X360 'Folding@home' possible

By Games Industry.biz Published 9 May, 2007

Says Peter Moore.

Microsoft games boss Peter Moore has indicated that the company would seriously consider running a research project similar to Sony's Folding@home initiative, on the Xbox 360, GamesIndustry.biz reports.

The Folding@home project allows multiple, connected PlayStation 3's to calculate data to aid medical research for Stanford University.

Sony's assistance has been widely praised for bringing attention to such schemes, where idle home consoles are able to simulate the processing power of multiple PCs.

"If we truly believe that we can in some way marshal the resources of a much larger installed base of Xbox 360 owners, with a processor that's of equal power to the PS3, then you have my commitment that we'll look at that," commented Moore, corporate VP of interactive entertainment at Microsoft, to The Mercury News.

"And if we believe we can add value to solving a gnarly problem such as medical problems and the health problems that Folding@home seems to be doing, then we'll certainly look at that very strongly."

So far, over 250,000 registered PlayStation 3 users have signed for the Folding@home project, although Moore is still wary of the actual results

"I'm not quite sure yet whether we're seeing real tangible results from the PlayStation 3 Folding@home initiative. We continue to look at this and see whether there's real value," he added.

For "Moore" industry news, check in regularly with GamesIndustry.biz.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (75) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • kangarootoo #1 5 years ago

    "If we truly believe that we can in some way marshal the resources of a much larger installed base of Xbox 360 owners, with a processor that's of equal power to the PS3, then you have my commitment that we'll look at that"

    Hehehe. I have no opinion on that statement, other than chuckling at how opportunity was taken to spin some PR :)

  • kangarootoo #2 5 years ago

    BTW EG, why have you started weighting certain news stories toward the top of the list? It makes seeing what is new rather awkward to say the least.

  • AusFreelancer #3 5 years ago

    They "could" if they had the hardware build quality of the ps3...shame really, would be a good boost for the whole project.

  • Tonka #4 5 years ago

    Who would want to listen to the noise though?

  • Les #5 5 years ago

    Unles the 360 processor is of at least equal strength as Cell, MS won’t let this happen. Would prevent them from spreading FUD. I predict no folding for xbox and more FUD on PS3’s part in the programme. Quite funny that he explicitly attacks the PS3 contribution and not the whole programme, which in this case can’t really be separated.

  • Steroyd #6 5 years ago

    Wow is MS's philosophy with the Xbox 360 more about it wanting to be what the PS3 is or something.

  • belziah #7 5 years ago

    wheres his flares?

  • Xerx3s #8 5 years ago

    Oh for god sake, NO! I bought a console to play games, not to make it do what my pc's have been doing for years already. Why on earth would I leave the machine on when it isn't needed? I'm not that selfish.

  • zuljin #9 5 years ago

    Not likely to happen... Would be nice if it did tho! The more the merrier :) Although it should possibly take a bit more of a generic solution, where you can choose which distributed research project you contribute to.

  • lennon #10 5 years ago

    Count me as one of the 250,000 who signed up for it but I ran it for 10 minutes then switched the console off as to be honest I dont want to leave it running when Im not using it.

  • CrumpledPaper #11 5 years ago

    "Unles the 360 processor is of at least equal strength as Cell, MS won’t let this happen."

    The Folding@Home people don't think so:

    "the cell processor in the PS3 is much more powerful for our calculations than the CPU in the Xbox 360."

    [link url=http ://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/03-05-2007-5386.html
    ]http://ww w.pro-g.co.uk/news/03-05-2007-5...[/link]

    However, maybe they could make a client that taps the GPU also, or instead. Might be more useful.

  • Xerx3s #12 5 years ago

    On second note: I do see a world of opportunities to get free achievements. :/

  • Les #13 5 years ago

    "as to be honest I dont want to leave it running when Im not using it."

    But with folding@home you are in fact using it, so then it shouldn't be a problem for you.

  • Splush #14 5 years ago

    Using this subject as an excuse to tout your console's power/popularity is really tacky.

    I doubt I'd run F@H on my 360 anyway, the noise it makes is so annoying if you haven't got game noise to drown it out. Also, I treat every minute that my launch 360 runs without breaking down as a gift from god.

