"More and more people are buying and loving Macs. To make this choice simply irresistible, Apple will include technology in the next major release of Mac OS X, Leopard, that lets you install and run the Windows XP operating system on your Mac. Called Boot Camp (for now), you can download a public beta today."
Wow, that was quick! I didn't expect Apple to release an easy way to install XP on a Mac so quickly.
Now I'm seriously going to have to think about buying a new Intel Mac.
Boot Camp Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Apple LIED TO ME!
They said they wouldn't officially support installing Windows on a Mac.
Bastards.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think they meant installing it on the hardware. This is virtualization.
edit: actually, I'm just not sure. It seems to be a real install! (all the rumors were about virtualization, though, and it seems a little closemouthed about what its actually doing, so it may be some sort of low level virtualization).
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
It would have to be, cause macs hardware doesn't run BIOS (they use something weird, I forget exactly what it's called). It CAN'T run BIOS. So its probably a virtualization of BIOS.
Editted to fix misspell.
[ April 05, 2006, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think you mean "BIOS." And the Intel Macs use EFI, which will be supported by Windows Vista. I think the chances for true virtualization support may have just increased -- if they're willing to go this far, they might be willing to go further.
I'm surprised. I didn't think they'd openly bless this practice.
Added: That said, my interest in owning a hypothetical future Intel "Power Mac" just increased significantly. I'd love to play the Half-Life games.
Added 3: I thought Vista was going to support EFI. Turns out that isn't clear. Hmmmmm.... Also this does somewhat reduce my interest in the Xbox 360.
[ April 05, 2006, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Alcon: that just means they have a separate boot loader, mostly. Separate boot loader != virtualization.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
But Windows XP requires BIOS as a boot loader to run. It can't run on the EFI that Apples use. There for you'd have to have some program running between EFI and Windows Xp to simulate BIOS and translate to EFI. I'd call that a low level virtualization.
Editted to clarify.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Alcon, it can if Apple allows their EFI to recognize basic BIOS (yes, that's technically redundant) APIs.
At that point you are really picking nits as to whether it is virtualization or not.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Experience making BIOS-reliant software run on EFI machines just might be useful in making EFI-reliant software run on BIOS machines. Hmmmm...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, would it be possible to use the standby or hibernate-to-disk capabilities to have near-instantaneous switching between the two operating systems?
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
Ok, now who thinks that because of this move Apple will end up being able pull in a nice number of potential Windows PC buying customers? And maybe regain quite a bit of the share of the software/hardware market?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Alcon, windows runs with a separate boot loader all the time; when dual booting Linux, commonly GRUB nowadays. Switching boot loader is (relatively) trivial. Most of the time, windows ignores the BIOS and deals right with the hardware.
Virtualization means a lot more than using a different boot loader and having a few faked BIOS capabilities.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
It's not virtualization. XP will still run BIOS, and it looks like if Windows is installed, it'll be an independent install on a separate partition.
I'm amazed. I never saw this coming -- and it's brilliant, really. I thought Apple would forever maintain their feverish integration between their hardware and their software. Macs, despite my distaste for them, are often fantastically powerful machines. If Windows boots on them, the general public has no more excuse not to buy them -- and the more people that carry around laptops loaded with OSX, the greater OSX's diminutive marketshare has to grow.
I can see risks in the long-term, but OSX has nowhere to go but up right now. This was genius.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Slow down boys and girls. Question: Will the oft touted power of the Mac lend itself to the newly available Windows OS? That's all that concerns me, and if that concern is unfounded, Apple has found itself an interested customer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's ENORMOUSLY in Apple's best interest to let Windows run poorly and slowly on their hardware. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: not at all. They make their money on the hardware; if some people prefer to run Windows on the hardware, that's not a big deal for them. They'll lose some associated sales, but they wouldn't be getting those anyways if someone wasn't interested in OS X, plus the biggest associated sale, an iPod, isn't ruled out.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
No, Tom's right. If people have a choice between OSX and XP on the same machine, and XP's running slower, they're going to run with -- and virally market -- OSX.
This is assuming OSX comes bundled with every Mac sold, which I assume is going to happen. Apple'll PERMIT Windows installation -- but I don't think it feels any particular need to ensure Windows performance.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
My next machine just might be a dual-core mac laptop.
I've always wanted a Mac, but I've always found things I hated about OSX/Classic. Hopefully this gets to the point where I can purchase and not have to worry about anything. Examples: Not being able to play games, Not being able to do something I find simple on windows.
