a multimode fiber system stretching from New York to Washington. Sparing the (fascinating) story of the business and competitive factors, the writing was on the wall: fiber was the future of long lines. AT&T engineers realized that the PDH design did not scale well to the enormous capacities that fiber could reach, and even worse, that complex fiber networks would require exactly the capability that PDH lacked: extracting single channels from the mux. Besides, despite the systems in use, there really wasn't any standard for conveying PDH signals over fiber, which only meant more compatibility issues. Something else was coming over the horizon in 1983: divestiture. The complete reorganization of AT&T in the mid-1980s, breaking the Baby Bells up into independent companies, made the interoperability problems with PDH much more severe. Bell operating companies (BOCs) would need to easily exchange traffic with both AT&T Long Lines and, eventually, with other BOCs and competitive phone companies and long distance carriers. That was very difficult when that traffic was mostly conveyed in loosely-standardized black-box muxes. Many aspects of US telephony were loosely standardized prior to the Bell System breakup because AT&T ran the entire network and didn't really need to cooperate with others. After 1984, the US became a lot more like Europe: for technology to be widely adopted, it would need to have a well-defined, published standard. That meant a standards body—the part of AT&T that had formerly published the practices used by all of the BOCs, after divestiture, became an independent company called Bellcore. Bellcore had an immediate goal of developing a fully standardized set of digital interfaces to be used between telephone companies. At the same time, a group of carriers and equipment manufacturers organized an association to start an ANSI standards process for fiber-optic equipment. They had a goal of an industry standard for high-speed digital fiber optics, so that terminal equipment from different manufacturers could be used together. That effort formed the ANSI T1X1 working group, titled Digital Hierarchy and Synchronization. In 1985, Bellcore proposed their draft standard to the T1X1 committee: they called it SONET. Synchronicity First, I will briefly explain some context for my global readers. One of the shortcomings of PDH was its lack of international standardization, and SONET would not make the same mistake. Shortly after SONET was proposed to ANSI, it was also proposed to CCITT. For historic reasons, and despite the fact that they are largely identical, SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) is a North American standard while the European standard is called SDH, for Synchronous Digital Hierarchy. I will stick to the term SONET because it is catchier, but the name SDH better conveys that SONET is essentially the same idea as PDH but it's actually synchronous. Beyond that, it is also more feature-rich and much better standardized. SONET starts out higher up in the digital hierarchy. The "lowest" SONET level is Synchronous Transport Signal 1, or STS-1, which is typically transported by Optical Carrier 1, or OC-1. OC-1 operates at 51.84 Mbps, sufficient to carry a PDH DS3 channel with signaling overhead. By this point in telecommunications history, channel banks had improved and 50 Mbps wasn't what it once was, so DS3 was a good choice for the basic unit of a high-capacity transport system. This also provided critical backwards compatibility: DS3 was the most widely deployed PDH signal, so by accommodating a DS3 within an STS-1, SONET provided an easy route to tunneling legacy PDH links through a SONET replacement. I put a lot of time into writing this, and I hope that you enjoy reading it. If you can spare a few dollars, consider supporting me on ko-fi. You'll receive an occasional extra, subscribers-only post, and defray the costs of providing artisanal, hand-built world wide web directly from Albuquerque, New Mexico. By this time, the Digital Hierarchy principle from PDH was well established, so SONET follows the exact same pattern—but, fortunately, the naming convention improved. OC-3 is three times the bandwidth of OC-1, OC-12 is twelve times the bandwidth of OC-1, and so on, with OC-24, OC-48, OC-192, and even OC-768 in common use, the latter achieving over 38 Gbps of payload. SONET is complex compared to what you might expect, or at least different. A SONET frame does not consist of a header and a body. Instead, like with PDH, all of the data is interleaved together in a way that feels messy. In an STS-1 signal, for example, a frame consists of three bytes of protocol overhead and 87 bytes of payload, making up a 90 byte pattern that is repeated nine times to make up an 810 byte frame. Higher levels use larger frames but keep the same structure, effectively mixing the header into each frame. Like PDH's bitwise interleaving, this is done to manage latency: interleaving the header with the payload avoids the need to buffer an entire frame of data at any point. Because of this design decision, SONET can provide a latency that is less than the frame time. This description also oversimplifies by discussing only one part of SONET's protocol overhead. There are actually several layers of overhead, all interleaved together, that serve different purposes. The "lowest layer" overhead is recreated at each regenerator along the route (devices that decode and then reencode the optical signaling to compensate for path loss), while higher layers are only processed by terminal equipment and are used for purposes like connection quality monitoring. These types of