  • tonynibbles #15 5 years ago

    Hang on.
    The raw processing power of the CELL is higher than that of the processor in the 360... This isn't a game, this is a little app that purely does calculations. I'm really not sure the comment "with a processor that's of equal power to the PS3" is very true in this case, is it.

    If they get it going, great.

  • Dizzy #16 5 years ago

    Please no... PS3 has already wasted too much energy doing this.

    " I'm really not sure the comment "with a processor that's of equal power to the PS3" is very true in this case, is it. "

    The ATI GPU version of Folding@Home is faster than Cell, so I am sure they would use that version.

    "the noise it makes is so annoying if you haven't got game noise to drown it out"

    360 doesn't make noise when running Dashboard apps.
    Edited by 2 at 09/05/07 @ 14:46

  • peterfll #17 5 years ago

    I like the idea but want this sort of application to run in the background with smaller work units Currently leaving my 200 Watt PS3 for eight hours at a time so it can complete one work unit doesn't seem the most efficient approach to using the platform.

  • Steroyd #18 5 years ago

    The ATI GPU version of Folding@Home is faster than Cell, so I am sure they would use that version.

    Didn't the Folding@home people talk about how GPU's have to do the calculations twice to get the same result as one calculation from a CPU.

  • dredd97 #19 5 years ago

    'I like the idea but want this sort of application to run in the background with smaller work units Currently leaving my 200 Watt PS3 for eight hours at a time so it can complete one work unit doesn't seem the most efficient approach to using the platform.'

    yes it's much easier to use your pc with it's 450-550 watt power supply, much more efficient!!

  • dredd97 #20 5 years ago

    shame on you pete...

    just because it's on the ps3 it's really childish to dismiss it's contribution, yet implying that it will be much better on the 360...

    perhaps your jealous because the folding@home guys didn't say something nice about the 360...

  • Dizzy #21 5 years ago

    "yes it's much easier to use your pc with it's 450-550 watt power supply, much more efficient!! "

    A PC does this when you work using idle cycles. So it is much more efficient.

    Modern CPUs of course have good power saving code so it used to be more efficient 10 years ago. Still running it on your PC WHILE YOU DO SOMETHING ON IT, is the best way to use this. Not turning on your PS3 all night and *gasp* stare at the pretty pictures on your big fat plasma.

  • kangarootoo #22 5 years ago

    @tonynibbles

    "This isn't a game, this is a little app that purely does calculations."

    Are you sure that is actually what you meant to say?

  • SwedBear #23 5 years ago

    I listened to one of the Folding@Home guys at an AMD event recently where they were just discussing Folding on a GPU. The ATI GPu's that are already supported (X1900 and higher I think) already are faster than the PS3 and the new cards coming in a week will be even faster. I don't think that the Xbox360 would need to fold on the CPU and instead could fold on the GPU. Or maybe even both.

    However - something I didn't know was that while the GPu's and the Cell can burn through more work-units than Dual-Core and SIngle-Core CPU's, the instead are less flexible than these. Basically it was the inverse. So a Single Core CPU was the most flexible and thus could be assigned any workunit. The GPU's and the Cell on the other hand was less flexible and right now could only run water simulations.

    So they still need a lot of regular CPU's.

    He did actually mention that "the other next-gen console maker" hadn't contacted them but that they would love to work with them.

  • kangarootoo #24 5 years ago

    @Dizzy

    I don't think we can really presume one way or the other how Folding@home would run, and therefore whether extra CPU cooling would be required or not. how you launch the title is hardly the deciding factor.

  • Les #25 5 years ago

    @Dizzy

    You can't waste energy, physics you know. The whole 'energy abuse' argument is kind of far fetched, but then again, that’s what fanboys do… I think that you can fairly accurately state that every minute of gaming is more of a 'waste' than a minute contributing to something like folding@home.

  • bonker #26 5 years ago

    "360 doesn't make noise when running Dashboard apps. "

    You're having a laugh mate - mine is at 100db regardless of whether it's running/idle/whatever ...

  • jonsaan #27 5 years ago

    hahahahahahahahahahaha.

    You'd need to find a way to prevent your machines overheating first you cunt.

