Beyond Binary

Perhaps the next time Brad Smith heads to Brussels, it will be for a vacation.

After years of wrangling with Microsoft, the European Commission announced an accord with the software giant Wednesday on several fronts that seems poised to put an end to its antitrust concerns with Redmond.

Brad Smith

(Credit: Microsoft)

In the wake of the announcement, I spoke to Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, about the decision, what it means for the future of Windows, and whether the company sees its spot on the antitrust hot seat now being taken up by other companies, including Google.

Here's an edited transcript of our conversation:

Q: Is this really it as far as Europe is concerned?
Smith: This is definitely a major milestone for Microsoft. Today's announcement reflects a broad set of agreements that really address a wide array of issues. At the same time, we obviously need to keep our eye on the ball. Antitrust issues will continue to be important for us, just as they are going to continue to be important for a number of other leaders in our industry. We're going to have to do an excellent job implementing these agreement. We are going to have to do an excellent job addressing any new issues that arise in the future. Having said all that, I also think it is fair to say, as Commissioner [Neelie] Kroes did when she spoke in Brussels, this does represent the closing of one chapter and gives us the opportunity to open a new chapter. We're definitely enthused about that opportunity and we're committed to ensuring the next chapter is a positive and constructive one.

One of the things that Steve Ballmer talks a lot about in terms of antitrust issues is getting legal clarity on what one can and can't do. Do you feel like you now have that understanding with the EU?
Smith: I think this gives us a great deal more clarity. I think it gives the industry as a whole more clarity. It's perhaps most helpful in the area of interoperability because it really implements a new framework. It applies to a broad array of Microsoft products--Windows, Windows Server, Exchange, SharePoint--and for all of these products it has certain principles that we have to adhere to. It addresses the way we implement file formats.

At the same time, no advance on any single day can ever answer all questions for all companies for all time.

Essentially the EU has said through its very objections that you can't put a media player in Windows and you can't put a browser in Windows. What do you feel Microsoft can include in future versions?
Smith: There are two things to think about. First is what gets included in Windows, and second, what's the right way to address something that is included.

Our basic approach is to include in Windows, software that has APIs (application programming interfaces) that will be beneficial for other applications to call on and use. The browser is definitely an example of that. It's quite probably even more important in that role today than it was, say, when the browser issues first arose in the 1990s. The media player plays a similar role in terms of some broad APIs that are used by a wide variety of other applications.

There are other things that we have put in Windows in the past that don't necessarily involve the same role. A good example of that is Windows Live Messenger. We had Windows Messenger in Windows XP. It's not in Windows Vista or Windows 7 We're trying to make thoughtful decisions about what is included.

Then the second question that arises is how do things get included. How do we document APIs that our browser is using so that other browsers can use them as well? That's part of the U.S. consent decree.

How do we ensure that [computer makers] have flexibility to offer competing choices? How do we ensure that consumers are aware of competing choices and can use them if they wish. That latter part is an area where different governments have chosen different approaches at different times. The U.S. Department of Justice chose one approach in its consent decree. The Korean Fair Trade Commission chose a second approach. The European Commission in the media player case in 2004 chose a third approach. Today's announcement on the browser reflects the European Commission choosing a fourth approach.

Some people have the opinion that as a result of these different antitrust issues, Microsoft really finds itself with one hand tied behind its back as it competes in the battles of today. Do you believe Microsoft in the current antitrust environment competes on an even footing with some of the other Internet giants?
Smith: I do believe it is very important for all technology leaders in our industry to follow the same laws and obey the same rules. The rules don't necessarily apply in the same way when a company has a small market share as it does when a company has a large market share. But there are a number of companies that have large market shares for very important products. We've taken a number of steps to get into line with new legal rules in this field. The law has evolved and we've needed to evolve to address these new obligations.

We do believe our competitors need to play by the same rules. They've often been at the forefront of asking regulators to evolve the law in new directions. Now that the regulators have done so, we believe they need to pay attention as well.

Do you anticipate a period of time over the next few years where Microsoft is more likely to be the subject of antitrust inquiries or the company on the other side of the table for a change?
Smith: I think that we have addressed a very wide array of issues. Perhaps, in part because we were the first company to have to go through these inquiries, at least since the dawn of the PC era. We've probably had to go farther and sooner than other companies have had to do. We're now in an era where a different company seems to be in the headlines for competition law issues, if not every day, at least every month.