overhead are important because, unlike PDH, SONET provides a specification for the entire physical infrastructure. SONET is virtually always used with one of a few standard architectures, each of which are designed to provide redundancy. SONET uses unidirectional signaling on the fiber, so any SONET link will have two fibers normally active, one for each direction. Where things vary are the approach to redundancy: in a linear route with automatic protection, there are two "spare" fibers. When terminal equipment detects (via monitoring protocol overhead signaling) that the connection quality is no longer good on the primary pair of fibers, it will switch automatically to the secondary pair. Particularly common with SONET though, and particularly distinctive, are rings. A unidirectional ring uses two fibers, one for each direction, but each of those fibers goes in a circle and returns to the origin point. At the origin point, each frame is transmitted both directions into the ring. The terminals elsewhere on the ring compare the two copies that they received, one from each direction, and use the better of the two. This provides protection against damage to one of the fibers: terminals that are "downstream" from a broken fiber should still be able to receive the frames that went the other way around. A downside to this protection method is that it is inefficient: sending every frame twice means that two fibers are still providing a theoretical maximum bandwidth equal to the capacity of a single fiber. Bidirectional rings use a more complicated monitoring scheme to detect when frames are lost, so that they do not need to preemptively send them twice. A broken fiber will be detected and, depending on the ring, either sent the other way around or sent on a second redundant fiber allocated to the same direction. SONET's ring architecture is one of its most interesting properties. Unidirectional rings are often used as the "last mile" component of a SONET network. Consider, for example, a large business in the early days of the internet. If you wanted 100 Mbps internet connectivity, one of your best options was to purchase SONET service from the telephone company. They would take an existing ring, starting and ending with a telephone exchange, and figure out how to add your premises somewhere along it. The ring shape allowed redundancy with a relatively efficient use of fiber length. Bidirectional rings, with their greater complexity but greater efficiency, were usually used between telephone exchanges where there was adequate room for more complex terminal equipment. The ring topology also illustrates the biggest advantage of SONET over PDH. Unlike PDH, SONET hierarchy levels keep overhead and frame data in the same position, with consistent offsets to the framing data necessary to find an individual channel. That means that it is practical to inspect a high-rate SONET link, find a specific channel, and pull out those bits. You can even find where a channel is located and then overwrite just those bits, inserting data into the stream. This pattern is called "add-drop multiplexing," because the multiplexer usually adds some channels and drops others. Let's work a concrete example. Many years ago, I was an intern at a General Electric plant in Virginia. Although the facility's main internet connectivity had since been upgraded, SONET service was still active for redundancy and for a legacy TDM PABX. In an equipment room, the telco-owned add-drop multiplexer sat in a rack with the fiber enclosures where the building was actually spliced into the ring. The multiplexer was the customer premises equipment, and our Cisco router was connected by OC fiber to the multiplexer's "low speed" side while its "high speed" side had two connections, one each way, to our "neighbors" on the ring. The telco had left a diagram taped to the rack that made this material: one pair of fibers went to the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, the other went to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. There must have been some interesting traffic on that ring! The multiplexer found the time slots in the SONET ring that were assigned to us, "dropped" them and sent those bits out on the low-speed side, and then received bits on the low-speed side that were "added" back into the same time slots. Each of the organizations along the ring did the same thing with their own channels. The fact that the SONET ring had to "pass through" each of its users was a material downside, since a failure of an add-drop multiplexer at one customer could cause service disruptions for others. That's why the multiplexer was telco property, and further why SONET rings were always deployed with some type of automatic protection and redundancy. Ultimately, though, a telephone company technician still showed up at the security desk from time to time, needing to perform maintenance or repairs on the SONET equipment. The ability to perform add-drop multiplexing at any point on a SONET link also enabled digital cross-connects. This, finally, was the original dream of the nationwide digital network: by pairing two add-drop multiplexers together, you can switch channels from one SONET line onto another, completely digitally and with almost no latency. Paired with a management protocol called Transaction language 1 (TL1) for remote reconfiguration, digital cross connects make the long distance network vastly more flexible. Big chunks of long distance traffic could be instantly rerouted, and consolidated onto major routes or spread across more minor ones. Now, you might wonder, what happened to the whole synchronization