My main reason for staying with windows for so long is because I know how to do everything that I would ever need to do (Kill virii, kill anything, and tons of other stuff I won't really get into: debug, lowlevel stuff, programming...)
Tom: I find it more important to them that they get Windows running faster than any other hardware. As others have pointed out, Apple is a hardware company.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom: I find it more important to them that they get Windows running faster than any other hardware.
I can't imagine how they would achieve this.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Time will tell if Tom's right, but from what I've been reading, game performance is about what you'd expect were the machines manufactured by some other company. Given that, Brad Oliver of Aspyr had this to say:
quote:It almost certainly spells the end of Mac ports for games that use things we can't license and cause cross-platform issues. GameSpy, DirectPlay - games that use these and end up crippled on the Mac are likely going the way of the dodo as far as Mac-native versions go. Similarly, games that ship with important, but very Windows-centric, editor components are likely out of the running. We'd be foolish to try and ship these things with Mac-only networking now if you can just dual-boot.
Looking back on previous games, these issues would affect Neverwinter Nights (editor), Tiger Woods (networking), Age of Empires (networking), Civ3 (networking and possibly the editor), C&C Generals (networking), Alpha Centauri (networking), EverQuest (networking, although this was never a technical limitation), and Star Wars Battlefront (GameSpy). There are probably other games that were network-crippled, but I don't keep track of those.
Looks like there's an Intel Mac in my future if I wish to continue gaming on my computer. I'm not sure I feel bad about that -- I've been dying to play Half-Life since it came out. Of course, since I've sworn off buying any sort of first-revision hardware from Apple, it'll be a long time before I can buy what I want and configure it how I'd like. I'm also more interested in true virtualization than in dual-booting, but on the other hand, true virtualization would be bringing OS X a little too close to OS/2 territory for my comfort.
I suppose that means there's no reason to revise my plan to buy an Xbox 360.
Added: Some benchmarks are starting to trickle in:
The A64 3500+ is 2.2GHz, and 2.16GHz Core Duo's CPU score is almost exactly double the A64's. You can clearly see the difference between the MBP's mobile GPU and a desktop GPU, though.
Of course, this is all just preliminary -- so far all of the benchmarks I've seen have just been random people reporting results without necessarily disclosing full configuration details (e.g. system memory on the Athlon system above). I'm sure that Anandtech and/or Ars Technica will get around to doing a full suite of rigorous benchmarking sooner or later, though, and I'll definitely be curious to see how Apple's Power Mac replacement benches under Windows.
[ April 06, 2006, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lalo: no, Tom's wrong. It completely misses Apple's business model, and the character of customers.
Specifically, almost nobody chooses a computer because of speed. This is abundantly born out by the direction computer capabilities have been going in. Similarly, almost nobody chooses an OS because of speed nowadays, and there's no reason they're suddenly going to start to when OS X and XP run on the same box; that doesn't make any sense.
However, there is a large market for Mac-inclined people who feel a need to have windows around for some reason or another. Many of these people already have macs, and already have windows boxes, but see no reason to upgrade their macs (a perennial problem for apple; used machines remain useful for a very long time). This gives them a considerable incentive to do so, particularly if both the mac and windows box are a bit behind on specs, but only so long as the mactel is capable of running windows within the limits of user distinguishability.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
fugu, I can envision a circumstance where Apple might not put much effort into making XP run well on Macs. If benchmarking OS X and XP on the same hardware reveal OS X's performance deficiencies in certain areas (e.g. OpenGL, MySQL), Apple certainly won't want to highlight those deficiencies by releasing optimized XP drivers for their particular components.
I'm not just talking about benchmarking on Macs, either, since these sorts of comparative benchmarks are also possible on some "PCs." For example, Ars' Intel iMac review had OS X benchmarks on both the iMac and a Dell system.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
You know, I'll also add that you can't currently run OS X on any non-Mac machine. Now, by buying a Mac, you get twice as many possibilities. What if, some day, you want to edit your own home videos -- and you know the Mac will be better for that?
A Mac is now a machine that does it all.
Voila. I think Mr. Jobs learned his lesson.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Eh, Apple's always had a flexible relationship with benchmarks. They just don't publicize any benchmarks that disagree with them and hype those that agree with them. Also, they've pretty much ditched benchmarks as a marketing strategy and have been focusing on application value-added.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:You know, I'll also add that you can't currently run OS X on any non-Mac machine.