  • zuljin #28 5 years ago

    @bonker
    "mine is at 100db regardless of whether it's running/idle/whatever ..."

    Even when switched off? You gotta get that checked out...

  • Mr_Whacker #29 5 years ago

    Sorry to any ill types but if he thinks I'm going to overheat my X360 running this all night then he's wrong. All your proteins will just have to stay flat.

  • Aurifex. #30 5 years ago

    Notice he say's "equal" i thought it was more.

  • Dizzy #31 5 years ago

    >You can't waste energy, physics you know.

    Right.. prize for most stupid comment ever.

    While, if we talk about physics, your statement is technically correct... it is still an utterly stupid thing to say.

    Leaving your PS3 all night to do "good" is debatable at best. Running F@H on your PC while at work is a better alternative and a lesser waste of energy.

  • kangarootoo #32 5 years ago

    @Les

    "You can't waste energy, physics you know"

    Oops. I think "destroy" is the word you meant to use.

    Ah, I see Dizzy has already commented, so I'll leave it there.

  • Les #33 5 years ago

    "While, if we talk about physics, your statement is technically correct... it is still an utterly stupid thing to say."

    Of course it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. But even if it wasn't, the definition of waste is completely subjective, so there’s little point in arguing about it. Bringing it up could be considered ‘utterly stupid’ as well.

    There is a fundamental flaw in the argument about ‘preserving’ energy that the environmentalists use. As is often the case with people attacking a problem, they focus on the symptom (energy use), rather than the cause (the fact that the production of (the majority of) energy causes pollution).

    Whether PC CPU’s, even when only using idle cycles, are more energy efficient than the PS3 for the same calculations that Cell is good at, I don’t know. You might be right.

  • moggsy #34 5 years ago

    There is a fundamental flaw in the argument about ‘preserving’ energy that the environmentalists use. As is often the case with people attacking a problem, they focus on the symptom (energy use), rather than the cause (the fact that the production of (the majority of) energy causes pollution).

    So:

    Using less energy = less pollution

    no?

    It's not about preserving energy, it's about using less so that less has to be produced (or in fact converted from one form to another in a polluting fashion). So where's the fundamental flaw in this?
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/07 @ 15:58

  • JediMasterMalik #35 5 years ago

    That was cringeworthy to read tbh. So many points at which he wastaking unnecessary digs.

    It'd be good if it could happen, and if it does. Folding FTW.

    Boo to the naysayers! :D

  • zuljin #36 5 years ago

    @Moggsy
    "So where's the fundamental flaw in this?"

    Not really a flaw, but (personally) I think we should do more to research renewable sources in addition to reducing usage. If you think this is a waste of energy, then isn't gaming wasting energy too? The solution would be to switch to a supplier which only supplies energy from renewable sources.

  • Les #37 5 years ago

    “It's not about preserving energy, it's about using less so that less has to be produced (or producing energy in a less polluting way). So where's the fundamental flaw in this?”

    There’s no reason to use less energy if energy is ‘clean’. So energy consumption in itself is not a problem: why put restrictions on it? The flaw seems quite clear to me.

  • Xerx3s #38 5 years ago

    It'd be good if it could happen, and if it does. Folding FTW.

    A good thing eh? Good for lining the pockets of my energy supplier. I'm not a big waster and usually have everything off as much as possible and even with that my bill was higher last year. I don't think I need another avoidable power drain tyvm.

    Now if they would have some kind of refund...

  • lennon #39 5 years ago

    @Les - I dont want to leave the ps3 on consuming power that I am paying for when Im not using it is that a problem to you or should I check with you next time I switch my ps3 on that I am allowed to turn it off?

  • Hughes. #40 5 years ago

    With this and his "moving target" obfuscating over the 360 failure rate in the 1up interview, Moore is really scoring high on the Dick-O-Meter right now. He'd better be careful now Ker-razy Ken isn't there as a counterbalance.

  • Les #41 5 years ago

    "@Les - I dont want to leave the ps3 on consuming power that I am paying for when Im not using it is that a problem to you or should I check with you next time I switch my ps3 on that I am allowed to turn it off?"

    Did I say so anywhere? Whether you want to use folding@home (and thus pay for the energy consumption) or not is your own choice. I just hate it when discussions are poluted with all kind of silly arguments.