problem? The most obvious difference between PDH and SONET is that PDH is plesiochronous while SONET is synchronous. SONET requires that all of the terminals, at least within a given interconnected network, operate in synchronization. That's exactly the requirement that PDH rejected. What changed is the state of the art in timing and synchronization. A few things came together to obsolete the need for plesiochronous technology. One was the introduction of the Bell System Reference Frequency: to coordinate both analog and digital systems that were timing-sensitive, AT&T introduced a nationwide time synchronization system. By the 1980s, the 2048 kHz Bell System Reference Frequency was distributed to nearly all telephone facilities over the long distance infrastructure. Various time code systems followed. During the same period, GPS was coming online, and GPS receivers became a relatively inexpensive source of precise time. Most terminals on a SONET ring got their timing from the ring: they just followed the signal and added or dropped channels at the appropriate time. A "master" terminal, typically at the telephone exchange, had to maintain that beat. In the early days, it would likely derive its clock either from an atomic clock in the office or via a reference signal coming from another office. In the later days of SONET, the time source was more likely to be a "BITS" or Building Integrated Timing Supply. BITS are basically time servers for telephone offices, typically using a GPS receiver as their discipline source and transmitting a few different types of TDM time codes to whatever devices needed them. Despite all of these measures, it's interesting that SONET still cheats. There is a bit of wiggle room. Part of the SONET protocol overhead is a pointer that indicates the offset within the frame that the payload frame actually starts. SONET devices can thus start the payload a little bit late in a SONET frame, providing an opportunity to fix timing errors. This capability means that SONET is still an option even in plesiochronous environments, which eased the fairly rapid transition from PDH to SONET. SONET in Use SONET is fast enough to survive into the modern era, although it is now decidedly legacy. 38 Gbps is nothing to sneeze at, and still compares favorably with a lot of common long distance connections. Where SONET shows its age is in the actual network payload. What do you actually put on a SONET ring? Well, of course, you can fit a whole lot of 64 Kbps telephone channels onto any of the SONET tiers. You can do that using a "raw" T1 signal or via ISDN, which uses the same basic fiber signals but better standardizes telephone signaling (e.g. off hook status) and interoperability. But even an OC-1 has 672 channels, more phone calls than just about anyone needs to make. In the 1980s, the driver for commercial SONET service was data. SONET itself is incredibly protocol neutral—one of the reasons for its unusual framing structure is that it is agnostic to the size, rate, and timing of the frames of the next layer protocol. SONET basically treats all connections as opaque serial streams, so conceptually, you can put just about anything over it. Because SONET evolved during the same period as ISDN, the two are closely related. During the late '80s, as SONET was being deployed, the "Broadband ISDN" initiative created Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM). ATM is a virtual circuit switching protocol that multiplexes a large number of small, fixed-size packets (called cells) over high-speed connections like SONET. ATM was, at one time, a serious contender for the dominant protocol in wide area networks. That didn't come to be, though, and IP took over—but not before ATM was well-enough established to be a tempting way to carry IP. IP over ATM was fairly common, and in fact, remained the norm for DSL until fairly recently. There were other options as well: Packet over SONET was a standard for SONET-based PPP connections, which could carry just about anything but were often used for IP. A newer offering is Ethernet over SONET, which does exactly what it sounds like. The internet provided a compelling use-case for SONET, but it also became a challenge. SONET was designed within the telephone industry, which emphasized handling fixed-speed channels with very high reliability and very low latency. The IP-based internet embraced the opposite: opportunistically moving variable speed connections over relatively high-latency and low-reliability channels. That meant that internet service over SONET became awkward. For one, it tended to be slow. The reason was bandwidth allocation: getting time on a SONET ring means getting channels assigned, and you will pay for those channels 24/7 regardless of whether or not you use them. A technology called virtual concatenation was developed to allow SONET's lower-level building blocks (like STS-1) to be combined in arbitrary ways to produce just about any amount of bandwidth you could want, but every Mbps over SONET was an Mbps that couldn't be used by any other customer. You paid for it. Later on, variable-bandwidth allocation systems were developed, but they were complex and missed the opportunity to make much of a difference. SONET's fixed-bandwidth design made it excellent for real-time media, the wheelhouse of the telephone industry, but ironically real-time media was missing from the information revolution. Internet connections were generally too slow and unreliable to carry it. By the time real-time media returned, IP connections had gotten so fast that they could make up for the lack of traffic engineering with raw speed. Slow