This isn't quite true. As I've already noted, even system reviewers are comparing Macs against non-Apple hardware running OS X.
That Apple aggresively discourages this practice doesn't mean it isn't happening. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Okay, this has got me scratching my head. Intel releases its chip logics to software companies so that they can design their programs to be compatible with the chip. So does this mean that Mac and PC are using the same chip logic, ie essentially the same chip? Or that PC programs won't run well on a Mac?
And is Apple's sudden alliance with Microsoft programs an attempt to kill Linux?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Twinky,
Yes, but they don't *market* PCs that way. It's just techies who know how to do that. This, on the other hand, could make an impression with the people at large.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: However, there is a large market for Mac-inclined people who feel a need to have windows around for some reason or another.
And, again, it's in Apple's best interest to have Windows on these machines run less well than OS X. Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
I find it interesting that the new Mac Book Pro is the fastest laptop in the world for running windows.
Which makes me wonder why Apple would go out of their way to make windows work less efficiently when they can make the claim that Apple hardware is the fastest platform for running windows?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Perhaps the benifits could be shown this way.
For Apple:
Apple makes a lot of money off of their computers. It comes with OS X. Now there's some people (like me) who don't want to solo on just OSX. I don't want a limited library of software for a computer that costs a lot more than just a simple Dell that comes with Windows.
However, they release Boot Camp, people buy Macs for the ability of Windows as well, (For software variability, and the chance to try the 'Apple Experience'.)
So, Apple sells more Macs by new customers, they make more money.
Microsoft:
They can only get Windows running on a Mac without Boot Camp in a very icky way. But put simply, now anyone who wants both systems on the same computer can now buy their Mac and then buy a copy of Windows that didn't come with the Mac.
People buy more Windows, they make more money.
It's in both companies best interest for this to happen. They both make money!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"Less well", certainly, but they've already done that; its called OS X .
I'm bemused by the weird obsession you have with speed of operation, Tom. What makes you think Mac users are so fixated on speed that once windows can run on the same hardware at a reasonable rate they'll suddenly decide it was Windows they wanted to use this whole time?
And of course, there's the simple fact that by all reports, even in this initial beta release, Windows is already running at perfectly normal speeds, completely undermining your position.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
My position is that they don't want to make Windows run at a lower rate.
They want to appeal to new markets. They want to get those users who've used only PCs into their hardware. If there were reports of how Windows didn't run as well, how would they be convincing that people should buy a Mac and also be able to use Windows.
Apple wants money. They appeal to a new customer base while retaining their old group of followers. They gain money.
Microsoft sells more copies of Windows to Mac users. They make more money.
I think this is one of those situations where everyone wins. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see how a slower running Windows is in Apple's best interest. Once word gets around that Windows is for crap on a Mac, people will go back to buying the same way they always did, and will simply ignore a Mac.
The money to be made for Apple is to lure away people who use PCs with Windows into buying a dual Mac system. They have nothing to gain by simply providing compadibility to people who already use Macs. All that does is give Microsoft some random profits from people who buy Windows.
The aim would be to lure away PC users. Personally, if I knew a Mac could run Windows as well as, or better than, my Dell, I'd very highly consider getting a Mac for it's video editing software. But if I knew it was just a lure, and it was really crap and didn't run well, then I'm not going to buy it. And if that's the case, then what is this other than just a publicity stunt and attempt to raise their share value?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm bemused by the weird obsession you have with speed of operation, Tom.
You realize I AM a network admin, right, and not a tool? Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Parallels is offering a beta program that does true virtualization.
"Parallels Workstation 2.1 Beta for Mac OS X is NOT simply a "dual-boot" solution; rather, it empowers users the ability to use Windows, Linux and any other operating system at the same time as Mac OS X, enabling users to enjoy the comfort of their Mac OS X desktop while still being able to use critical applications from other OSes."
It's apparently taking advantage of a virtualization technology featured in Intel's new chip. Intel describes it as "allowing a platform to run multiple operating systems and applications in independent partitions."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm bemused by the weird obsession you have with speed of operation, Tom.
You realize I AM a network admin, right, and not a tool?
So when you're talking about "speed," what do you mean? UI responsiveness? Network traffic? I assume you're not talking about OpenGL, which was what I was talking about.
