Microsoft's Copilot chatbot is running into problems
wsj.com241 points by fortran77 a day ago
241 points by fortran77 a day ago
Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/microsofts-pivotal-ai-product-is...
The biggest issue I see is Microsoft's entire mentality around AI adoption that focuses more on "getting the numbers up" then actually delivering a product people want to use. Most of the announcements I hear about Copilot, it's always how they've integrated it into some other piece of software or cut a deal with yet another vendor to add it to that vendors product offering. On the surface there's nothing wrong with doing that but that just seems to be the ONLY thing Microsoft is focused on. Worse yet, most of these integrations seem like a exercise in ticking boxes rather than actually thinking through how integrating Copilot into a product will actually improve user experience. A great example was someone mentioned that Copilot was now integrated into the terminal app but beyond an icon + a chat window, there is zero integration. Overall, MS just reeks of an organization that is cares more about numbers on a dashboard and pretty reports than they are on what users are actually experiencing. I expect this is the crux of the problem. There aren't any "AI" products that have enough value. Compare to their Office suite, which had 100 - 150 engineers working on it, every business paid big $$ for every employee using it, and once they shipped install media their ongoing costs were the employees. With a 1,000,000:1 ratio of users to developers and an operating expense (OpEx) of engineers/offices/management. That works as a business. But with "AI", not only is it not a product in itself, it's a feature to a product, but it has OpEx and CapEx costs that dominate the balance sheet based on their public disclosures. Worse, as a feature, it demonstrably harms business with its hallucinations. In a normal world, at this point companies would say, "hmm, well we thought it could be amazing but it just doesn't work as a product or a feature of a product because we can't sell it for enough money to both cover its operation, and its development, and the capital expenditures we need to make every time someone signs up. So a normal C staff would make some post about "too early" or whatever and shelve it. But we don't live in a normal world, so companies are literally burning the cash they need to survive the future in a vain hope that somehow, somewhere, a real product will emerge. I think this is a really good take, and not one I’ve seen mentioned a lot. Pre-Internet (the world Microsoft was started for), the man expense for a software company was R&D. Once the code was written, it was all profit. You’d have some level of maintenance and new features, but really - the cost of sale was super low. In the Internet age (the likes of Google and Netflix), it’s not much different, but now the cost of doing business is increased to include data centers, power, and bandwidth - we’re talking physical infrastructure. The cost of sale is now more expensive, but they can have significantly more users/customers. For AI companies, these costs have only increased. Not only do they need the physical infrastructure, but that infrastructure is more expensive (RAM and GPUs) and power hungry. So it’s like the cost centers have gone up in expense by log-units. Yes, Anthropic and OpenAI can still access a huge potential customer base, but the cost of servicing each request is significantly more expensive. It’s hard to have a high profit margin when your costs are this high. So what is a tech company founded in the 1970s to do? They were used to the profit margins from enterprise software licensing, and now they are trying to make a business case for answering AI requests as cheaply as possible. I can’t see how to square this circle. For most software products I use, if the company spent a year doing nothing but fixing P2 bugs and making small performance improvements, that would deliver far, FAR more value to me than spending a year hamfistedly cramming AI into every corner of the software. But fixing bugs doesn't 1. pad engineer's resumes with new technology, or 2. give company leadership exciting things to talk about to their golfing buddies. So we get AI cram instead. I think it is more externally driven as well, a prisoners dilemma. I don't want to keep crapping out questionable features but if competitors keep doing it the customer wants it -- even if infrastructure and bug fixes would actually make their life better. Last time I saw results of a survey on this, it found that for most consumers AI features are a deciding factor in their purchasing decisions. That is, if they are looking at two options and one sports AI features and the other doesn’t, they will pick the one that doesn’t. It’s possible AI just seems more popular than it is because it’s easy to hear the people who are talking about it but harder to hear the people who aren’t. Consumers is nice, but far more important are the big corporate purchases. There may be a lot of people there too who don't want AI, but they all depend on decisions made at the top and AI seems to be the way to go, because of expectations and also because of the mentioned prisoner's dilemma, if competitors gain an advantage it is bad for your org, if all fail together it is manageable. I think this may have been Dell? Dell reveals people don't care about AI in PCs (https://www.techradar.com/computing/windows-laptops/dell-rev...) 100% agree. Office and Windows were hugely successful because they did things that users (and corporations) wanted them to do. The functionality led to brand recognition and that led to increased sales. Now Microsoft is putting the horse before the cart and attempting to force brand recognition before the product has earned it. And that just leads to resentment. They should make Copilot/AI features globally and granularly toggleable. Only refer to the chatbots as "Copilot," other use cases should be primarily identified on a user-facing basis by their functionality. Search Assistant. Sketching Aid. Writing Aid. If they're any good at what they do, people will gravitate to them without being coerced. And as far as Copilot goes, if they are serious as me it as a product, there should be a concerted effort to leapfrog it to the top of the AI rankings. Every few weeks we're reading that Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT, or DeepSeek has broken some coding or problem-solving score. That drives interest. You almost never hear anything similar about Copilot. It comes off as a cut-rate store brand knockoff of ChatGPT at best. Pass. I thought Copilot was just ChatGPT - isn't that the whole point of Microsoft's massive investment in OpenAI ? they somehow made it worse and use a less capable version with smaller context window. The only potential upside for businesses it that it can crawl onedrive/sharepoint, and acts as a glorious search machine in your mailbox and files. That's the only thing really valuable to me, everything else is not working as it should. The outlook integration sucks, the powerpoint integration is laughably bad to being worthless, and the excel integration is less useful than Clippy. I actually prefer using the "ask" function of github copilot through visual studio code over using the company provided microsoft copilot portal They bet the company on AI. If their AI push fails, everything else does not matter anymore. What you are seeing is desperation and Hail Marys. My guess is every team's metric is probably reduced to tokens consumed through the products owned. > But with "AI", not only is it not a product in itself, it's a feature to a product, but it has OpEx and CapEx costs that dominate the balance sheet based on their public disclosures. Worse, as a feature, it demonstrably harms business with its hallucinations. I think it depends on how the feature is used? I see it as mostly as yet another user interface in most applications. Every couple of years I keep forgetting the syntax and formulas available in Excel. I can either search for answers or describe what i want and let the LLM edit the spread sheet for me and i just verify. Also, as time passes the OpEx and CapEx are projected to reduce right?