and reliable lost out to fast and unreliable almost every time. SONET also had all the typical warts of a telephone industry network architecture. By the '90s, IP-based network equipment was both cheaper and easier to use than ATM and SONET devices. Upstart internet service providers were much more competitively motivated, driving down prices on non-SONET services. SONET has been superseded as a standard by OTN, Optical Transport Network. OTN is an ITU standard for a digital hierarchy that starts at 2.5 Gbps and goes up, well, as high as you want. 800 Gbps "OTUC8" is now in service. Besides being faster, OTN is also designed to accommodate variable packet connections like Ethernet much more efficiently. And, of course, even OTN is losing the fight against schemes that carry Ethernet frames directly over fiber. Is this the reason that 8-bit bytes became so universal in computing? I genuinely do not know, this would be a good topic for future research. A long time ago, on a different blog, I spent some time trying to establish the lineage of the 8-bit word length that is now so universal. Without devoting a career of research to the topic, I think the best I can say is that there seem to have been several parallel paths that converged on 7 and 8 bits as good choices for communications purposes. Digital telephony equipment was certainly one of them.↩ And I would very much appreciate information from anyone who knows otherwise.↩

19 hours ago • 1 votes
Inside a 1980s filter chip that uses switched capacitors

Sometimes it's easier to identify an IC with a microscope. While sorting a box of old ICs, CuriousMarc came across some Harris ICs labeled "F1-10-5", a mysterious part number that didn't show up in any databooks. Since unidentifiable ICs are useless, he gave me one to analyze. Conveniently, it was in a ceramic package, so I could open it up with a quick tap from a chisel. Under the microscope, the chip's most striking feature was a grid of square capacitors. With all those capacitors, I guessed that it was a switched-capacitor filter. The die provided another clue: the part number HF-10. With this information, we quickly found that the chip was Harris's version of the standard MF10 switched-capacitor filter chip.1 The Harris integrated circuit, labeled F1-10-5 (or maybe FI-10-5), with a 1985 date code. Photo courtesy of CuriousMarc. Switched-capacitor filters were a popular way to implement analog filters in the 1980s. Rapidly switching capacitors in and out of a circuit enabled the construction of single-chip filters that were easy to use and performed well. The MF10, introduced by National Semiconductor in 1981, provides two flexible filters on a chip; each filter acts as a low-pass filter, band-pass filter, or a high-pass filter. The filter's characteristics are simple to control with a few external resistors. The Harris HF-10 die under the microscope with the main functional blocks labeled. (Click for a larger image.) Since I had the chip under the microscope, I took the opportunity to analyze it more closely. The white lines are the metal wiring that connects the chip's circuitry. Under the metal layer are two layers of polysilicon (reddish) and the underlying silicon (gray). The top and bottom halves of the chip are mostly mirror images, corresponding to the chip's two filters. The distinctive reddish squares in the middle of the chip are 72 tiny capacitors, constructed from polysilicon. Above the capacitors, CMOS switches turn on and off at the clock frequency, switching capacitors in and out of the circuit. Each filter uses three operational amplifiers (op amps), outlined in red. At the right are the three outputs from the three op amps: high pass, band pass, and low pass. The control circuitry is on the left: clock level shifting, clock shaping, frequency ratio handling, startup circuitry, and current sinks to provide fixed currents to other parts of the chip. Around the edges of the silicon die, 20 hair-thin bond wires connect the die to its 20 external pins. The die has some interesting chip art: a Harris logo and an outline of Florida; Harris was headquartered in Melbourne, Florida. The initials on the die are presumably the engineers who designed the chip. Some interesting images from the die. Switched capacitor circuits The filter is based on switched-capacitor circuits. A switched capacitor can replace a resistor in certain circuits, as shown below. The switches are controlled by a clock signal; the switches alternately close in clock phase 1 and phase 2 (ϕ1 and ϕ2). In phase 1, the capacitor is charged to the input voltage. In phase 2, the capacitor passes charge to the output. By rapidly toggling the switches, charge is (almost) steadily passed to the output. The larger the capacitance, the more charge that is passed through. Likewise, a higher frequency passes more charge. It can be shown that the circuit matches a resistor with resistance of 1/(fC): a higher capacitance and frequency correspond to lower resistance. A switched capacitor can replace a resistor. Why would you replace a simple resistor with this complicated switching circuit? In an integrated circuit, resistors are inaccurate and inconveniently large, especially high-value resistors. Replacing a large resistor with a small capacitor saves space on the die. Moreover, it is easy to generate an extremely accurate clock frequency with an inexpensive quartz crystal, making the filter's frequency highly accurate. Finally, the equivalent resistance can be changed simply by changing the clock frequency, making it easy to tune or sweep the filter. On-chip capacitors are fairly inaccurate, with the