I think that what we are going to see in the next decade is this field of law being applied to a wide number of technology leaders that have high market share. We're going to see that, not only in Washington and Brussels, but we're likely to see that in more countries around the world simply because the global economy has evolved.

Have you expressed concerns specifically to Europe or Washington, D.C., about some of Google's behaviors?
Smith: We were very transparent last year when Google entered into its agreement with Yahoo. We felt that that was an illegal agreement that Google had entered into for the sole purpose of preventing Microsoft from becoming a more successful competitor, together with Yahoo, in the search space.

It was only when the Department of Justice informed the parties that it was on the verge of filing suit that Google decided to drop that agreement. We have not been shy about raising concerns when we have them.

It was only a couple hours after you guys settled with Brussels that we heard from D.C. with regards to Intel. When you initially heard that the FTC was filing suit against Intel, did you have feelings of empathy toward what their lawyers are going through, or what were your initial reactions?
Smith: I obviously know from a lot of firsthand experience the challenges that arise when a company needs to address these kinds of issues. Our road was a long one and it had its share of difficult moments. Antitrust issues are never easy for company to address.

This isn't a case where Microsoft has taken a public stance or even voiced to the regulators a position, is it?
Smith: We have not taken any public or nonpublic positions on the issues.

Are you guys looking to reach an agreement with Plurk? You guys said that you used code you shouldn't have? I'm curious if you are trying to negotiate some sort of settlement with them?
Smith: I wouldn't want to say anything that goes beyond the public statement we put out.

It does seem when I look at any particular issue with regards to the Internet, Microsoft tends to have a much more cautious approach. It seems like it is tough to compete when others are bundling more than you.
Smith: I think our goal is to be thoughtful but also fast-moving. As we look at the Internet today, it is increasingly a regulated space. That wasn't the case a decade ago. I think a thoughtful company needs to really think through how its products and services are going to comply with the regulations that are going to be enforced or likely to be applied in many different countries around the world. At the same time, one cannot let that get in the way of moving forward quickly. I think it's striking that balance that is really quite important. One needs to move fast. One shouldn't move faster than speed of thought and yet one shouldn't be so thoughtful that one simply analyzes problems and fails to solve them.

Do you think Microsoft has erred a little too much on side of caution in recent years?
Smith: I don't know that we've erred too much on the side of caution, but I do think it's extremely important we move quickly. This is a very dynamic space it is certain to remain a very dynamic space. Customers are interested in deploying new products and services, whether it is on the client, on the server, or on the cloud. The real key is to develop the capability to be both thoughtful and fast moving.

It's been a busy year for Bob Muglia.

Microsoft's server and tools boss shipped an update to Windows Server, got promoted to division president, and prepared Microsoft's operating system in the clouds--Windows Azure--for its commercial launch.

Bob Muglia

(Credit: Microsoft)

In what has become a bit of a year-end ritual, Muglia sat down with CNET for a year-end interview. We hit on a range of topics, from the future of Windows Server, to why his bank won't be moving to Windows Azure any time soon, to the changing life of an IT manager, to Microsoft's consumer future. (Spoiler alert: Muglia thinks it is bright.)

Here's an edited transcript of our interview:

A few years out, how much does Windows Server, the server operating system, start to resemble Windows Azure?
Muglia: Well, making them as similar as possible is clearly the goal, and the goal is to take all the things that we do in Windows Server and make those capable to be done in Windows Azure, and then take the learning we have in Windows Azure and bring it back to Windows Server.

We just took the step of bringing the Windows Azure team, Amitabh (Srivastava) and his group, and putting that in my organization.

Now, what we also did as a part of that, is we merged the Windows Azure and Windows Server teams together. I just talked to Amitabh and he's really excited about the synergies that he can build across the organization and making these things as similar as possible.

In our own services, obviously we choose the hardware, and so there's a more limited set of things that work together. In some senses that gives us a bit of agility on the services side, because we can make something work in one very particular way, but what we've got a long term history of doing is understanding how to do that, and then abstracting that out to work in a much more general purpose way, to work with the hardware that our customers have.