It maybe a good thing that companies are burning through their stockpiles of $$$ in trying to find out the applicability and limits of this new technology. Maybe something good will come out of it. The thing about giving your application a button that costs you a cent or two every time a user clicks on it is, then your application has a button that costs you a cent or two every time a user clicks on it. For the usecase of "How do I do thing X in Excell" you could probably get pretty far with just adding a small, local LLM running on the user's machine. That would move the cost of running the model to the end user but it would also mean giving up all the data they can from running prompts remotely. It would probably also make Office users more productive rather than replacing them completely and that's not the vision that Microsoft's actual customers are sold on. Your premise that the leaders of every single one of the top 10 biggest and most profitable companies in human history are all preposterously wrong about a new technology in their existing industry is hard to believe. AI is literally the fastest growing and most widely used/deployed technologies ever. Yup, I've been here before. Back in 1995 we called it "The Internet." :-) Not to be snarky here, as we know the Internet has, in fact, revolutionized a lot of things and generated a lot of wealth. But in 1995, it was "a trillion dollar market" where none of the underlying infrastructure could really take advantage of it. AI is like that today, a pretty amazing technology that at some point will probably revolutionize a lot of things we do, but the hype level is as far over its utility as the Internet hype was in 1995. My advice to anyone going through this for the first time is to diversify now if you can. I didn't in 1995 and that did not work out well for me. The blockchain hype bubble should probably be pretty near in memory for most people I would suspect. I thought that was a wild, useless ride until Ai took it over. The comparison to the dotcom bubble isn't without merit. As a technology in terms of its applications though I think the best one to compare the LLM with is the mouse. It was absolutely a revolution in terms of how we interact with computers. You could do many tasks much faster with a GUI. Nearly all software was redesigned around it. The story around a "conversational interface" enabled by an LLM is similar. You can literally see the agent go off and run 10 grep commands or whatever in seconds, that you would have had to look up. The mouse didn't become some huge profit center and the economy didn't realign around mouse manufacturers. People sure made a lot of money off it indirectly though. The profits accrued from sales of software that supported it well and delivered productivity improvements. Some of the companies who wrote that software also manufactured mice, some didn't. I think it'll be the same now. It's far from clear that developing and hosting LLMs will be a great business. They'll transform computing anyway. The actual profits will accrue to whoever delivers software which integrates them in a way that delivers more productivity. On some level I feel like it's already happening, Gemini's well integrated into Google Drive, changes how I use it, and saves me time. ChatGPT is just a thing off on the side that I chat randomly with about my hangover. Github Copilot claims it's going to deliver productivity and sometimes kinda does but man it often sucks. Easy to infer from this info who my money will end up going to in the long run. On diversification, I think anyone who's not a professional investor should steer away from picking individual stocks and already be diversified... I wouldn't advise anyone to get out of the market or to try and time the market. But a correction will come eventually and being invested in very broad index funds smooths out these bumps. To those of us who invest in the whole market, it's notable that a few big AI/tech companies have become a far larger share of the indices than they used to be, and a fairly sure bet that one day, they won't be anymore. I started working in 1997. Cisco was one of our big customers so I knew a lot of engineers there. Cisco stock hid $80 in 2000. In 2002 it was at $10. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CSCO/ I knew people who purchased their options but didn't sell and based on the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) had tax bills of millions of dollars based on the profit IF they sold on the day they purchased it. But then it dropped to $10 and even if they sold everything they couldn't pay the tax bill. They finally changed the law after years but those guys got screwed over. I was young and thought the dot com boom would go on forever. It didn't. The AI bubble will burst too but whether it is 2026, 27, 28, who knows. Bubble doesn't mean useless, just that the investors will finally start demanding a profit and return on their investment. At that point the bubble will pop and lots of companies will go fail or lose a lot of money. Then it will take a couple of years to sort out and companies have to start showing a profit. I have zero doubt that AI will eventually make many people lots of money. Just about every company on earth is collecting TBs of data on everyone and they know they're sure they can use that information against us somehow, but they can't possibly read and search through it all on their own. I have quite a few doubts that it'll be a net positive for society though. The internet (for all of its flaws) is still a good thing generally for the public. Users didn't have to be convinced of that, they just needed to be shown what was possible. Nobody had to shove internet access into everything against customer's wishes. "AI" on the other hand isn't something most users want. Users are constantly complaining about it being pushed on them and it's already forced MS to scale back the AI in windows 11. What do you mean exactly by "diversify"? Money/investment-wise? Sell the risky stock that has inflated in value from hype cycle exuberance and re-invest proceeds into lower risk asset classes not driven by said exuberance. "Taking money off the table." An example would be taking ISO or RSU proceeds and reinvesting in VT (Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund ETF) or other diversified index funds. Taking money off the table - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45763769 - October 2025 (108 comments) (not investing advice) What tomuchtodo said. When I left Sun in 1995 I had 8,000 shares, which in 1998 would have paid off my house, and when I sold them when Oracle bought Sun after a reverse 3:1 split, the total would not even buy a new car. Can be a painful lesson, certainly it leaves an impression. Heh, I was at Netscape when the Sun-Netscape Alliance was