capacitance typically varying by 20% from chip to chip due to variations in manufacturing conditions. However, this isn't a problem in the MF10 because the circuitry was designed to depend on the ratio between capacitances, which is stable. Specifically, the MF10 uses 72 identical square capacitors, which will have almost identical capacitances. Careful examination shows that some of the capacitors are separate, while others are connected in groups of 8 to form larger capacitors.2 This yields a highly accurate ratio of 8:1 between the grouped capacitors and the individual capacitors, even though the absolute capacitance will vary from chip to chip. Each capacitor is constructed from two layers of polysilicon,3 forming the plates of the capacitor, separated by a thin layer of insulating oxide that acts as the dielectric. I estimate that each capacitor square is 5 picofarads. The grid of capacitors in the MF10. I've added yellow lines to show how the capacitors are grouped. The switches are above and below the capacitors. This chip uses one more trick with switched capacitors: it inverts the voltage while acting as a resistor. In the switched-capacitor circuit below, there are four switches. The capacitor charges to the input voltage during phase 1, the same as before. But duing phase 2, note that the top plate of the capacitor is grounded, while the output comes from the bottom plate. If the capacitor was charged to, say, 1 volt, the top plate is 1 volt above the bottom plate. So if the top plate is grounded, then the bottom plate must be at -1 V. (This is the same idea as a charge pump.) This circuit turns out to yield a more accurate filter because some parasitic capacitances cancel out. By using four switches, the switched capacitor can invert the voltage. The op-amp integrator The heart of most analog circuits is the operational amplifier, or op-amp. An op-amp takes two inputs and amplifies the difference by many orders of magnitude. Normally, an op-amp is configured with negative feedback, which forces the two inputs to be essentially the same. Op-amps are useful not only for amplification, but for filtering, buffering, summing, and other tasks. A basic op-amp integrator. The filter chip uses op-amps as integrators, to integrate an input voltage over time. The circuit above shows a simple op-amp integrator. The input voltage produces a current that flows through the resistor and charges the capacitor, so the capacitor holds the integral of the input voltage over time. You might expect that the left side of the capacitor would become positive as it charges. However, the op-amp's feedback forces both inputs to ground, so instead the right side of the capacitor becomes negative. Thus, the output is the negative integral.4 The MF10 chip uses the circuit above, except the resistor is replaced with a switched capacitor. The capacitor across the op-amp is not switched, but consists of either 8 or 16 capacitors from the capacitor grid. The CMOS switches The CMOS switch is the technology that makes the switched-capacitor filter possible. A CMOS switch has a fairly low resistance (maybe tens of ohms) when closed and an enormously high resistance (hundreds of megohms) when open. This high resistance ensures that the charge doesn't leak out of the capacitors. A CMOS switch is constructed by combining an NMOS transistor and a PMOS transistor. The NMOS transistor and PMOS transistor are opposites. An NMOS transistor is good at pulling the output low, while a PMOS transistor is good at pulling the output high, so in combination they provide an effective switch. An NMOS transistor is turned on by a high voltage on the gate, while a PMOS transistor is turned on by a low voltage on the gate. Thus, a CMOS switch requires two control signals of opposite polarity, which is a minor inconvenience. A CMOS switch. The diagram above shows how a switch is implemented with an NMOS transistor and a PMOS transistor in parallel. When the control line is high, and the inverted control line is low, both transistors turn on, providing a path through the switch circuit. When the control line is low (and the inverted line high), the transistors turn off, opening the switch. The chip uses CMOS switches in pairs, with one switch on and the other off. This forms the equivalent of a toggle switch that connects either A or B to the output. This circuit is simply two CMOS switches, with separate control lines for each switch, as shown below. In the MF10, the switch toggles at the clock frequency. During one clock phase, the switch is connected to A, while the switch is connected to B during the other clock phase. The schematic on the right, below, is the same circuit, but reorganized to match the layout on the die. A double-throw CMOS switch. The photo below shows a CMOS switch on the die, constructed from two PMOS transistors and two NMOS transistors. The four control lines run horizontally in polysilicon, forming a transistor gate where they cross doped silicon. The upper PMOS and NMOS transistors are driven by the clock phase 1 (Φ1) signals, while the lower transistors are driven by the phase 2 signals. CMOS switches on the die. The metal layer was removed to show the transistors. One problem with switched-capacitor filters is that the clock can generate switching noise that appears in the chip's outputs. The MF10 uses several techniques to reduce clock noise. Each set of transistors is surrounded by two isolation rings: one positive and one negative. These block noise from traveling through the silicon substrate. Note that the rings have opposite polarity for the NMOS transistors and the PMOS transistors. The light