One of the things we're looking at is how do we take the ideas that we're bringing to market in the form of Windows Azure service, and then build those into Windows Server and make them available to our on-premises customers and our hosters.

Do you expect there to be sort of an interim option? I wouldn't be surprised to see you guys do something in the intermediate term where you have the traditional Windows Server that runs on any hardware, you have Azure very customized for your data center, but then make a version of Windows Azure that they can write Azure apps for, but run in their own data centers.
Muglia: We're looking at those sorts of options. I think the trick to the thing is to understand what are the workloads that are most appropriate for doing that, and how would we structure that, and honestly we're still looking at that.

There are some interesting thoughts in that sense, and you can see how, for example, in a high-performance computing environment, where people could use hundreds or thousands of computers in one cluster, you know, Azure is really very, very helpful for something like that. But we're still looking at understanding exactly how we might bring some of those things to market.

I know you're the enterprise guy, but I thought I would give you the opportunity to come to the rescue of your consumer colleagues. One of the analysts pretty prominently said in The New York Times that it's kind of "game over" for Microsoft on the consumer side, particularly phones. I'm curious your thoughts on this.
Muglia: Well, I read your blog. You did, generally speaking, come to our defense. I mean, it's probably a fair thing to say that we understand the nerd. I think we understand more than the nerd, but it's certainly true that we do a good job with that audience, and that's actually my customer in a lot of senses, because I've got the developers and the IT pros.

You know, I feel like as a company we have a lot of focus on the consumer, and are doing a lot of great things that are quite revolutionary to consumers, and we're going to continue to do it. I mean, obviously if you look at what's happened even with Windows 7 and the success of Windows 7, most of the short term success has been in the consumer marketplace. The business marketplace is going to happen, but business moves slower than the consumer does.
Obviously we've had products like Xbox that have been very successful with consumer, and I think the new Zune work has been really fantastic, and obviously Bing has been really great.

I also think that people are going to be very pleasantly surprised to see the work we're doing in phones, and that will become visible next year. So, I think even in areas where there's been some concern, there is some really substantive, very, very innovative work coming down the line.

It seems a little weird to be saying this, but we're almost at 2010. Are there things in technology that you thought would have happened by now that haven't yet happened?
Muglia: Well, I certainly thought that the 787 would have flown by now. I hear it's supposed to fly Tuesday or Wednesday, though, so that's a good thing. I'm glad to hear that.

I think, if you had asked me in 2000, "Would we be further along on reading on devices than we are now?" I would have said we would be. And we're really starting to see that now with some very special purpose readers, but I would have thought it would have hit across more general purpose devices by now. So, that's probably been one thing.

You know, I think that that's related to how fast tablets or slates or whatever you might want to call them might have taken off. I might have thought that would have gone a little faster than it has. Those two are somewhat related with each other.

But those things always kind of come at different speeds, and I'm pretty confident both of them will become very important as we move forward.

If you could show the world as it is now to your 2000 self, what do you think would be most surprising?
Muglia: We've shifted to a world where all kinds of media are delivered digitally.

You think about what's happened with newspapers and magazines and things, I guess I wouldn't have predicted that shift would happen as dramatically. Not that it's delivered digitally, I think we would have expected that, but the kind of reporting and the real-time nature associated with it.

And I guess, similarly, some of the way social networks have developed, and the impact that they have had on the way people communicate. I find it so fascinating as an example to see the impact that Facebook has on what's happening in other countries like Iran, and getting information out, those sorts of things. You know, I'm not surprised by them, but I certainly wouldn't have predicted them back then.

So, probably your 2000 self might be surprised that in 2009 you're in touch with more people from your high school than you were in 2000?
Muglia: Right, exactly, things like that, exactly. That's a perfect way to say it.

Obviously, your focus is the IT world, and I'm curious, how different is the life of an IT manager? How much has changed in the last decade for what they do on a day-to-day basis?
Muglia: I actually think it's quite different for an IT manager. I think IT managers used to be expected to build the systems and do everything, and now I think they're much more focused on providing the infrastructure for the business teams and the people within business to do things.