  • lennon #42 5 years ago

    I think you are in the wrong place then as silly arguments appear to be common place. You quoted me directly and sounded rather up your own backside about it to be honest.

  • Les #43 5 years ago

    "You quoted me directly and sounded rather up your own backside about it to be honest."

    You said you didn't want to leave your console powered on if you weren't using it. Which is a fair position. I just pointed out that running folding@home is using your console. So it's just not a good argument against using folding@home. Not wanting to run it because it costs you money is.

  • kangarootoo #44 5 years ago

    @Les

    "Of course it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't have made it."

    Heeheehee, thats good.

    A basic dictionary def of waste is "to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander".

    You can absolutely do that with energy. But you cannot destroy it, physics you know.

    "There’s no reason to use less energy if energy is ‘clean’. So energy consumption in itself is not a problem: why put restrictions on it?"

    You are talking hyperthetically here. No one has yet found a way of creating energy in a totally clean way. So IF the energy is clean we shouldn't put restriction on its use, but in reality it ISN'T, so we should.

    The "fundamental flaw" in the environmentalists argument that you describe is in fact REALITY. Hmmm, I guess that might be the fundamental flaw in my argument too, but I can live with that.


    P.s.
    "I just hate it when discussions are poluted with all kind of silly arguments."

    This is also a winner, right up alongside the first quote in this post.

  • lennon #45 5 years ago

    To be fair I said "when I'm not using it" which I wouldnt be so Im still not sure what your point is or was and whether it was worth your or my effort typing these messages :)

  • zuljin #46 5 years ago

    @kanga
    "You are talking hyperthetically here. No one has yet found a way of creating energy in a totally clean way. So IF the energy is clean we shouldn't put restriction on its use, but in reality it ISN'T, so we should."

    How can you say wind/solar power isn't totally clean? It's not very efficient, but I think its pretty clean. Theres also a pretty cool article in NewScientist on room temp nuclear fusion. I think the hard part is finding out whether your provider supplies clean power, or from a multitude of sources, both reneweable and non.

  • Les #47 5 years ago

    “How can you say wind/solar power isn't totally clean?”

    He’s probably referring to the fact that creating the facilities to produce the energy creates some pollution as well. I don’t know whether that’s avoidable or not, I’m no engineer.

    All I say is we should put more effort in creating clean energy than in reducing energy consumption. Environmentalists are focusing too much on the latter, which distracts attention from the real problem.

  • Les #48 5 years ago

    ""Of course it is correct, otherwise I wouldn't have made it."

    Heeheehee, thats good."

    You're right, I should have included the " ;-) "

  • kangarootoo #49 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    Because you have to build the turbines. Besides which, even a running turbine needs unclean maintenance (oil for bearings etc). And I'm sure room temp fusion still needs a big box, probably made from concrete.

    I'm not saying we should give up and all bugger off into space, but the idea you can stop restricting energy on the basis that it is clean is a phallacy.

    Energy production will never be 100% clean, so it seems unwise to destrict energy use 100%. Everything we ever do is about reduction. Elimination is simply not realistic (the rest of the world doesn't work that way, so I doubt our modern energy usage ever could).

    Incidentally whilst we are on a related subject. Everything in this area is doomed because our population just keeps expanding at a phenomenal rate. The very greenest thing you can do is not have kids, and all your efforts to reduce your carbon footprint will be rendered moot if you have a kid or two.

    Not a happy thought if you are feeling broody, but its the truth :)

  • SeesThroughAll #50 5 years ago

    I'm not quite sure yet whether we're seeing real tangible results from the PlayStation 3 Folding@home initiative.

    What a load of bullshit. Stanford Uni already revealed that the simulations are currently running at almost triple the speed they did before F@A was done on the PS3.

    I very much would like to see a 360 client that uses the GPU, as it would further boost the project ENORMOUSLY, but this kind of PR crap is pointless.

  • zuljin #51 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    I disagree... The energy used to produce those materials can also be made with renewable energy. Using oil for maintenance in a turbine wouldn't be anywhere near the masses you burn to drive a turbine. 100% clean, no, 99% clean yes. Guess we have different levels of where that acceptable level lies.

