disclaimer: I’m not expert on this stuff and would be happy for anyone to fix up any errors.

There is an increasingly common view in the IT industry that, with the increasing ease of piping data around the place, giving everyone a desktop computer capable of performing its own processing is a bit like giving everyone their own personal electrical generator. Rather, they suggest, computing power should be delivered like a utility, with the supply separated from the consumption. So instead of everyone having a processor powerful enough for all their needs sitting idle most of the time, you simply buy processing power from various big stacks of processing power analogous to electricity generators - think seti@home, but more standardised and flexible. You don’t worry about where the power comes from, you just plug in and go…

What’s the relevance for shadowrun?
I believe that grid computing would have developed by 2050 and that its existence would be both consistent with the world as described and kinda cool.

Why would corps adopt the grid? Primarily for cost reasons - once something becomes a utility that’s how it’s going to end up being delivered - organisations spend huge amounts on IT capabilities and then have to deal with them breaking down and siting idle. Why not transfer that requirement onto a specialist 3rd party? Corps would maintain actual processing power (over and above the kind of shell processors that would be required to interact with the grid) only for mission-critical applications, in much the same way as some buildings maintain limited backup generators.

What are the consequences of the grid?
1) Data gets handed around a lot - in order to use distributed computing you have to pipe data to and from the processors. I like this because it finally provides a better explanation of why everything ends up hooked up to the matrix - it’s not just the convenience of remote operation, it’s because the devices can’t run themselves - they have to pump in computing data from somewhere else. Of course it would all be heavily encrypted and probably deliberately split between different processing providers, but it would explain the links between computerised devices that the decking rules rely on. As with the backup generator metaphor, certain key devices would have their own processors built in, and hence have the potential to be matrix independent.

2) Small scale processing is rare and maybe expensive - another good reason why cyberdecks and cyberware cost more than similar ordinary computers - standard computing is now designed as a shell into which processing power is pumped, meaning that cyberdecks, which couldn’t rely on drawing processing from elsewhere, would require unusual manufacturing techniques.

3) Also fits quite well with SR’s habit of rating computers by their memory only - Processing isn’t mentioned because it’s limited only by your utility bill - normal computers just store their data and then pump it across the matrix for processing.
What does everyone think - should SR’s computer work this way, and what are the other consequences of adopting this view?

Probably no significant consequences. There aren't many situations in which it matters whether or not your "lifestyle computer" (the one that we usually assume comes with a Low or higher lifestyle) actually processes in and of itself.

~J

actually, it could be very important. that would mean that your wrist computer is in constant communication with the Matrix. that would mean that you have to be linked to the Matrix for it to function. that would mean that your physical location could always, always be traced. that would mean a whole lot of things.

Ah, I see, you were implying refitting all current devices labelled as "computers" as terminals for this. Ok, then.
More thoughts when I'm not about to get food.

~J

The amount of processing power one gets for a buck has grown exponentially for the past several decades. One of the major reasons for this is the growth in the number of circuits that can fit onto one square inch of silicon, predictions for which were published in 1965 by Dr. Gordon Moore (who later went on to co-found Intel). His predictions have held true in large part since that time.

In the mid 1970s I helped install an add-on 2MB memory storage device in a large computer system. It weighed 4200 pounds (almost 2000 kg). Since the elevator in our building was only rated for 4000 pounds, two employees of the elevator maintenance company came to run the elevator for this operation. Size and cost for memory devices have improved according to Moore's law ever since the industry switched from magnetic core devices to silicon chips for memory. The most recent memory I purchased was the size of a pocket comb, held 256 MB, and was free after rebate as a promotion to get me to come into the store.

The cost of processing power and silicon memory will continue to decrease. By 2020 the processing power and main (silicon) memory will essentially be free if you buy the rest of the computer hardware.

The cost of data storage and external devices has also dropped during that time, but at a slower rate. The cost of these devices will dominate the cost of computing equipment by 2020. Computing power (CPU + Memory) can be placed, almost for free, anywhere the data is, or anywhere the security is, or anywhere the perpherial devices are located, or anywhere the operating staff for the system is located.

The types of Grid Systems you propose, lacemaker, might very well come about because the cost of managing systems in multiple locations becomes prohibitive, not because the cost of the processing or memory requires it. For reasons of security, however, I doubt that the mega-corporations would consent to having their data in the hands of another mega-corp. For small business, sure. Already small businesses contract their web services, E-mail services, payroll processing, etc. to commercial companies. It's not because of the cost of the processing, as a $400 PC could typically handle all these services for one firm, its because of the people cost.

That's a fair response ourteam, and one I'd thought about - I'd respond in two ways - first, you need to assume to appetites for processing power continue to grow at or near the rate predected by Moore's law - and this has certainly been the case in the past. The introduction of matrix type applications would only increase this phenomenon. It's noty correct to take needs for processing power as fixed, rather our needs will expand as costs continue to fall - the amount people spend on their personal computer has remained relatively fixed for the last 15 years or so.
Secondly, economic structures can be dictated even by very minor cost savings - as you note handing over administration to someone else carries big benefits, but even minor savings on processor cycles would probably dictate a change in behaviour over time - just because you don't want to be the corp paying extra for your IT budget.

The amount spent has actually reduced. We got a top-of-the-line computer in '93 for about $4k, and two years back I got a top-of-the-line laptop for about $3k. Formerly some years the top models would be $10k, now they rarely top $5k unless you're really loading up on RAM and SCSI RAIDs.

~J

Strictly speaking, Moore's law does not apply to any electronics in Shadowrun. Moore's law deals specifically with Transistors in a given surface area, not anything else. SR computers do not use transistors, being entirely optical based.

It's reduced significantly. We paid $2200 for our 286 in the mid-'80s. I paid about half that for a mid-range K7 box in '99. It's currently possible to put together an entire fairly decent machine for less than the $350 that I paid for that K7's processor alone. Kids these days don't know how good they've got it...

Bandwidth is more expensive than CPU power. As long as that holds true, I don't expect to see a host/terminal setup for most people's personal computers... it's more cost-effective to give them the local processing power and less bandwidth. I expect them to both get significantly cheaper in the future, but I don't see the relative costs switching.

Of course, my commentary here is assuming that the Matrix makes some kind of rational sense...

Heh, how about a 'reverse Grid' where you get a price break on your CPU because Gatoz ownz your 'free' CPU cycles.