One other thing that's missing at least from Microsoft at the end of this decade, as compared to the beginning is Bill Gates at least in a full-time sense. As one of the people kind of at the top of the technical ranks, I'm curious how have you noticed his absence in the last 18 months since he's left full-time work?
Muglia: I watched while Bill was here how his role shifted over a period of time. There was a period of time when the company was at a size and scope where Bill really was able to do the direction, the technical direction of very large parts of the company.

During the 1990s, we grew to a point where that was just not possible for a human being to do, although Bill's capacity is far beyond most. And so over time, Bill shifted into much more of an advisor role, and he provided advice and guidance.

While Bill's advice was always incredibly useful, he did a great job of also building a lot of people within the company that could also think in a similar sort of way to him. I mean, I'd like to think that I learned a lot from Bill and I'm able to do some of the things that Bill would have done.

I view part of my job is to take up and do many of the things that Bill did, and to do it in my area. My area of scope is broad but it's to a level that I think I can still do that effectively.

But I think what's happened is we now have a hierarchy of people. You've got Ray doing some significant cross-group things, and then you've got people like myself or Steven Sinofsky or folks in Stephen Elop's world, J Allard, all playing subset roles of what Bill used to do.

For a long time, Microsoft and you talked about this notion of autonomic computing. One of the things that conveyed was the sense that the IT would just sort of manage itself. Now you guys talk more about Dynamic IT. It seems like some of the idea that it's just going to magically happen has been moved from the notion.
Muglia: Let's just sort of kind of go back and talk about the time from where all those things sort of emerged in the 2002, 2003 sort of time. People sometimes called things autonomic computing, they sometimes called it utility computing. You know, our name for it was always Dynamic IT. It actually started out as the Dynamic Systems Initiative, and we sort of broadened it a bit with Dynamic IT a few years ago.

And the idea being that operational resources should be largely self-managing, and the process, the lifecycle of developing an application should be connected from the point of requirements, definition, through development, all the way to operations. That vision has not changed. We said it was a 10-year vision in 2003, and it will probably take us 10 years to really fully fulfill it. I think every year, as we release new products, we take substantive steps forward.

Now, the thing I didn't understand back then is that all of this would lead so naturally to the cloud application model, and that's what we've kind of put in place over the last year or two. I would very clearly say that is the next thing.

When you think about some of the biggest trends in the coming few years, I imagine cloud computing is a big one?
Muglia: Yeah. The thing that to me is so exciting about that is the impact I think it's going to have on business, most importantly allowing people to write applications more rapidly that really meet the needs of tier one enterprise apps, and do so at a fraction of the cost, both from a hardware perspective and from an operational perspective.

So, the kinds of things that would have required a mainframe in the past.
Muglia: Absolutely. Obviously we built software for very high-end systems. I mean, being straight and honest, that's not the main thing that our software is used for. We have a fairly small number of our systems running on these big $100,000 plus machines. But it's an important segment of the market, and clearly UNIX has a significant segment there, and the mainframe is a significant segment there.

When I talk to the Windows Azure guys, and I talk the software architecture that they've put in place in terms of having isolation units and understanding how to contain failures, and then I look at the way we are building the next generation data center systems, built inside these containers, I recognize that a container is essentially the mainframe of the future. The difference is that it's thousands of times more powerful than a mainframe at a fraction of the cost.

Do you have a sense of how many people are actually doing real cloud computing today, what percentage of businesses, and what that might look like in the next two or three years?
Muglia: I think Forrester has done some work that it's a really small number of people, like 4 percent of folks that are actually deploying things right now. So, it's still very nascent. But we expect a really large number of folks to start to (use cloud computing) over the next 12 to 18 months.

We're right at that inflection point where people are going to begin to start building real applications and begin deploying those applications into their environment, both for internal use and for their external customers. Certainly if you go out three to five years, we expect it to become very mainstream.

One of the constant debates is when people ask how much work will be done in a company's own data centers as compared to some sort of public cloud like Microsoft is running with Azure. Do you have a sense of where that mix might be a couple years from now or five years from now?
Muglia: I think certainly over the next five years we'll still see more work done in-house than in a public cloud. I mean, you'd have to move an awful lot of work out in order to shift that.

The question will be what is the cost and the effect, and at one level how much can this be done for people in a public cloud environment at a lower cost, and what level of security and trust can be established so that people feel comfortable moving their workloads to the cloud. I don't expect my bank will be moving their core financial systems to a public cloud environment in a five-year horizon, and that's probably a fine decision on their part.

