Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Copilot+ PCs

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 614 posts

Re: Introducing Copilot+ PCs

#361

Post by Atotalnoob »

pelagicAustral wrote: post #173
isoprophlex wrote: post #124

Their "copilot" brand is so weird and... muddled. There's the AI code assistant thing that github actually started, there's the horrible chatbot maker GUI demoware, there's AI stuff you might be able to do with your sharepoint (if only you could get hold of the right ms sales rep to take your money), there's an app that does genai things on your personal MS account... And now there's a Surface rebrand? That org chart…

See the hellish naming and branding they've done with the .NET ecosystem... It is so convoluted, even people actively developing on their stacks would have and issue figuring out if they are downloading the right stuff.

Not really. It was a little confusing when they renamed .net core to .net, but most people have moved past it

Re: Introducing Copilot+ PCs

#362

Post by Atotalnoob »

jetrink wrote: post #326
jeroenhd wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about Copilot is that outside of the developer niche, nobody knows the term. The vast majority of Microsoft's customer base will recognise neither the Xbox feature nor the Github product. In the same way, their .NET naming has never bothered anyone they actually care about selling stuff to. It's a tad annoying for developers, but nothing more than that. I find the way they renamed their Office products ever…

It's not a terrible name either. Assistant would be better, but they can't use that name[1] of course... I'm having a hard time thinking of something else that instantly communicates this idea of an intelligent subordinate aide that doesn't have negative associations. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Assistant

It’s not just negative associations. I believe GitHub had a blog post where they went into why they chose copilot.

The answer was more of subtly conveying its output needed to be checked

Re: Introducing Copilot+ PCs

#363

Post by jeroenhd »

jetrink wrote: post #326
jeroenhd wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about Copilot is that outside of the developer niche, nobody knows the term. The vast majority of Microsoft's customer base will recognise neither the Xbox feature nor the Github product. In the same way, their .NET naming has never bothered anyone they actually care about selling stuff to. It's a tad annoying for developers, but nothing more than that. I find the way they renamed their Office products ever…

It's not a terrible name either. Assistant would be better, but they can't use that name[1] of course... I'm having a hard time thinking of something else that instantly communicates this idea of an intelligent subordinate aide that doesn't have negative associations. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Assistant

Personally, I think Microsoft wastes the name "Cortana" on their mediocre Google Assistant competitor. I haven't really seen Copilot do much copiloting, it mostly seems to answer questions and follow instructions. Maybe Windows 12 will be different, but I kind of doubt it.

Re: Introducing Copilot+ PCs

#365

Post by alecsm »

redml wrote: post #291
beretguy wrote: post #136

I hope gaming on Linux keeps getting better. I don’t see myself using anything beyond windows 10.

its pretty much peaked at this point. works with every game i've ever tried, new and old titles.

Unless it requires a kernel level anti cheat. I don't play those games but if someone does, it's a thing they should know.

Re: Introducing Copilot+ PCs

#366

Post by cyberax »

genewitch wrote: post #209
Dalewyn wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. Hidden at the very end of Microsoft's blognouncement[1] is this tidbit (emphasis mine): > We look forward to expanding through deep partnerships with Intel and AMD, starting with Lunar Lake and Strix. We will bring new Copilot+ PC experiences at a later date. So it's less Microsoft pivoting to and giving ARM a try again but rather testing the waters and distributing the risks by introducing ARM into a line…

apple never wanted to use intel hardware, they were forced to by motorola/IBM et al; whoever was selling them the PowerPC chips told them to pound sand because the xbox and playstation needed way more PPC chips than apple. Apple made a business decision to switch to intel, which caused a bit of a to-do in the community at the time. That apple switched off intel at their earliest possible chance - that which took time…

IBM didn't want to design a power-efficient PowerPC chip. And then they switched from Intel once Intel stopped being able to design new power-efficient chips.

Re: Introducing Copilot+ PCs

#368

Post by neonsunset »

Atotalnoob wrote: post #361
pelagicAustral wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See the hellish naming and branding they've done with the .NET ecosystem... It is so convoluted, even people actively developing on their stacks would have and issue figuring out if they are downloading the right stuff.

Not really. It was a little confusing when they renamed .net core to .net, but most people have moved past it

You see, that just doesn't lend itself as nicely to tribal parroting of worse than mediocre developers here in the comments (if such people are able to code at all).

Re: Introducing Copilot+ PCs

#369

Post by TiredOfLife »

jsheard wrote: post #5
thesuitonym wrote: post #3

Again?

Yeah I was going to say. The very first Surfaces in 2012-2013 were ARM-based (using Nvidia Tegra), then they switched to Intel, then they tried ARM again in 2019-2020 (using Qcom Snapdragon) then went back to Intel again. Third times the charm? At the very least they seem to have decent x86 emulation performance this time.

The last consumer Surface tablet before this was Surface Pro 9 with ARM and it came out less than 2 years ago.

Re: Introducing Copilot+ PCs

#370

Post by threePointFive »

mktemp-d wrote: post #329
paxys wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone remember Google Desktop? Did the job perfectly 20 years ago.

It always baffles me how long it takes for Windows to search for a file while the GNU's `find` command churns through filenames and paths like it's nothing.

Work locks me into Outlook but god I wish I could just grep my inbox
Post reply on HN