That Parallels thing is awesome. I'm really curious to learn more about how it works, not to mention how well it works.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Here's a video of Parallels running on a computer. It doesn't really show too much, mostly internet surfing and a Windows reboot, but it does appear to be pretty good at handling those tasks.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Tom: you can play games on it. That's all the Mac has been missing for decades. You can now play Oblivion on it, and rather decent from what I've read.
I personally would be interested in it because If I bought some 3D software license I'd want to be able to use it on a portable machine, which I'd have excluded any Apple hardware because I wanted to be able to run it on my Windows Desktop.
The point is that it can run any windows software and at decent speeds. not that it isn't exactly as fast. Even though it should run just as fast if not better than most recent generations of ma/pa's dell. But that it CAN and do a good job.
At this point it's all just x86 compatible hardware anyways. I see no point to you saying that it'll be slower than any other x86 compatible hardware of similar specs. Because that's impossible.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tom's suggesting that Apple has and/or will intentionally cripple Windows on its hardware to make OS X look better. Added: That definitely isn't impossible, though so far it doesn't look as though they've done it.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Well, in order to do that, they would have to add hardware could detect the os, and tell it to slow down in such a state. All which takes way to much effort if they are really just worried about making a good computer and operating system for their customers. This is Apple we are talking about, not Microsoft.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:You realize I AM a network admin, right, and not a tool?
Heeee... this isn't directed at you, Tom, but I have known way too many "network admins" not to laugh at this statement. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by raventh1: Well, in order to do that, they would have to add hardware could detect the os, and tell it to slow down in such a state. All which takes way to much effort if they are really just worried about making a good computer and operating system for their customers. This is Apple we are talking about, not Microsoft.
Using Boot Camp installs Apple-specific Windows drivers as part of the XP install. All Apple would need to do is refrain from optimizing those drivers; if they happen to be drivers for any performance-related hardware (e.g. graphics drivers), there could easily be a discernible difference in benchmarks.
I'm not saying that they'll do it, and I'm not sure I even agree with Tom that it would be a good idea, but the notion is not entirely implausible.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Except that most of the things that need to be optimized are things like ATi drivers which are usually not optimized by Apple themselves. Many other vendors are included, I'm using ATi because it's well known.
I'm saying it'd be too much trouble to go out of their way to harm XP. Not to mention that Apple appears to have good customer relations, and I don't see them wanting to annoy paying customers.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Drivers for things like video chipsets are generally provided by Apple even when they're actually developed by someone else, and then included in Apple's software updates. This is one of the things that comes along with Apple's "whole widget" philosophy, and it's very different from the way things are in the Windows world. [Added: To be clear, that's not to say that you can never get drivers from third parties. You're just a lot more likely to get them from Apple even when you can get them elsewhere, becasue Apple rolls them into the automatic updates since it controls the hardware configurations.]
ATi is a perfect example of this, actually. The Windows drivers for the Mobility Radeon 1600XT that's in the MacBook Pro are Mac-specific drivers, not ATi's normal Windows drivers, and as far as I'm aware the only way to get those drivers is by downloading Boot Camp from Apple. Any future updated versions will most likely be delivered solely by Apple via updates to Boot Camp.
Added: So Apple doesn't have to go out of its way to "harm" XP. All it has to do is refrain from doing some work, or even refrain from distributing the work of others, if ATi should happen to update those drivers without Apple asking them to (which is doubtful).
Do I think they'll do this? No. But I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that they might.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
OnMac.net has been around for a bit and let's you do the same thing. I was surprised that apple decided to build it into Jaguar though.
I was personally skeptical about using 3rd party programs to run windows on mac machines because I thought it would limit performance, but now I'm seriously considering a mac. The only thing that was stopping me in the first place is the money I sank into software that was only available for Windows, but those are starting to become obsolete now too.
Apple > Microsoft
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It turns out that macs perform quite well at games in windows:
MacBook Pro users can't right-click in Windows, though presumably that could be readily fixed with something like USB Overdrive.
Posted by alcyone (Member # 9318) on :
This is good for me because i love apple computers but i love playing games as well. Im excited!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
News from the weird side: Apple hates bloggers and forum writers. So Apple wants all of us to quit using and purchasing Apple products?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, trying to find out who leaked a trade secret means one hates bloggers and forum writers. Clearly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Still, it's an important case. Are we going to extend protections to "regular" journalists that we won't extend to others? If so, why?