created. Tip of the hat to a fellow gray beard. ;) > at some point will probably revolutionize a lot of things we do The revolution already happened. I can't imagine life without AI today. Not just for coding (which I actually lament) but just in general day to day use. Sure it's not perfect but I think it's quite difficult to ignore how the world changed in just 3-4 years. It makes me sad trying to imagine what it's like to not being able to imagine life without AI That's just so strange to me. In my experience, it hallucinates and makes things up often, and when it's accurate, the results are so generic and surface level. Yes but I use it as a substitute friend, gf, therapist, dumb questions like "how 2 buy clothes and dress good and is this good and how to unclog my toilet shits" > top 10 biggest and most profitable companies in human history are all preposterously wrong There's another post on the front page about the 2008 financial crisis, which was almost exactly that. Investors are vulnerable to herd mentality. Especially as it's hard to be "right but early" and watch everyone else making money hand over fist while you stand back. I find it very easy to believe. The pressures that select for leadership in corporate America are wholly perpendicular to the skills and intelligence for identifying how to leverage novel and revolutionary technologies into useful products that people will pay for. I present as evidence the graveyard of companies and careers left behind by many of those leaders who failed to innovate despite, in retrospect, what seemed to be blindingly obvious product decisions to make. The product is the stock price, not Office or Windows. From that perspective they are doing it right. And this is the broken mindset tanking multiple large companies' products and services (Google, Apple, MS, etc). Focus on the stock. The product and our users are an afterthought. Someone linked to a good essay on how success plus Tim Cook's focus on the stock has caused the rot that's consuming Apple's software[0]. I thought it was well reasoned and it resonated with me, though I don't believe any of the ideas were new to me. Well written, so still worth it. 0. The Fallen Apple - https://mattgemmell.scot/the-fallen-apple/ Is sacrificing everything for short term gains really the right move in any situation? The investor being the customer rather than actual paying customers was something I noticed occurring in the late 90s in the startup and tech world. Between that shift in focus and the influx of naive money the Dot Bomb was inevitable. Sadly the fallout from the Dotcom era wasn't a rejection of the asinine Business 2.0 mindset but instead an infection that spread across the entirety of finance. In particular it's the short term stock price. They'll happily grift their way to overinflated stock prices today even though at some point their incestuous money shuffle game will end and the stocks will crash and a bunch of people who aren't insider trading are going to be left with massive losses. Stock price increases that don't lead to higher dividends eventually are indistinguishable from Ponzi schemes after the fact. Buybacks lead to stock price increases and are indistinguishable from dividends in theory, and in practice they are better than dividends because of taxation. every time these companies make a mistake and waste billions of dollars it is well-publicized. so there is plenty of data that they are frequently and preposterously wrong. This industry has seen several bubbles in its existence. Many previously top companies didn't even survive them. Your premise that the leaders of every single one of the top 10 biggest and most profitable companies in human history are all preposterously wrong about a new technology in their existing industry is hard to believe. It's happened before. Your premise that companies which become financially successful doing one thing are automatically excellent at doing something else is hard to believe. Moreover, it demonstrates both an inability to dispassionately examine what is happening and a lack of awareness of history. > Your premise that the leaders of every single one of the top 10 biggest and most profitable companies in human history are all preposterously wrong about a new technology in their existing industry is hard to believe. Their incentives are to juice their stock grants or other economic gains from pushing AI. If people aren't paying for it, it has limited value. In the case of Microsoft Copilot, only ~3% of the M365 user base is willing to pay for it. Whether enough value is derived for users to continue to pay for what they're paying for, and for enterprise valuation expectations to be met (which is mostly driven by exuberance at this point), remains to be seen. Their goal is not to be right; their goal is to be wealthy. You do not need to be right to be wealthy, only well positioned and on time. Adam Neumann of WeWork is worth ~$2B following the same strategy, for example. Right place, right time, right exposure during that hype cycle. Only 3.3% of Microsoft 365 users pay for Copilot - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46871172 - February 2026 This is very much like the dot com bubble for those who were around to experience it. https://old.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1g78sgf/... > In the late 90s and early 00s a business could get a lot of investors simply by being “on the internet” as a core business model. > They weren’t actually good business that made money…..but they were using a new emergent technology > Eventually it became apparent these business weren’t profitable or “good” and having a .com in your name or online store didn’t mean instant success. And the companies shut down and their stocks tanked > Hype severely overtook reality; eventually hype died ("Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome" -- Charlie Munger) Doesn't matter what the leaders think if the users hate it and call it slop https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/microsoft-satya... The mistake is simple. It is like the difference between giving you many tools to use vs making you the tool. I get the feeling that a lot of people using AI, feeding it their private data, and trusting what it tells them are certainly being tools. MS actually changed their office.com landing page to a funnel that tricks you to into installing a copilot app. It used to be the dashboard for MS web apps. There are no links to the web apps, but they are all still there, you just have to know the subdomains. The app doesn’t have any of the functionality that page used to offer… I haven't used office.com but it does seem to have links to the four main webapps (did there used to be more?). They're the second row of big boxes titled "Word with Copilot", etc. Admittedly with very confusing names. I