So... That means all of those products are for entertainment purposes only. Truth in advertising!
How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
321–330 of 406 posts
Re: How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copilot copilots Copilot copilots copilot copilot Copilot copilots
I just woke up, please for the love of ai slop, stop before you break my definition of the word copilot! (Fun fact: If you repeat a word sufficiently, it will lose its meaning..)
After reading this thread, my brain is now convinced that copilots are actually some sort of small South American mammals.
I think I'll stick to that definition; I don't want to lose my mental image of the daft-looking little copilots roaming around the Inter-Andean valleys that their more menacing-looking ancestors once inhabited. Yeah, cute little things.
Re: How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux is in fact not the origin of the "everything is a file". More properly, "everything is a file" is a Unix concept and Unix's creators deserve credit for the idea. Though Plan9 carries it out much better: Unix networking isn't file-based, Plan9's is. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
did you remember to push your glasses up your nose bridge before writing your comment
It also flashes white for a brief moment and you can hear a faint chi-wii sound.
Re: How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
#324Microsoft has always seemed to be a little chaotic and buggy in everything it did, but it was always dominant and assertive. Recently it seems like they might be about to do the impossible and throw away that market position - their cloud is imploding, they all but gave up on their AI goals, apparently the Windows UI is designed now by employees who use Macs so never use their own dog food, and while I don't believe…
Do you have any numbers to support your claim that Azure is imploding? Or that they gave up on AI goals? Both Azure and Intelligent Cloud continue to beat expectations in revenue and adoption. Don't just make stuff up because you don't like the product or company.
Re: How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
#325The thing that really confuses me about this is that it has very real negative consequences. I cannot have a conversation about Copilot! If someone says "I used Copilot to..." or "Copilot is great for..." or "Copilot sucks because..." they haven't communicated any useful information to me, because I have no idea what product they are talking about. And if I ask them (which I always do) they still have trouble describ…
What are being called GitHub Copilot Products seems to confuse products with licensing plan and features. I always think of GitHub Copilot as the product. I can purchase the Business or Enterprise plan. That enables features like Reviews, Chat and so on. IMO this chart (at least for GitHub Copilot) is confusing products, features and licensing. That's not to say it isn't confusing understanding what features are avai…
I agree, this looks like ~4 products expanded for comedic purposes: GitHub, Windows, Office (M365) and Azure has a thing that can be used for many things.
Re: How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
#326Copilot is just Microsoft's term for AI. How many products have Copilot? Just about all of them.
Too bad that different products have different licensing.
So I have to license a certain Copilot not just AI.
Do we have Copilot? Yes and no.
Re: How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
#327Copilot is just Microsoft's term for AI. How many products have Copilot? Just about all of them.
It makes sense. And Google is its own way to name all AI products “Gemini”.
It doesn’t make sense.
Google has a least its own LLMs, MS just uses others.
So Copilot could be OpenAI or Anthropic.
At work we have licenses for Copilot and Copilot but not Copilot and everyone gets Copilot but only some get Copilot.
Re: How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I believe you're almost entirely wrong unfortunately. It is true that Windows has subsystems as a technical feature, yes. However, I don't think it's true that WSL (v1, let alone v2) was part of that architecture, despite the name. AFAIK that existing subsystem notion was a user-mode one, where each subsystem was built mostly in user-mode on top of the NT ("native") subsystem, with binaries in the PE format. WSL just…
It needs an apostrophe then it makes more sense “Windows’ Subsystem for Linux”
It is a Windows Subsystem, that caters to running Linux.
It’s a functional title not an architectural one.
Re: How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you're almost entirely wrong unfortunately. It is true that Windows has subsystems as a technical feature, yes. However, I don't think it's true that WSL (v1, let alone v2) was part of that architecture, despite the name. AFAIK that existing subsystem notion was a user-mode one, where each subsystem was built mostly in user-mode on top of the NT ("native") subsystem, with binaries in the PE format. WSL just…
It needs an apostrophe then it makes more sense “Windows’ Subsystem for Linux” It is a Windows Subsystem, that caters to running Linux. It’s a functional title not an architectural one.
Or a colon:
Windows Subsystem for: LinuxRe: How many products does Microsoft have named 'Copilot'?
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I believe you're almost entirely wrong unfortunately. It is true that Windows has subsystems as a technical feature, yes. However, I don't think it's true that WSL (v1, let alone v2) was part of that architecture, despite the name. AFAIK that existing subsystem notion was a user-mode one, where each subsystem was built mostly in user-mode on top of the NT ("native") subsystem, with binaries in the PE format. WSL just…
That doesn't seem like a contradiction to the idea that "Windows subsystem" is (at least after WSL 1 and especially 2) a description for a functionality (i.e. running binaries targeting a different OS's interfaces), not an implementation.