I want to make, enable, and build the technology infrastructure to allow people to move their most sensitive data into the cloud so that some day it will become possible for a bank to do that, but I think it will take a little while for it to actually happen.

Last week, Microsoft bought a company called Opalis that specializes in software to manage data centers. Is this a big company? What made you interested in them?
Muglia: It's a moderate sized company. I'm really excited about this acquisition. I mean, what they do is something that's called "run book automation," and what they've done is they've built a very strong base of understanding of how to automate tasks that are happening within the data center.

And by the way, that's quite heterogeneous in its nature. Although they run fully on Windows, they're not limited and restricted to data center tasks that happen simply in Windows, but they can reach out and work with Linux and UNIX systems, et cetera.

Being able to automate a set of tasks is one of the key things that's going to be necessary to simplify the operations of any of these data center environments, and Opalis is a fantastic acquisition for us because they bring a ton of expertise and real world customer experience in that space. We think our customers will see value from this literally from day one.

Microsoft said Friday that it has acquired Toronto-based Opalis Software, a maker of data center management software.

The company did not disclose financial details of the transaction, but said that the move will augment its System Center line of management software. Opalis' products already plug in to System Center, as well as other companies' management software. Over time, Microsoft plans to add some of Opalis' software into System Center itself.

"I believe this acquisition is a pivotal piece to deliver on our dynamic data center initiative," Microsoft vice president Brad Anderson said in a blog posting. "This deal brings together the deep data center automation expertise of Opalis with the integrated physical and virtualized data center management capabilities of Microsoft System Center."

Opalis CEO Todd DeLaughter said in a separate blog post that Microsoft shares his vision that process automation is key to the data center of the future.

"Microsoft has always impressed me with their next generation view of how systems management tools should cleanly integrate to provide an easier user experience without the baggage of complexity that all of the existing legacy systems management tools carry," DeLaughter said. "Combined with Opalis, System Center will be able to interoperate with all of those legacy tools so customers can take a 'land and migrate' approach with Microsoft versus a 'rip and replace' approach as they build out their next generation virtualized data centers."

On Thursday, Microsoft said it is buying Sentillion, a company that supplies software to health care professionals.

Microsoft on Thursday said it has started licensing the technology behind another flash memory format.

The company announced a program to license out the Extended File Allocation Table (exFAT) format, which is an updated version of the file allocation table format. Microsoft also licenses out that format, though its patents there have been the subject of contention, particularly since many distributions of Linux include the FAT formats.

The newer format, exFAT, can work on far larger-capacity devices than its predecessor--256 terabytes, as opposed to 32GB for FAT. It also allows for faster file saves on Secure Digital Extended Capacity cards and is more extensible than its predecessor, Microsoft said.

"There has been an explosion in the use of rich audio and video files," David Kaefer, general manager of Intellectual Property Licensing at Microsoft, said in a statement. "ExFAT is an ideal file system that delivers fast and reliable use of audio and video files."

Kaefer added that exFAT is an important technology in Windows 7. "Now that we are licensing this technology broadly to the industry, we want to encourage and support partners to build products that also contain this technology."

Sony, Canon, and Sanyo have already signed up to license the format, Microsoft said.

For certain device categories, such as cameras, camcorders, and digital photo frames, Microsoft is charging a flat $300,000 license fee, while companies that want to use the format in devices such as phones, PCs, and networks will have to pay a volume-based license fee.

Microsoft has been on a push to license out more of its intellectual property since December 2003.

Because of its ties to Linux, the licensing of the FAT technology has been among Microsoft's more controversial moves, resulting in significant efforts to have Microsoft's patents declared invalid.

The patents related to the FAT formats were among those Microsoft included in its suit against TomTom. The two sides later settled the patent dispute.

Microsoft said Wednesday it has reposted a tool to the Internet that aids installing Windows 7 on Netbooks and computers without an optical drive.

The software maker pulled the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download tool off its Web site last month after it was pointed out that the software appeared to use open-source code licensed under the GNU Public License (GPL v2). Microsoft later apologized and said that the code did in fact use GPL code. Microsoft said it would repost the tool and make it open source under the terms of the GPL.