noticed this and I wad enraged but it. The URL to the old page is way less easy to remember and I had to add it to my bookmarks. I'm still peeved about it. I just attended a training about AI Foundry today and they advertised thousands of integrations and support for like 50 different models. There is no way in hell all that stuff is tested and working properly. Microsoft seems to just be trying to throw as much chum as possible in the ocean and seeing what bites. I see Microsoft throwing spaghetti at the wall just in time as “AI” functionality hits government and educational procurement procedures. The copilot product is obviously borked, and is outshone by ‘free’ competitors (Gemini, ChatGPT). But since the attributes and uses are so fuzzy, they have a minimum viable product to abort meaningful talk about competition while securing big contracts from governments and delivering dog water. My anecdotal observations of copilot are people using competing products soon after trialling. Reports say Anthropics solution is in widespread use at Microsoft… a bunch of devs on MacBooks and iPhones using Claude to build and sell … not what they themselves use (since they are smart and have taste?). They boosted copilot numbers by renaming office to copilot. No I'm not joking. Musk could learn from this to boost his FSD subscription numbers for his bonus payouts. They did the same thing with Azure right? I remember articles about Microsoft stock that would mention that Azure subscription numbers included Office 365. But the thing is, their weird game of inflating numbers worked. There wasn’t really any negative consequence of doing that. So why wouldn’t they do it again? It’s yet another unfortunate example of dishonesty being rewarded these days. Sounds almost like every manager just covers their ass by formally doing what is expected core top-down idea is "AI is a future, thus make it everywhere". Anyone who would try to say "let's not do AI" would be a white crow, will be eaten by other managers in reviews and discussions. Bad leadership, bad management. So it's FOMO, formalism and conformism. I have Copilot buttons sprinkled everywhere on my work computer, and every time I have tried to use them I get something saying "Oh, I can't do that". It's truly baffling. Copilot button on my email inbox? I try "Find me emails about suchandsuch", and get the response "I don’t have direct access to your email account.
If you’re using Outlook (desktop, web, or mobile), here are quick ways to find all emails related to...". Great, so it doesn't even know what program it's runnning in, let alone having any ability to do stuff in there! Sigh. Using the paid M365 Copilot ($30/mo) Chat and Researcher agent, I recently discovered an interesting limit: Copilot is technically unable to retrieve more than 24 email messages. Ever. We can't know if the answers I got from it are reliable but it seems like the Microsoft Graph API calls it makes and the tools Copilot has are missing the option to call the next page. So, a paginated response is missing all data beyond the first page. I vibe coded this page as "documentation" since obviously no official MS docs exist for anything like this:
https://vibes.jukkan.com/copilot-search-gotchas.html I tried copilot agent once, and it just claimed that it accessed a website that should have been blocked by corporate firewalls and uploaded a bunch of proprietary data. Lots of very specific information about how it clicked on specific buttons of the website etc. We raised a high priority ticket with MS and turns out that Copilot Agent lied about the entire thing because the website was blocked. It completely made it up. The fact that we are supposed to use Copilot Agent for open-ended "research" is mind-boggling. How did it know about the buttons? Or were they so generic that it could hallucinate them as well? I wonder if the site you mentioned was earlier harvested through some firewall hole during Copilot's training. I'm baffled by this as well, Microsoft seems to have lost the plot almost completely. Yeah did they test any of this? Did they run a pilot and ask 1000 users did you use it? Did you like it? Is it better with this than without it? It's as though they think some "AI revolution" will come, and all they need to do is just make sure that by the time it does, they will have sprinkled enough AI pixie dust on their products and services. And then they added some KPI's in the organization and called it a day. Most of all the whole strategy feels extremely faceless. Who is the visionary here? Where are the proud product launches and visionary blog posts about how all this happens? They should be trying to convince people it is something they want rather than forcing it on people. Alas that would mean making a product people want and Im not sure they are there. Excel integration is amazing, saves me hours a week and helps me write complicated formulas in seconds. That only good if you're doing measurably more with the time you save. I feel like I'm significantly faster in parts of my job using Copilot, but when I try to get data on what I'm doing now that I wasn't doing before I had it I don't come up with anything. I know I'm working faster, but the time seems to have just gone. Working faster, but at what? LLM workflow: Describing to Claude that I need an edit made in the second paragraph of the third section feels easy, comfortable, and straightforward. I’m using my speech centers, speech to text, and then I wait for a generation during which I hit my phone or Reddit. Poof, the text flies out like magic, taking 20+ seconds, then I re-re-re-read it to make sure the edit was good and nothing was lost in that edit. Oops, the edit inverted the logic of the paragraph, lemme repeat the above… and again… time flies! 2 hours gone in a flash. Old and boring workflow: I gruellingly move my mouse to open a file, then take a coffee break. I come back and left-click into the sentence that sucks. I hit Reddit to deal with the anxiety… I think, boo, and then type out the edit I needed. It’s bad, I fix. Coffee break. Squiggly red line from a misspelling? I fix. I google and find a better turn of phrase, copy and paste it in manually with a little edit. Ugh. This sucks. I suck, work sucks. Time sucks. 35 entire minutes of my life has been wasted… time to get another coffee and check Reddit. ——— Working with an LLM is kinda like working under stage hypnosis. The moment to moment feelings are deceptive and we humans are unreliable recorders of time-usage. Particularly when engaged in unwanted effort. Google has had all this tech for a minute. Their restrained application and lack of 10x-vibe-chad talk make me think their output measurements are aligned with my measurements. 