    And in the nuclear fusion experiment they had it in a little box! :)

    Don't make me come over there and slap you!

  • Les #52 5 years ago

    "The very greenest thing you can do is not have kids, and all your efforts to reduce your carbon footprint will be rendered moot if you have a kid or two."

    Not completely true. The very greenest thing you can do is eradicate the complete human population. ;-)

  • smelly #53 5 years ago

    Nah, it's not possible.

    The 360 is nowhere near powerful enough to do this.

    I can understand it on the ps3 or perhaps the wii.. but not on the 360.

  • SeesThroughAll #54 5 years ago

    Nah, it's not possible.

    The 360 is nowhere near powerful enough to do this.

    I can understand it on the ps3 or perhaps the wii.. but not on the 360.

    Actually, is IS powerful enough. It could calculate faster than most PCs do. Depending on how it runs (if it simulates through the CPU rather than the GPU), it would probably just not do it as fast as the PS3, though.

    "or perhaps the Wii"? The Wii is the slowest of the three...
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/07 @ 17:40

  • -TKF- #55 5 years ago

    Please microsoft join the fight.. i´m sure you consoles wont break

    HAHAHAHA

  • Ihya #56 5 years ago

    I wouldn't in a million years. I'm paranoid enough it'll break down 13 months after purchasing it.

  • onyxbox #57 5 years ago

    the 360 running F@H would just get hotter and hotter and then redlight resulting in a complete waste of power :-)

  • Steroyd #58 5 years ago

    If millions of Xbox 360 were doing Folding@home at once the ice caps would melt in mere minutes.

    Okay that's enough.

    I find it discussing how he uses this as a semi PR move, no-one from the Sony hierarchy came out and said that the PS3 is curing cancer please buy more PS3's or anything (to my memory) like that, all the horn trumpeting came from Stamford Universities themselves, Sony just sat back and watched from the shadows.

    The Xbox 360 is selling more than the PS3, and Peter Moore comes out with little statements like this as though he's intimidated by the PS3 in some way, seriously WTF does he know what's cooking in Sony's oven that we should be aware of?
    Edited by 1 at 09/05/07 @ 20:53

  • asdfffdsa #59 5 years ago

    This won't happen, simply because Microsoft won't want to hurt the image of the Xbox360. The cell, already much more powerful than the Xbox360 CPU is for gaming, is even better at performing protein folding simulation calculations.

  • Les #60 5 years ago

    "seriously WTF does he know what's cooking in Sony's oven that we should be aware of?"

    I suspect very little. He just says what his little minions want him to say...

  • smelly #61 5 years ago

    >The Xbox 360 is selling more than the PS3,

    says who?

  • davisorle #62 5 years ago

    @smelly
    "The 360 is nowhere near powerful enough to do this.

    I can understand it on the ps3 or perhaps the wii.. but not on the 360. "

    There you go again making no sence. How on earth do you come up with these things? You really have no clue on what you are talking about cause the Wii has not even a close to 360 CPU power... Next time make sure you know what you're talking about.

  • kangarootoo #63 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    "100% clean, no, 99% clean yes."

    Thats exactly my point. If something is not 100%, you cannot talk in terms of complete derestriction (which is what les was suggesting in hypothetical terms). If you do you are simply slowling the clock, which I think we will both agree is not a solution, but rather just a delay. Again I say I'm not saying things are binary here, just that to assume that 99% clean is enough to stop caring is to pretend time isn't passing.

    @Les

    "The very greenest thing you can do is eradicate the complete human population"

    Err, if everyone stopped having kids, I think that would take care of itself.


    And PLEASE can people not rise to smelly's utterley pointless "my dad sold more units that your dad" bollox. I don't give a flying f*ck whether the 360 has sold more than the Ps3, or the Wii, ot the Atari 2600. I don't bloody care. It doesn't matter. It DOESN'T! And no one with any kind of life should really care either.

    It means nothing. Go outside, ride your bike, learn to surf, ask out the girl that works in Subway. DO SOMETHING other than care about the cocking sales figures of a company you own no shares in.

    I've given you the benefit of the doubt many times smelly, but you are a platform fanboy through and through regardless of what you say. Actions speak louder than words, end of story.

