Which is unusually simple. I would expect Google to use 10 more marketing names simultaneously without any logic to the product lines.
> Which is unusually simple. I would expect Google to use 10 more marketing names simultaneously without any logic to the product lines. I think they were lucky this time that they landed a good name after only a few iterations that has since stuck. Anyone remember Google Bard or LaMDA?
The r/Bard subreddit is still quite active for some reason. Reminds me of Google Glass.
A "Windows subsystem" is a specific interface between user-mode applications and the Windows kernel. It's a technical notion that exists in Windows. So there are different Windows subsystems for different types of applications. The naming convention is "Windows subsystem for ". It makes more sense when you read it as "Windows subsystem for [running] Linux [applications]". WSL2 deviates from the native concept of what…
> It makes more sense when you read it as "Windows subsystem for [running] Linux [applications]". You can't have ellipsis when the shortened version already has its own meaning. X for Y when both X and Y are nouns means that X is part of Y, not that Y is part of X. e.g. "I bought new tyres for my car". The tyres are part of my car. You can't flip it and say "I bought new my car for tyres", it's just not how the word…
There are many exceptions to what you state as an ironclad rule: i bought a display case for my baseball, i bought an album for my photos, etc. “for” can go in either direction.
Yeah imagine if they had unique product names for "AI in OneDrive", "AI in SharePoint", "AI in Outlook"... That would be even more ridiculous.
I think this is the right answer. I am frustrated by Copilot and by many aspects of AI, but to me it seems like straightforward branding: you use a Microsoft product, you want to use AI in it, you look for Copilot (name and/or icon). To me, the issue isn't that they've named so many things 'Copilot' but rather that Copilot is in every goddamn product.
You are the second person that implies that "Copilot" is just a complement that identifies part of some software...
Microsoft has been replacing most of their brands by Copilot. There's no searching for it in a product, the product is named "Copilot".
I’ve been wondering lately if the next Xbox will have “copilot” in the name. With an easy to accidentally press dedicated button on the controller that interrupts the game you’re playing to start an AI chat.
The only Microsoft products I’ve actively heard people desire within the last 5 years are VSCode and Excel. Microsoft have so severely damaged their brand that they’ve finally shed the image of oddly gray Dell midtowers running XP on Pentium 4.
The last company I worked for had copilot pretty well integrated into M365/Sharepoint/Teams. It didn't really help me get more work done but it was pretty clutch at finding information. "What meeting did we discuss such and such for X project?" And it'd get me the meeting with the notes and recording. "Which SharePoint site do the docs for that live in?" Etc. That was about all it was good for though.
Copilot on Teams has become pretty good at transcribing meetings. What's a shame, because the previous system was very funny.
And let’s not forget that Visual Studio Code (the IDE) is not Visual Studio (the IDE).
This is my biggest frustration as a full time .NET developer. Its especially worse when you're searching for Visual Studio (IDE) specifics, and get results for VS Code. It bewilders me why a company that owns a search engine names their products so poorly.
> This is my biggest frustration as a full time .NET developer.
Larger than the difference between the .Net Framework (that is a framework) and .Net Core (that is a framework)?