1 rabbit hole hallucination wrong-turn can eat up a lot, lot, lot of magic one-shotting. > Working with an LLM is kinda like working under stage hypnosis. Another post on HN likened it to gambling, in the way that slot machines work. Each time you prompt, you could hit the jackpot! But usually you end up with some mediocre or wrong, so you tweak that prompt and pull the lever again. It's and endless cycle. The wild thing is, the business prop is so clear - an llm built into your corporate data, with the same security, guard rails, grc auditing stack that protects the rest of your data. Why integrate and exfiltrate to an outside company? But copilot is fucking terrible. Sometimes I ask it powershell questions about microsoft products and it hallucinates answers. Get your shit together microsoft, why would I use this product for any reason if it doesnt work squarely inside your own stack Last year we wanted IT to confirm that Copilot Agent hadn't exfiltrated data and we couldn't get logs for its website usage without raising a ticket to Microsoft. Maybe this changed, maybe our IT people are bad, but I for one wasn't impressed. Or, scaling back trying to keep their datacenter bill manageable. Used to be one could upload an unlimited number of files (20 at a time) and process them directly at the initial window --- now one has to get into "Pages Mode", and once there, there's a limit on the number of files which can be uploaded in a given 24-hour period. It feels like that's the entire MO of the Azure platform as well. Make a minimum viable product and then get adoption by selling at all costs, despite the products edges. Didn't Nadella come from the Azure side? In that sense it'd make sense that what they were doing would spread to the rest of the company. The products they are delivering remain somewhat poorly promoted. Designer is more than an LLM grafted to a text field. https://designer.microsoft.com/ If you go to microsoft.com, which link at the top would you click to get to Designer? > Designer is more than an LLM grafted to a text field. https://designer.microsoft.com/ It's an AI image generator. There's thousands of tools that do this exact thing, and it seems their only "benefit" is infesting search engine image results with their horrible low-quality output. ... On a related note, here's another great LLM feature Microsoft seemingly failed to promote: instead of returning bits of page content or the description meta tag, the Bing API now gives you utter slop[0] for website descriptions! [0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/duckduckgo/comments/1pomrdg/aigener... I really don't know what it does other than respond to emails in Outlook. It's good for creating meeting notes and action lists in Teams, but that's about it. MS use of AI in apps really feels like their Google+ moment. I found that the time I spent reviewing and fixing issues/errors/omissions in Copilot’s meeting notes was more than just cleaning up my own notes that I took and sending out. There's you problem, you care about accuracy! It's time to accept the new way of working, just change your reality to match the copilot version and boom, you save time fixing its mistakes! In fact, why have the meeting at all? Just prompt copilot to create notes based on a fictional conception of the meeting and you just saved everyone a whole hour! > "The biggest issue I see is Microsoft's entire mentality around AI adoption that focuses more on "getting the numbers up" then actually delivering a product people want to use." That succinctly describes 90% of the economy right now if you just change a word and remove a couple: The biggest issue I see is the entire mentality that focuses more on "getting the numbers up" than actually delivering a product people want to use. KPI infection. You see projects whose goal is, say "repos with A I code review turned on" vs "Code review suggestions that were accepted". And then if you do get adoption (like, say, a Claude Code trial), then VPs balk about price. If it's actually expensive now it's because they are actually using it all the time! The same kind of logic that led companies to migrate from Slack to Teams. Metrics that don't actually look at actual, positive impact, as nobody picks a risky KPI, and will instead pick a useless one that can't miss. My phone, laptop, TV, fridge, etc., all demonstrably worse than they were 5 years ago. Copilot in Word and PowerPoint is complete slop. Claude Code is better with PPT. CEO has only delivered failure, and in trying to avoid that, they brought it I always remember the pointless integration of Google+ into YouTube that simply annoyed everyone. There's surprising willingness to damage an existing successful product to try to save a new struggling product. Microsoft has also tried hard to push Edge, annoying nearly every Windows user on the planet, with no real success. The Google+ thing was a great example of bonus-driven product design. My understanding is that effectively everyone at Google was told that their annual bonus would be directly tied to how well their team's products supported the rollout of Google+. I was at G when "mobile first" was the slogan, and it led to "odd" choices such as designing and leading with a travel app rather than the web site. Perhaps locally suboptimal, but in the long run brutal forcing functions were needed to move a company as big and successful as Google into something new. I hear that going all-in on AI was internally disruptive and probably had some bad side-effects that I'm ignoring, but in hindsight it was the right thing to do. When ChatGPT, perplexity, and you.com came out, my immediate thought was "Google is toast", but they've recovered. > I hear that going all-in on AI was internally disruptive and probably had some bad side-effects that I'm ignoring, but in hindsight it was the right thing to do. That's the opposite in my experience. It is driving long term google audience away from google's paying products. why? I don't base my youtube subscription or my drive subscription based on my AI subscriptions Sure I get gemini for free now for a year since I have bought a pixel, but I have no intention to renew, I'll likely just leech of the ones my employer pays for My take away from mobile first G was “sites need to be fast right guys for mobile?” ->