(This is assuming the article is at all accurate that regular journalists would be exempt from disclosure in this situation, something I'm not sure of at all.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm quite dubious of that assertion as well, though there are some states that provide some degree of source protection. However, the general rule is that the courts can force journalists (just like anyone else) to divulge sources in legal proceedings whenever the heck they want.
Responding to something I'm seeing in various articles, its important to remember that trade secret isn't all that vague a term. Companies don't just get to "slap" the label on anything if this case is upheld.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Here we go, the only thing they have any real hope of being protected under seems to be California's shield law, and there's little hope there, since it only prevents people from being subject to contempt when withholding sources or unpublished information that were part of a process of newsgathering.
Apple's legal proceedings aren't blocked at all by that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why? Isn't the contention that the source was part of the process of news gathering?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, but apple's not just trying to get them to disclose their sources in order to sue those, apple is suing them directly for violating the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (which defending against, coincidentally, would involve them disclosing their sources).
Also, the court can still demand a journalist turn over his or her sources/unpublished information, they just can't use contempt as a tool to enforce the order.
Its a fairly limited shield law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, the court can still demand a journalist turn over his or her sources/unpublished information, they just can't use contempt as a tool to enforce the order.
OK, then they can win the order, the guy can refuse, and Apple is pretty much stuck, aren't they?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They may be, they may not be. An Ars article has some of the judge's comments:
Specifically, it seems there's enough already known for Apple to nail the site with the UTSA violation, which Apple is using to leverage the site for the source.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It also seems the law spells out who a journalist is (though there's some uncertainty there), and that its likely sites such as those listed do not fall under the stated definition.
I think that's unfortunate, personally. I think the best way to protect press liberties is to phrase protections functionally rather than occupationally/organizationally. This helps prevent tyrannies of definition, where journalists enjoy great protection but the state gets to decide what constitutes a journalist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think the best way to protect press liberties is to phrase protections functionally rather than occupationally/organizationally. This helps prevent tyrannies of definition, where journalists enjoy great protection but the state gets to decide what constitutes a journalist.
That's basically my only interest in the whole thing. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*nods*
However, its clearly incumbent on those passing the laws (in this case, both the legislature and the public through referendum) to take this step. Having not done so, the courts would be reaching to expand the protection to people fairly clearly not covered (the definition is pretty extensive and explicit).
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
In other words, Apple hates bloggers and forum users.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, that's it. It has nothing to do with protecting illegal violations of their trade secrets.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
This all started with that kid running thinksecret who was paying Apple employees to tell him secrets and violating their NDA's or whatever employees sign. All Apple developer members sign NDA's also when they accept pre-release software/hardware. I've signed many.
I have no remorse for the people being sued. They knew they were breaking the law. And what is worse, everyone knew Apple was cracking down on it too.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
My point was that Apple didn't have to go after the dude for being a blogger instead of a journalist as is Apple's contention. But they chose to attack him as a blogger anyway.
And what is a news source other than a trade secret??? Apple's client, supplier, and customer lists certainly are.
How does a corporation (dubiously) granted personhood under the "Equal Protection under the Law" Amendment merit the protection of its trade secrets, while the person of a blogger does not?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They attack him as a blogger because it makes their lawsuit more likely to succeed. Also because under California's shield law definition of journalist, he most definitely isn't. You expect them to make up new definitions that are detrimental to their case?
Also, here's the definition of trade secret under the UTSA:
quote:information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Source doesn't fall under that very clearly, though there's a mild argument to be made. It doesn't much matter though.
You have a weird idea that being a trade secret makes it protected from civil proceedings. Trade secrets come out in court all the time. They are sometimes treated specially, but they appear all the time.
The corporation isn't granted any more protection than the blogger. The corporation's secret was completely legal. The blogger's secret involved a likely violation of the UTSA, which lets the corporation sue. So the corporation is doing so. Nothing unfair about it.
Very strangely, the law has mechanisms to enforce protection of the law. How odd.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I think Asteroid was a trick intended on finding the leak in Apple. Notice there are very few leaks now?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Of course, since I've sworn off buying any sort of first-revision hardware from Apple, it'll be a long time before I can buy what I want and configure it how I'd like. I'm also more interested in true virtualization than in dual-booting, but on the other hand, true virtualization would be bringing OS X a little too close to OS/2 territory for my comfort. ![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Microsoft