Microsoft posted the open-source version of the tool on Wednesday, although it took longer than the company had originally anticipated.

"As we previously explained, the testing and localization took longer than we expected, but the project is now hosted on CodePlex.com, Microsoft's Open Source software project hosting repository," Microsoft open-source community manager Peter Galli said in a blog posting.

Also, the whole effort to get Windows 7 onto a Netbook now takes longer as several other pieces of code that had been included with the tool are now separate downloads.

When Microsoft announced the Windows 7 Family Pack option, it said that the three-user bundle of Windows 7 Home Premium would be available only for a limited time.

That time, it appears, is drawing to a close. As noted by WindowsITPro, supplies are drying up fast.

(Credit: Amazon.com)

"The Windows 7 Family Pack was introduced as a limited time offer while supplies last in select geographies," Microsoft said in a statement. "Response has been very positive and in some cases, the offer has sold out. "

The company wouldn't say how many copies have sold or how many it allocated for the family pack option. It also said it has no current plans to extend the offer.

Microsoft's own online store appears to be sold out, though those in Orange County, Calif. or Scottsdale, Ariz. could check out the retail spots.

Amazon itself is sold out, although some other sellers are offering it on Amazon's site, but at prices well above its suggested price.

Computer users had been asking Microsoft since the days of Vista and longer to offer a discount to those trying to outfit more than one PC with the latest version of Windows. Microsoft finally confirmed in July that it would have a family pack option.

When it announced full details later that month, though, Microsoft said that the $149 package would be available "while supplies last." At the time I pressed them for more details and the company would not say how many copies it planned to sell nor how long the offer would last.

Apple, by contrast, has offered its Mac OS X family pack since 2002. That version covers up to five computers in a household.

Microsoft said Tuesday that its investigation has turned up no evidence that anything in its November security updates should be causing users to encounter a so-called "black screen of death."

"Microsoft has investigated reports that its November security updates made changes to permissions in the registry that that are resulting in system issues for some customers," Microsoft security response communications lead Christopher Budd said in a statement. "The company has found those reports to be inaccurate and our comprehensive investigation has shown that none of the recently released updates are related to the behavior described in the reports."

Microsoft said it was not contacted by British security firm Prevx before that company went public with its claims. Microsoft said it has reached out to them to let them know the results of its investigation.

The company said on Monday that it would look into the matter, but issued an update later in the day saying it could not verify any issues.

"Our support organization is also not seeing this as an issue," Budd said on Tuesday. "The claims also do not match any known issues that have been documented in the security bulletins or (knowledge base) articles.

Update, 3:15 p.m. PT: Prevx posted an updated blog saying that it has done additional testing.

"Having narrowed down a specific trigger for this condition we've done quite a bit of testing and re-testing on the recent Windows patches," the comapny said. "Since more specifically narrowing down the cause we have been able to exonerate these patches from being a contributory factor."

The company also offered up a mea culpa to Redmond and said it also recommends users keep patching their systems promptly. "We apologize to Microsoft for any inconvenience our blog may have caused."

Microsoft is teaming with Live Nation to use a music-themed site to tout Windows 7.

(Credit: Screenshot by Ina Fried/CNET)

Borrowing a tactic it has used to tout Internet Explorer, Microsoft on Tuesday launched a music tie-in to help promote Windows 7.

Dubbed Section 7, the site offers discount concert tickets and is being done in conjunction with music promoter Live Nation. Among the things the site features are $7 concert tickets and $7 merchandise for select artists.

"Section 7 offers music lovers a host of insider benefits, including exclusive ticket buying options, discounts, and opportunities to meet their favorite artists, fan clubs, great deals on tickets, merchandise and more," Microsoft said in an e-mail.

The first 37,000 people who sign up also get a voucher for a free pair of tickets to a concert at a Live Nation club or theater.

Microsoft says it is trying to "simplify the music experience one concert at a time." That seems a stretch, but hey, free concert tickets sounds pretty good. Locations are limited, though, so not everyone will have a local option.

MISSION VIEJO, Calif.--On my way to last month's Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles, I took a small detour to Orange County to check out the recently opened Microsoft Store there.