amp -> actually let’s hostile take over the web, oh actually well rework chrome auto sign in, oh actually … just a long string of user hostility That's exactly it. In every large corp I ever worked at, the bonuses for managers always depended on whatever company initiative was happening at the time. Incentives almost always drive the outcome. It's almost as if that's what incentives are for. Whether the outcome is the intended one is of course another question entirely. That is sooo google. Every big tech company has a defining trait. Microsoft is evil. Microsoft doesnt care about customers and never will. Apple is expensive. No matter what they produce, it will cost more than the alternatives. Such things are in the corporate DNA and we should not expect change in our lifetimes. Google? Google is internally focused. Every google product exists to leverage or prop up the others. The value of any product, new or old, is judged only by how much traffic/business/money it can funnel to others. Any product that doesnt support, even if profitable on its own, is a threat. You look at ~15 year old comments and it's people replying to people that aren't there I'm still super mad at Google+ because it was clearly the cause for Google Reader been killed. That's when I started losing trust in Google as a company. They could have led the way to a social web using Google Reader. Make a Disqus-like comment section that shows the comments in RSS articles from Reader. Also Reddit, by empowering the GReader Groups capabilities. But no, let's copy Facebook and force everybody on it. And kill Google Talk while at it. I'll never forgive Google for that. >Microsoft has also tried hard to push Edge, annoying nearly every Windows user on the planet, with no real success. False, Edge is actually decent product and viable replacement for Chromium based browsers. I use Firefox daily, but at work Edge is my way to go Edge /is/ a chromium based browser, it makes sense people wouldn't feel the need to download Chrome unless they want to use their google account to sync devices. Have you forgotten about Edge 1 that was the evolution of IE’s Trident rendering engine? It failed that’s why they then started with the rebranded Chromium Edge 2. Agree. I gave it a shot recently after being a hater of MS browsers since the 90's and am actually very happy with it. I love the Workspaces and syncing features. Arc had something similar, but Arc started to stall out remain frustratingly buggy. Edge is now my go-to... I really enjoyed Edge after it launched, but when they stuffed in all of the shopping plugins and integrations I bailed on it. Did you miss the 2019 news that Edge switched to just being another Chromium reskin? Does Edge share your browsing history with Microsoft? Yes, also it's not even encrypted. It's the worst case of all major browsers. Firefox & Safari: E2E encrypted, you hold keys, not possible for Mozilla/Apple to access it. Chrome: Encrypted, Google holds keys meaning it is useless, they can read and give away the data. One can enable sync passphrase which would enable E2E however. Edge: Nothing is encrypted and no way to change this. Yeah - Google really tried to get people to use Google+ but it always sucked. YouTube, while Google nerfed and downgraded it, still works to some extent, though AI generated "content" is such a waste of time. > Microsoft has also tried hard to push Edge, annoying nearly every Windows user on the planet, with no real success. https://www.w3schools.com/browsers/ Well for tech users it is at around 12% or so, give or take. More curiously Google chrome share dropped a little. I have no data about this, e. g. one website is too little info anyway but I suspect that Google killing ublock origin was a reason; right now I am using firefox and though it has tons of issues too, being able to lock away pointless "content" is so vital for how I browser and access information online. My experience of Google+ was that it didn't suck, it just didn't offer much Facebook didn't already offer. So why would anyone use it. And then they started automated posting on Google+ for when you did something like comment on youtube, it would make a post on G+ which pissed people off. It's the branding. When the button that explored the internet said "internet explorer" it was so obvious. Then every OS component had to become its own brand. Why can't it just be called "internet"? I'm sure soon enough it'll be renamed "Copilot 365 Explorer" or something similar. > Why can't it just be called "internet"? Because the world wide web is just one of the many applications that is possible to implement on the internet infrastructure. They were asking about "internet" versus "internet explorer", so that's not relevant. The Internet Explorer is not for exploring the internet, but the world wide web, so the name never did make sense. That was the only time when YouTube actually had a proper comment system and you would actually get notified when someone replied to you consistently. I wish they'd've kept the parts people used the most. Frankly it's how they insist themselves onto their potential users. When I toyed around with Edge a year or two ago, just to get the t-shirt, it was impossible to set a custom home page for first-open instead of MSN crap. New tabs could be customized, but not the initial page. Apparently they fixed it since, but I still don't see Edge as a serious browser, just another rent seeking marketing tool. Also Teams and OneNote. If you're on Windows 11, search for "Startup Apps" and disable CoPilot, Teams and OneNote (if you don't use them). It'll speed up your system. CoPilot is a great name. But Microsoft being Microsoft even messed that up. Apparently there's a Github CoPilot and a Windows CoPilot, and they're different. Those are just two of the several Copilots MS now has, including re-branding the entire Office suite as Copilot… It's is a brand - as you said, a name – not a product. Flashback to the days when literally every MS product had “.NET” shoehorned into its name somewhere because they had to show they were hip to this newfangled information superhighway thing. The development platform that still has that name 20 years later was just one of a zillion confusingly named marketing initiatives back then. Edit: Wikipedia sums up the "failed branding campaign" quite scathingly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_strategy I think that campaign followed on from everything being named "Enterprise" something. I still miss the days when SQL Server Management Studio was called "Enterprise Manager"... > Apparently there's a Github CoPilot and a Windows CoPilot, and they're different. Given xbox one x and xbox series x, I still don't know which one is the latest one. MSFT not being good at naming things is not new. I actually think Google+ was a good idea and it's a shame google now has a dozen different products with completely different social identities. Facebook does this right, you have one profile. Youtube comments might not be a cesspool if they were tied to your "Google identity". Has been said many times, but Google+ was hoping to be as good as Google Reader and Google Buzz already were for people. Was a surprisingly good social layer on top of article aggregation that largely worked by leveraging GMail. What they were not, of course, was a replacement for the "town hall" dream of social capture that places like Facebook are hoping for. And, I'm a bit hazy, but didn't Youtube try