tan region in the photo above is a second layer of polysilicon. This polysilicon is connected to ground, providing a shield layer over the switching circuits. For the photo above, I removed the metal layer with acid5 to make the transistors more visible. The photo below shows the original die, with the metal layer connecting the transistors. The small black circles are connections between the metal layer and silicon or polysilicon. The same CMOS switches, showing the metal layer. Putting it together: the state variable filter There are many ways of creating a filter. The MF10 chip uses a technique called the state variable filter, invented in 1967. This circuit acts as three filters, with high-pass, band-pass, and low-pass outputs. Moreover, the circuit is flexible since the frequency, the gain, and the filter quality (Q) can be varied independently. It uses three op-amps: one to sum signals and two for integration. By changing how the values are summed, the characteristics of the filters can be changed. The diagram below shows a simplified representation of a state variable filter. The mathematics behind a state variable filter is complicated, so I won't get into it. In short, the signal, the integral, and the double integral form the three state variables that define the state of the system. Simplified diagram of a state variable filter, with two integrators. Inspired by North Coast Synthesis. The block diagram below shows how the filter is represented in the MF10 datasheet.6 The diagram is similar to the diagram above, with three op-amps. However, the summing circuitry has been separated out. Moreover, the feedback paths are not shown explictly. Instead, resistors are connected between the chip's external pins (squares) to configure the filter as desired. The mode switch at the top allows the low-pass feedback to be controlled by an external pin (SA/B). Block diagram of one of the filter sections. Adapted from the datasheet. The schematic below is my reverse-engineered schematic of the filter, as implemented on the chip. It closely matches the block diagram, but fills in the details. In the block diagram, the summing circuit (circle) adds one signal and subtracts two signals. This summing circuit is implemented with the three switched capacitors on the left, which act as summing resistors. Note that one switch is grounded during phase 1, while the others are grounded during phase 2; switching the polarity implements addition versus subtraction. The top sum input is either feedback from the low-pass output or ground, selected by an input pin. A CMOS switch is used here, but the switch is static, not clocked, so it doesn't use protection rings and shielding like the other switches. My reverse-engineered schematic of one of the filters. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version. The integrators have switched capacitors on the inputs, acting as resistors. The integration capacitor is either 8 or 16 "squares" of capacitance, selected by a ratio selection pin. This controls the ratio between the clock frequency and the filter frequency, either 50:1 or 100:1.7 Although the integration capacitors are attached to a CMOS switch, the switch is static, so the capacitors act as regular capacitors, not switched capacitors. The op-amps The op-amps are fairly standard CMOS op-amps, built from about 35 transistors. (You might get a lower count if you try counting the transistors below, since some of the blocks are multiple transistors.) The op-amp transistors are much larger than the CMOS switch transistors (very bottom, center). On the die, each op-amp is split into two parts: the differential amplifier on the left and an additional amplification stage on the right. A large capacitor (pinkish) sits between the halves. My first thought was that this was the integration capacitor, but it is just a frequency compensation capacitor, common in many op-amps to stabilize the output. The op-amps also have large transistors next to the output pins; these transistors are functionally part of the op-amps, but located next to the pins to minimize resistance. One of the chip's op-amps. I removed the metal layer to make the transistors visible. One unusual feature of the op-amps is a low-power mode. Pulling a particular IC pin low causes the chip to stop filtering and enter a low-power mode, reducing power consumption by 70%. This is implemented by shutting down the "current mirror" circuits that provide fixed currents to the op-amps and other parts of the chip. The non-overlapping clock generator The MF10 chip is driven by external clock signals, one for each filter, with the frequency of the filter proportional to the clock frequency. The photo of the CMOS switches earlier showed that the clock drives four control lines for the switches. You might think that two control lines would be sufficient: the clock and the inverted clock. The problem is that it is very important to avoid having both switches closed at the same time, even for a moment, as that will short the inputs and corrupt the signals. Instead, the two switches have separate control lines that enforce a small gap between when one switch opens and the other one closes. This is implemented with the circuit below that takes an input clock signal and produces the four outputs that drive the switches. The circuit to generate non-overlapping clock signals. There is a delay between when gate A or B turns on and when the corresponding output changes. The idea behind the circuit is that a phase is blocked from going high until after the other phase goes low, with a pair of inverters providing additional delay. In more detail, suppose