upvote
I agree and sadly I wouldn't hold hopes to see actual meaningful changes (granted - last time had windows was win 7),

My reasoning is from bitter experience. I saw too many these honest talks/commitments - it always this pattern when product/company starts to decline. Suddenly somebody with technical background shows up talks about past mistakes and what need to fix. Even sometimes holds discussion, which is usually very reasonable. But as time goes there only cosmetic changes with excuses like lack of resources, market wind changed this time, too hard make changes due politics and etc.

reply
Something that comes to mind for me is the old Bill Gates trustworthy computing memo [0], from the era when early windows xp was getting flak for poor security. That was supposedly the turning point where they started those overhauls towards service pack 2 and likewise added a security focus in other products, and they decided they couldn't sneak in easter egg flight simulators into excel any more because it just added opportunities for flaws.

What stands out to me is the organization needs to be accept that change is needed and 'walk the walk', and also that those efforts take time. I've no idea what things are in motion in MS, but I wonder how quickly they can turn the ship, how much momentum is in their current direction and how much force is in turning. Moving the taskbar seems like addressing a loud persistent talking point, but it's one among many. What's the timeline (even though windows version timing seems like 'when they need branding')? Win12? Win13?

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20020204233701/http://www.comput...

reply
Yeah, as soon as I saw the author, my optimism faded back to cynicism
reply
I can't upvote this comment enough.

The only thing I'd add is that not only did he tweet the infamous tweet that caused the backlash, Pavan ridiculed those in the backlash (since deleted). Also, Satya still spews the same "agentic OS" narrative as recent as last week.

So, I hope for the best, but I don't plan on taking them at their word.

reply
Everyone at MSFT who is senior is a lying piece of shit these days. I remember on here Satya being treated like the second coming of Jesus due to his promises. Any comments against him were downvoted.

Look where we are now.

reply
Absolutely nothing wrong with an "agentic OS", agentic UX is the future of personal computing. The ideal is that something intelligent understands what you want to do and gets it done.

Unless you really think we've reached the pinnacle of user interface with repetitive clicking around and menus.

The problem is with shoving AI down user's throats. Make it an option, not the only option.

reply
> The ideal is that something intelligent understands what you want to do and gets it done.

Maybe? For a couple of decades, we believed that computers you can talk to are the future of computing. Every sci-fi show worth a dime perpetuated that trope. And yet, even though the technology is here, we still usually prefer to read and type.

We might find out the same with some of the everyday uses of agentic tech: it may be less work to do something than to express your desires to an agent perfectly well. For example, agentic shopping is a use case some companies are focusing on, but I can't imagine it being easier to describe my sock taste preferences to an agent than click around for 5 minutes and find the stripe pattern I like.

And that's if we ignore that agents today are basically chaos monkeys that sometimes do what you want, sometimes rm -rf /, and sometimes spend all your money on a cryptocurrency scam. So for the foreseeable future, I most certainly don't want my OS to be "agentic". I want it to be deterministic until you figure out the chaos monkey stuff.

reply
I think your last paragraph is the real issue that will forever crush improvements over clicking on stuff. Once you get to "buy me socks" you're just entering some different advertising domain. We already see it with very simple things like getting Siri to play a song. Two songs with the same name, the more popular one will win, apply that simple logic to everything and put a pay to play model in it and there's your "agentic" OS of the future.
reply
Exactly. It would be like making all your purchasing decisions based on the first hit you get on Google
reply
I beg to differ that "the technology is here". Everyone I see who uses voice commands have to speak in a very contrived manner so that the computer can understand them properly. Computer vision systems still run into all sorts of weird edge cases.

We've progressed an impressive lot since, say, the nineties when computers (and the internet) started to spread to the general consumer market but the last 10% or so of the way is what would really be the game changer. And if we believe Pareto, of course that is gonna be 90% of the work. We've barely scratched the surface.

reply
yeah for me even with other people, the amount of times you think "it would be easier for me to just show you" is maybe 30% of interactions with agents currently.

perplexity keeps trying to get me to use "computer" and for the life of me I can't think of anything I'd actually do with it.

reply
> it may be less work to do something than to express your desires to an agent perfectly well

As I use AI more and more to write code I find myself just implementing something myself more and more for this reason. By the time I have actually explained what I want in precise detail it's often faster to have just made the change myself.