and force comments to be tied to your google identity? I'm always puzzled by such a claim. One can look at Facebook to see the comments people put up tied to their real name and find no shortage of utterly abhorrent comments. Not sure why there's such a pervasive memory-holing of this when people talk of wanting to tie the ability to comment publicly to peoples' identities. Comments in Facebook may not be perfect, but they are vastly better than youtube comments. This is a false equivalence. I've personally seen WAY more abusive and hateful comments on Facebook, from real accounts of real people, with pictures and friends and everything, than I have ever seen on YouTube. This may be very locale dependent, but in my country (Romania, which has a pretty large proportion of people online from very socially conservative backgrounds) you can easily find extremely explicitly misoginistic, racist, homophobic, and just plain hateful comments coming from real FB and Instagram accounts, again, from people using their real names and faces and everything. I've seen far fewer similar comments on YouTube videos, even ones from the same country. Our experiences differ in that regard. And no it isn't a false equivalence since Facebook's "use your real ID" commenting system is directly comparable to any proposed system to mandate use of someone's ID to post on other platforms. > I'm always puzzled by such a claim. One can look at Facebook to see the comments people put up tied to their real name and find no shortage of utterly abhorrent comments. Not sure why there's such a pervasive memory-holing of this when people talk of wanting to tie the ability to comment publicly to peoples' identities. This should give insanely obvious evidence that clear-name policy does not lead to a more civilised discussion. I mean, everybody who went to a public school [in the American sense of the word] already knows this well: "everybody" knew the names of the schoolyard bullies. The political wishes of clear-name policies are rather for surveillance and to silence critics of the political system. It does change people's behavior. Perhaps the average person will use more polite language? But it's not uncommon for me to see dehumanization, threats, and calls for literal mass-murder-of-entire-demographics genocide promoted with polite language. Sometimes used by journalists. Sometimes by academics. Sometimes by podcast hosts. Sometimes by their fans. Sometimes by politicians. All using their real names. I frequently encounter people using their real name saying my family deserves to die. Who would, in a heartbeat, threaten my employer by dint of a relative's place of birth. Not having my real identity behind my posts is my only means of keeping myself safe from extremely sick people online who have a culture of intimidating into silence those that express views or belong to a demographic they detest. Youtube comments have been nice and constructive for a few years now You're right. Youtube comments are great now. Granted, it means you can't have controversial conversations there, but that's not what they're for. Maybe this is just me only subscribing to channels where people behave in the comments and the channel owner actually does some moderation, but I actually kind of agree. Sure, you find disagreements and arguments, but you don't get the 'ur mum gae', the reductio ad Hitlerum, the dongers, and the outright insane takes and paragraphs of all caps that I would expect from Youtube comments. Meanwhile, every time I open Facebook because of some event I need to press 'going' on, I get a glimpse of some inane take or someone writing in all caps because reasons. There have been a few waves of comment spam, but maybe Youtube actually managed to curb that now? Only took them two or so years. I opened Excel today to view a spreadsheet and just out of curiosity, I decided to use the Copilot integration for the first time to ask it about a column's content. Copilot was clueless. The spreadsheet was open, the Copilot button is right there in the UI, as a user, the affordance of that button for me is that Copilot should already have the context (which is the spreadsheet content). But it didn't, and it kept asking me for the spreadsheet like it's open in a browser window. Microsoft's fumble here is pretty spectacular. Back in early 2023, the state of google search was abysmal (despite that their leaders insisted it wasn't, it had become nearly unusable for me and I don't think was that unfounded of an opinion). Microsoft rolled out a new version of bing, which became bing chat - search worked for me again for a very brief window of time. They could have pounced on this opportunity to take a big chunk out of google's search, because google didn't really catch up there til the AI overview was rolled out, and even that is notorious for having issues. Eventually chatGPT seems to have carved out some of this search space with web-search being native to the tools now. But microsoft was way ahead of everyone here for a brief period! Instead they just rolled everything into bloatware vaguely called "Copilot" and called it a day. >it had become nearly unusable for me and I don't think was that unfounded of an opinion this is an extremely unfounded opinion, and pointing me to other people on hackernews that agree with you is not evidence. Google search quite literally was and continues to be the most successful and profitable product in the history of humanity. None of your comment interfaces with reality at all. I don't see how "most successful and profitable product" is supposed to disprove a big drop in quality. Google search is extremely vulnerable to SEO scams. It's very common to see advertised/high ranked scams with similar domain names (e.g bankname.com vs bankname.co). I switched to Kagi mainly for this reason. There was a brief time when everyone was trying Bing to see the new copilot feature for themselves. The fact that Google grabbed a monopoly and now is making bank does not mean the product is good. It was amazing. Today it’s pretty terrible for me. I’ve switched to Kagi. But Google has a MASSIVE advantage. They have the most used browser (they push the hell out of it). They get the most search traffic, so they can use that to tune results better than anyone (if they want). Thats part of how they took off so fast. Got so good. The rich get richer. And everyone knows Google is #1 by 1000 miles. So that’s the engine they want to be in. That’s whose advice they follow. Google gets the searches so it can get better faster. It gets the eyeballs to make the money to invest in other Google stuff. All of it pushes Chrome, which pushes Google Search. Google is not the best. Google years ago was. They’re a shadow of their former self, destroyed by spam of their creation and AI slop they’ve helped make. They’re still THE