    This was turning into a perfectly interesting discussion (even if me and les were getting a bit handbags). The last thing we need is the forum equivalent of Murder She Wrote afternoon repeats sending us all to sleep.

  • NegativeZero #64 5 years ago

    'Gnarly'? I haven't heard that term used in about a decade. Someone tell Peter to update his teen-speak dictionary.

  • icelt #65 5 years ago

    @les

    You do have a legitmate point. Uncomfortable as it might, it is regardless valid.

  • Les #66 5 years ago

    "Err, if everyone stopped having kids, I think that would take care of itself."

    Yes, but that's not something "YOU" can do, is it? ;-)

  • captain_cupcake #67 5 years ago

    It means nothing. Go outside, ride your bike, learn to surf, ask out the girl that works in Subway.

    We're on EG, no? ;)

  • Xerx3s #68 5 years ago

    Actually, is IS powerful enough. It could calculate faster than most PCs do. Depending on how it runs (if it simulates through the CPU rather than the GPU), it would probably just not do it as fast as the PS3, though.

    "or perhaps the Wii"? The Wii is the slowest of the three...

    I think you failed to see the sarcasm.

    As for not being so fast, I wouldn't be so sure about that when I'm looking at the ati performance.

  • zuljin #69 5 years ago

    @kanga
    "If something is not 100%, you cannot talk in terms of complete derestriction (which is what les was suggesting in hypothetical terms)."

    Again I disagree. You get to a certain point where you use it so little that even fossil fuels would be replenishable. That is after all the whole idea behind fusion, that even though it uses fuel, it uses so little in comparison to the energy it creates that it is as close to definition of renewable as can be.

    These folding@home posts have such a tendency to switch to environmental issues. I do wonder why.

  • kangarootoo #70 5 years ago

    @zuljin

    "Again I disagree. You get to a certain point where you use it so little that even fossil fuels would be replenishable."

    You can of course theoretically reach this point if you follow the line on a graph. But I do not believe it is realistically achievable (I don't mean in a lab, I mean in the context of our energy needs and our will to invest in alternative production methods).

    And regardless of how we generate our electricity, when oil runs out the vast majority of our plastic production will be in dire jepoardy. So we may still be able to power our lights, but there will be no sockets into which to put the bulbs and no insulation for the cables that connect them together.

    I'd like to see some figures on what kind of reduction of use we would need to achieve before fossil fuel use became sustainable. I would imagine we are easily talking about a reduction of over 99% (given that millions of barrels of oil are extracted each year).

    Like I said earlier, reality puts us in no position to start saying things like "if we find clean energy production methods, we can use as much energy as we like". We simply will not achieve total clean energy production, its not human nature (its not really the nature of any animal). Generally speaking we react only when we are forced to, which almost means we are a little bit too late.

  • Les #71 5 years ago

    “We simply will not achieve total clean energy production, its not human nature (its not really the nature of any animal). Generally speaking we react only when we are forced to, which almost means we are a little bit too late.”

    We’ll be forced to stop using fossil fuels, simply because we will run out of them. So we need to find replacements anyhow and probably within quite a short timeframe (30 to 50 years). Why not focus all our efforts into not making the same mistake again and make sure those new ways of producing energy are indeed sustainable?

    But it might turn out that we can’t create sufficient (at the levels we’re consuming right now) energy in sustainable ways in time. What we then end up with is 100% clean energy but we’d have to limit use, not because producing energy is bad (polluting) but because there simply isn’t enough available.

    Had fossil fuels not run out, I would agree with you that 100% clean energy would be a utopia.

  • zuljin #72 5 years ago

    "Had fossil fuels not run out"

    HOLD THE PRESS! We've run out?

    :p
    Edited by 1 at 10/05/07 @ 11:01

  • kangarootoo #73 5 years ago

    @Les

    "We’ll be forced to stop using fossil fuels, simply because we will run out of them."

    Assuming we still rely on them, that would be the "too late" that I am talking of.

    "but we’d have to limit use, not because producing energy is bad (polluting) but because there simply isn’t enough available."

    So we agree then :)

  • Les #74 5 years ago

    @ zuljin

    lol

  • messiahtj #75 5 years ago

    Microsoft´s peter moore say????.....he always talk a bunch of shit.