Although I had heard plenty about Microsoft's nascent retail effort, I wanted to get a firsthand look.

At a glance, it's easy to understand why the store draws so many comparisons to Apple's stores. The outside of the store features an expansive glass window with a stylized Microsoft logo at the top. Inside, products are sorted into themed sections, with a help desk and theater in the rear, and all around are T-shirted enthusiasts ready to answer any and all questions.

From that standpoint, it's nearly a carbon copy. But even as it mimics much of the Apple approach, Microsoft finds ways to customize its message to its different role in the world. When it comes to laptops, for example, Microsoft is eager to lay out dozens of choices to highlight the variety of prices, sizes, and options available to those buying Windows.

Peeking into Microsoft's retail store (photos)

The company is starting small--opening just two stores so far, this one and another in Scottsdale, Ariz. The goal, Microsoft said, is to better understand what customers want at retail and, ideally, persuade larger retail chains such as Best Buy and Office Depot to adapt some of the more successful techniques to their stores.

Apple, by contrast, has become its own most significant channel with its online and retail stores, even though its computers and iPods can also be found at places like Best Buy. From a dollars perspective, Apple's retail stores alone accounted for $1.87 billion of the company's $9.87 billion in total revenue during the most recent quarter. Next year alone the company plans to open 40 to 50 stores, with more than half of them overseas.

But if its scale is different than Apple's, its goal is largely the same: to offer the best possible experience when buying its flavor of PCs and accessories, as well as to be, well, cool.

To that end, Microsoft has pulled out every tool in its arsenal, from PCs to phones to the Xbox 360, as well as a huge "video wall" made up of dozens of 42-inch flat screens connected to form a single, though constantly changing, image or video display.

But by far the biggest draw is a product that isn't even for sale--the Surface tabletop computer.

During the several hours I spent at the store, it was that device, more than the laptops, that drew people in and captured their attention.

Josh Griffin stopped in at the store with his three kids, with all four quickly heading to the Surface.

"This is cool," said Griffin, who came into the store to check out Windows 7 among other things. "I've read about Surface before, but never been able to see it. It's actually a little cooler than I thought it would be."

The three kids began carving virtual pumpkins on the Surface while we chatted, but eventually Griffin turned his attention back to the tabletop computer.

"Can I do one?" Griffin asked his kids, trying only somewhat successfully to elbow his way in.

Surface, though, isn't the only thing worth pointing out.

Microsoft has taken an interesting approach to selling PC software--the category it is best known for. Although Microsoft stocks dozens of software products on its back shelves, hundreds more titles are available on-demand. Customers can browse on a touch screen through the various options and once they select a product, it can be burned to disc in the back of the store, complete with a professional-looking disc label, DVD case, and manual.

"We're like legal pirates," said Steven Precious, COO of Tribeka, the company whose system Microsoft uses in its stores. Precious just happened to be checking in on the Mission Viejo store while I was there.

The software maker also uses its position as retailer to influence what software is loaded onto the PCs it sells. While Microsoft the operating-system vendor is required by antitrust decrees to allow computer makers to install whatever software they wish, Microsoft the retailer is allowed far more say.

As a result, PCs sold at the Microsoft Store come with what Microsoft calls its "signature" software collection--a bundle that includes Windows Live products, Zune jukebox, Bing search engine and Microsoft Security Essentials antivirus software.

Having its own stores also allows Microsoft to try to match other areas in which Apple benefits from its direct contact with consumers, such as offering in-store support. Where as Apple has its "genius bar," Microsoft has an "answers desk." Both Apple and Microsoft offer a theater in the back for various trainings.

Microsoft is also trying to match Apple's passionate workforce. The retail store employees are made up of Windows enthusiasts, some of whom moved across the country to work at a Microsoft store. As evidenced by a recent YouTube video, the staff can be accused of many things, but a lack of passion is not one of them.

One of the key questions in my mind, though, is whether business will be brisk enough to allow Microsoft to profitably operate. The software maker has said it intends to run its stores as a business, meaning that to expand well beyond its current two locations, it will need to show an ability to not just look pretty, but also make money.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the amount of revenue Apple gets from its retail and online stores. Apple got $1.87 billion in revenue last quarter from its retail stores alone; the company does not break out sales from its online Apple store.