the input clock drops from high to low. Gate A will turn off, causing the phase 1 output (ϕ1) to drop after a few gate delays (A delay). Gate B can't turn on until ϕ1 goes low. After additional gate delays, ϕ2 goes high. The behavior is similar when the input clock goes high. Gate B turns off, causing ϕ2 to go low after a delay. This allows gate A to turn on, turning on ϕ1 after more delay. To summarize, after a phase is turned off, there is a delay before the other phase turns on, so the two phases never overlap. The clock-shaping circuitry is implemented with CMOS logic gates. The photo above shows this circuitry under the microscope, with the metal layer removed. The rectangular blocks are doped silicon that forms transistors. The darker regions on the left are NMOS transistors and the lighter regions on the right are PMOS transistors. A CMOS gate consists of NMOS and PMOS transistors working together. The PMOS transistors are larger because PMOS transistors are slightly less efficient than NMOS transistors. The dark circles are contacts between the silicon and the metal layer on top. The copper-colored lines are not metal but a special type of silicon called polysilicon. When a polysilicon line crosses doped silicon, it forms the gate of a transistor. The pinks and greens are due to thin-film interference from a thin layer of oxide that didn't completely dissolve; the silicon is actually gray. The ternary input A weird feature of the chip is the input pin that selects the ratio between the input clock and the filter frequency. In effect, this is a digital input with three values. Tying the pin to the high supply voltage selects a 50:1 ratio. Tying the pin to the midpoint between the supply voltages selects a 100:1 ratio. Pulling the pin to the low supply voltage stops the filter and puts the chip into a low-power mode.8 To handle the three-level input, the input goes through two separate buffers, one that transitions at a lower voltage and one that transitions at a higher voltage. Thus, the two buffers separate the middle signal level. Each buffer consists of a special inverter feeding into a regular inverter. Before explaining the special inverters, I'll review how a regular CMOS inverter works. A CMOS inverter is constructed from a PMOS transistor and an NMOS transistor. When the input is high, the NMOS transistor turns on and pulls the output to ground. When the input is low, the PMOS transistor turns on and pulls the output high. Thus, the input signal is inverted. A CMOS inverter is constructed from a PMOS transistor and an NMOS transistor. In the die photo, you can see the four PMOS transistors (light gray) and four NMOS transistors (darker), forming four inverters. When a polysilicon line (copper-colored) crosses a doped silicon region, it forms the gate of a transistor. For this picture, I dissolved the metal layer in acid so the transistors are visible. The metal layer connected the transistors to complete the wiring of the inverters: it connects the two "out1" contacts to "in2" and connects the two "out2" contacts to the rest of the chip. For the second buffer, "out3" connects to "in4" and so forth. The four inverters that handle the ternary input. I flipped the image to make the orientation better. In this circuit, the length of the transistor gates is varied to make the inverters activate at different voltage levels. Six of the transistor gates are normal (orange arrows); the PMOS gates are wider (in the vertical direction) than the NMOS gates because PMOS transistors are inherently weaker. However, two of the transistor gates are unusually long (horizontal direction, red), making the transistors weak since the current must travel a longer distance. The inverter on the left has a weak PMOS transistor. If the input is high or low, the inverter will operate normally. But if the input is in the middle, both transistors will partially turn on. Since the PMOS transistor is very weak, the NMOS transistor will "win", pulling the output low. Thus, the leftmost inverter treats a medium-level input as a 1, outputting a 0. The third inverter is the opposite; the NMOS transistor has a long, winding gate, so it is weak. In this case, a medium-level input will partially turn on both transistors, but the PMOS transistor will "win", pulling the output high. To summarize, the two inverters have opposite behavior for a middle-level signal, allowing the three input levels to be distinguished. Since the output from a special inverter may be weak, the output goes to a normal inverter to amplify the signal. Conclusions Like most semiconductor companies, Harris has a complicated history. Harris started way back in 1895 as a printing press company. Harris moved into high technology in the 1950s and 1960s, acquiring various radio and electronics companies. In particular, Harris entered the IC business in 1967, when it acquired Radiation, Inc., renaming it Harris Semiconductor a few years later. (We've encountered some Radiation modules in Apollo systems, but I haven't written about them yet.) Harris got out of the semiconductor business in 1999, spinning off Intersil, which was later acquired by the Japanese semiconductor firm Renesas. In 2019, Harris merged with L3 Technologies to become L3Harris, the eighth-largest defense contractor in the US. As for switched-capacitor filters, they have lost popularity as filtering is now more easily done in the digital domain. Texas Instruments acquired National Semiconductor (and the MF10) in 2011; TI's website shows the MF10 as active but expensive and out of stock, so it's probably no longer being manufactured. State variable filters are still