Without enough detail SOTA models can often still get something working, but it's usually not the desired approach and causes problems later.

reply
It all depends on where the the AI is running. The problem with the idea, is that for the majority of Windows boxes where it would be running do not have the bare metal hardware to support local models and thus it would be in the cloud and all of the issues associated with that when it comes to privacy/security. It would be neat, given MSFT's footprint, to look to develop small models, running locally, with user transparency when it comes to actions, but that doesn't align with MSFT's core objectives.
reply
AFAIK the existing Copilot features always use the NPU and do not fall back to the cloud. Given that Windows 12 will require an NPU I don't see why it would fall back either.
reply
This is true for only features of Copilot+. The issue that MSFT faces, especially as it pushes Copilot EVERYWHERE is the reality of the majority if the hardware running Windows does not, and will not have, the NPU required for 12, nor is there the actual consumer purchasing power, to upgrade hardware to have an NPU. This a reality that MSFT just does not seem want to deal with while the push the technology onto consumers because its not based off of the reality of the install base they are dealing with but rather trying to justify their strategic investment into AI in the B2C space without doing the proper product market fit to justify it.
reply
Five stars comment
reply
What would an agentic UX look like that is better than the current OS experience?

typing "open hackernews" into copilot instead of clicking the browser and typing hackernews?

99% of OS interactions already boil down to 2 clicks and a search phrase.

reply
- "summarize the discussions on hacker news of last week based on what I would find interesting".

- "Plan my summer vacation with my family, suggest different options"

- "Look at my household budget and find ways to be more frugal."

There are thousands of things I can think of when it comes to how an agentic OS would work better than the current Screen Keyboard paradigm. I mean all these things I could now do with Claude or Codex and some of these things I already do with these tools.

reply
Neither of those really have to do with the OS though. For example:

> Plan my summer vacation with my family, suggest different options

What part of this does an agentic OS help with? My OS doesn't know my travel preferences, family size, work schedule, etc.

These are more appropriate tasks for a smart assistant.

What specifically does an agentic OS UX look like beyond giving claude access to local files and a browser?

reply
I don't want those. Why read books when you can have an ai summarize it in two paragraphs for you? Because I want to know and learn and enrich myself.
reply
Sure but most people just want to get shit done. If you don't want it you can always take the long meandering path, no one is stopping that.
reply
> I mean all these things I could now do with Claude or Codex and some of these things I already do with these tools.

huh? ... this reads to me like you don't need an "agentic" OS to do the things you'd want to use an "agentic" OS for..?

like... it seems you just don't want a keyboard to do the same things you've already been doing? ... is that the crux of it?

reply
None of those need to, or should, be done at the OS level.
reply
when i hear bollocks like "agentic UX" i think of things like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmz67ErIRa4

i feel like someone high up in microsoft probably has this pinned in a epic or something somewhere

reply
> The ideal is that something intelligent understands what you want to do and gets it done.

I think you and I have very different meanings of "intelligent", "understands" and "gets it done"

reply
I think something like this is the goal, and there's still a long way to go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV01B5kVsC0

reply
"Agentic typewriters are the future of typewriting. The idea is that something intelligent understands what you want to type and types it for you. Unless you really think we've reached the pinnacle of typewriter interfaces with repetitive key taps and carriage returns."

See how that sounds a bit silly? It's because it presents a false dichotomy. That our choice is between either the current state of interfaces or an agentic system which strips away your autonomy and does it for you.

reply
There's nothing wrong with an "agentic OS" if it's built on top of a regular good OS.

There's everything wrong when "agentic" means that the regular bread-and-butter functionality of the OS becomes unusable.

reply
Even theoretical AI still has the other mind problem from economics.

Communicating and predicting desires, preferences, thoughts, feelings from one mind to another is difficult.

Fundamentally the easiest way of getting what you want is to be able to do it yourself.

Introduce an agent, and now you get the same utility issues of trying to guess what gifts to buy someone for their birthday. Sure every now and then you get the marketers "surprise and delight", but the main experience is relatively middling, often frustrating and confusing, and if you have any skill or knowledge in The area or ability to do it yourself, ultimately frustrating.

reply
We've already been through this when people a decade ago thought voice was the future of the computer.

When that completely didn't work, we thought that augmented reality was the future of the computer, which also didn't work out.

You need a screen to be able to verify what you're doing (try shopping on Amazon without a screen), which means you also need a UI around it, which then means voice (and by extension agents which also function by conversation) is slower and dumber than the UI, every time.

Meanwhile I have yet to see any brand excited to be integrated with ChatGPT and Claude. Unlike a consumer; being a purely "reasoning-based" agent, they're most likely to ignore everything aesthetic and pick the bottom of the barrel cheapest option for any category. How do you convince an AI to show your specific product to a customer? You don't.

reply
We’ve had computing technology that clearly understands what the user wants to do. It’s called a command line interface. No guessing, no recommendations, no dark patterns, no bullshit.
reply
"I just ran rm -rf /* accidentally, but I meant rm -rf ./* (notice the star after the slash)."

https://serverfault.com/questions/337082/

reply