used in the synthesizer world both because of their flexibility and because they provide low-pass, band-pass, and high-pass filters in one unit. For more, follow me on Bluesky (@righto.com), Mastodon (@[email protected]), or RSS. Thanks to CuriousMarc for providing the IC. AI statement: Despite the presence of the em dash, no AI was used in the writing of this article (details). Notes and references Once we found the "HF-10" part number, a search turned up a National Semiconductor databook that confirmed that the Harris HF-10 was a direct replacement for the National Semiconductor MF10. It remains a mystery why the Harris chip is externally labeled "F1-10-5" rather than "HF-10". This format doesn't resemble other Harris part numbers. I would suspect a military part number, but it is completely different from the military formats that I've seen on other chips, such as JM38510 numbers or NSN numbers. ↩ You might wonder why the larger capacitors are formed by connecting eight smaller capacitor squares, rather than making one capacitor that is eight times as big. The reason is to get better matching between the two capacitor sizes. A capacitor that is eight times as large won't have exactly eight times the capacitance due to factors such as the behavior of the electric field around the edge of the capacitor, inaccuracies that may make the capacitor slightly larger or smaller than desired, or etching variability around the edges. By building larger capacitors out of identical smaller capacitors, the values can match very well, up to ±0.01% according to The Art of Analog Layout. (With laser trimming, matching of ±0.001% is possible, but that is much more accuracy than the MF10 required.) ↩ Most chips from this era have a single layer of polysilicon, so I was surprised to find two layers in this chip. I've seen two layers of polysilicon before, in the MK4116 DRAM chip and AMD's LANCE Ethernet chip. In both cases, the second layer of polysilicon was used for storage devices. ↩ A standard op-amp integrator is an inverting integrator, and the output is negative. However, the MF10 uses the four-switch switched capacitor that inverts the input voltage. The two negatives cancel out, so the MF-10's integrator is a non-inverting integrator. See Introducing the MF10: A Versatile Monolithic Active Filter Building Block for details. ↩ To remove the metal layer, I used Whink rust stain remover (1.5-3.5% HF) to remove the oxide layer and hydrochloric acid to dissolve the metal. I applied Whink for 20 minutes and HCl for 16 minutes in total. I alternated each chemical for about 3 minutes each, applying a few drops at a time. I examined the die under the microscope after each application to gauge the progress. I stopped at this point since the metal was removed and the underlying transistors were visible. Moreover, the silicon became differentially stained, with NMOS transistors significantly darker than PMOS transistors. Some more Whink would probably improve the appearance of the die, but the risk is that the polysilicon might get removed, which would be bad for reverse engineering. In other words, I'd rather stop too early than destroy the features that I want to see. ↩ For reference, the full block diagram of the chip is below, from the datasheet. Block diagram of the MF10 from the Texas Instruments datasheet.  ↩ The filter frequency of the MF10 can be set to either the clock frequency divided by 50 or divided by 100. You might wonder where these ratios come from, since the capacitors on the chip are in 8:1 or 16:1 ratios, not 50:1 or 100:1. The formula for a switched-capacitor integrator is that the filter frequency is the clock frequency divided by 2π times the capacitor ratio. (This can be derived from the op-amp integrator formula and the equivalent resistance of a switched capacitor.) It turns out 2π×8 is 50.27 and 2π×16 is 100.5, providing the 50 and 100 values. Note that these values aren't exactly 50 and 100; they are off by 0.5%. Curiously, the datasheet specifies that the typical frequency error is ±0.2%, significantly smaller. I suspect that the explanation is that the capacitor ratio is not precisely 16:1, due to stray capacitance in the wiring and other factors, and the designers ensured that these factors tweaked the ratio in the desired direction. ↩ I suspect that the ternary input pin was used because the chip didn't have enough physical pins for all the functions they wanted. Note that the two filters are entirely independent, even with separate clocks, except for the 50/100 ratio control and the A/B mode control. I'm sure that these two functions would have independent control pins if the chip had pins available. They could have used a standard 24-pin package for the chip rather than the somewhat unusual 20-pin package, but maybe they had a motivation for avoiding a much larger 24-pin package. ↩

2 days ago • 1 votes
Radxa's Q8B has 2x the performance and expansion of the Pi 5

There was a time I'd look at a board like the Radxa Dragon Q8B (at left, above) and be like, "there's no way I'd spend $209 on an SBC with 8 gigs of RAM". But we're in 2026, and seeing the 8 gig Raspberry Pi 5 going for almost the same amount, I figured I'd give it a shot. On paper, the Q8B beats the Pi 5 in pretty much every way. A lot of that is thanks to this Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 chip, which is the same chip I tested on Microsoft's Windows Dev Kit 2023.

3 days ago • 1 votes
Three years later

Reflections on October 7th

4 days ago • 1 votes
📚 BoredReading

You seem to be enjoying this.

Join free to unlock everything.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in