default. But as they say, “past performance is not an indicator of future success“. it's not "unfounded", mountains of people have observed it. That's the foundation. > most successful and profitable product in the history of humanity. The iPhone is a much stronger contender for that title. It has probably surpassed $1 Trillion in profit for Apple since 2007. Then prove it? There have been actual studies that confirm this fact. You could also use the fact that google search has been losing market share steadily since 2023 and since search was supported on things like chatGPT as evidence it has been in decline. But, as I have in the past also said, I refuse to argue about this with google employees/devotees because there seems to be a fair amount of delusion involved. For me, the user, it didn’t work. I got that from my own experience with it. You can point it at me and say it was my imagination, or i wasn’t “doing it right,” but that experience was absolutely true for me. If you care to you can even go back to my oldest posting history to see me complaining about it, and similarly people rushing in to defend it (very aggressively) >it had become nearly unusable for me and I don't think was that unfounded of an opinion if ironic is the right word; the (google) search product itself still is. if not even worse. the 'new' ai mode routinely creates these silly categories that are not what i was looking for and my screen is filled with repetitive ai summaries of articles. it will ingest a source as fact, and then use that fact to create confirmation bias across other articles. it will even use words like "confirm" when it finds a source saying something, even if the source is junk or seo spam. it becomes somewhat impossible to escape the assumptions the model has made, and i have to resort to traditional web search to get diversity in my results. and while deep research works, its so overly verbose, with no easy way to tone down the wordiness. I don't use it often, but at least now I can get an answer. I swear in early 2023 I would just get completely irrelevant, borderline spammy results to the point I gave up and felt helpless because there was no real alternative at that time for how I used google. It felt like the internet broke for a window of time and Bing (very briefly) brought me out of that hell. To this day I still can't believe they didnt capitalize on it. Nadella himself wrote: "2026 will be a pivotal year for AI. [...]
We have moved past the initial phase of discovery and are entering a phase of widespread diffusion. We are beginning to distinguish between “spectacle” and “substance”." Customers are not buying the spectacle and investors are wondering why there is no substance. It cost them (as a guess) -1T of market cap.. In other words they still got rewarded by the market despite all the missteps. I don’t agree with this reality but here we are. Over and over Microsoft kills products with mis-marketing. One scenario is the product is good (OneNote) but they put three icons on the taskbar for it and spam the rest of Windows for ads for it that just make people scream "take it away!" Another scenario is that the product is bad (OneDrive) and they push you into having a traumatic experience (Microsoft Office uses it as the default save location and when it is down you can't save your work!) that makes sure you'll never use it again -- even though now OneDrive seems to be basically reliable. Today is it the dominant playbook for marketing of AI experiences. Mostly people are sick and tired of hearing about it, the master Unique Selling Point of 2026 is products that don't interrupt you when you are trying to get work done. Recently had to download actual Adobe Reader for the first time in at least a decade and... christ. Requires most of an H100 in resources and you can't do what you actually want to do because of multiple AI related popups and attempt to get you to subscribe to some Adobe cloud nonsense. I knew it would be bad but I couldn't believe the state of it, just utter garbage Important snippet that has bearing on the adoption of AI as a whole: > “Disorganized data silos” have been an issue for Copilot, analysts wrote. This is true in almost every large organization, and will affect every enterprise AI product out there. There was a relevant subthread just a couple of days ago recounting this exact, same dynamic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46861209 In fact, Palantir's secret sauce may not be their tech, but their "Forward Deployed Engineers" model (i.e. a rebranding of "partner engineers embedded within their customers' organizations"). Because it turns out that's a lot of what they do is navigating these bureaucratic and political hurdles to unlock access to the data: https://nabeelqu.co/reflections-on-palantir It gets even worse if you consider this data is going to be extremely messy, with multiple bespoke, partially-duplicate / overlapping, potentially conflicting versions of the data with varying levels of out-of-datedness, scattered across these silos. (I would know, in a past life, I worked on a months-long project called, self-explanatorily enough, "Stale Docs".) Yeah, untangling these bureaucratic webs and data horrors is not a quarter-long or year-long project, so investors are gonna be waiting a long time for the impact of AI to be visible. On the bright side, as TFA also hints at, AI providers themselves have been severely capacity-constrained. So hopefully by the time these issues get sorted out enough new capacity would be coming online to actually serve that traffic. In the meantime, I expect a prolonged period of AI companies feverishly splurging on AI CapEx spend even as Wall Street punishes them repeatedly for the lack of impact of AI being reflected anywhere. It is remarkable how during the last 25 years (approximately), Microsoft has been improving their ability to deliver first (or be among the first), followed by messing up the whole process so that late comers end up taking the crown jewels. PDAs, mobile phones, tablets, tablets with detachable keyboards, managed OS userspace, HoloLens, the XBox mess, and now AI. There certainly other examples that I failed to address. This is what happens when divisions fight among themselves for OKRs and whatever other goals. And their philosophy of mediocre = good enough. (Not everything ofc, MS is a continent. .net core, language design etc is top-notch.) Which certainly has to do with it being initially developed at Microsoft Research Cambridge, and not plain Microsoft. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40472977 https://web.archive.org/web/20190111203733/https://blogs.msd... I would argue that the success has more to do with DevDiv being the strongest technical organization at MS than its provenance. I STILL REMEMBER WHEN SOME MARKETING IDIOT DECIDED THAT VISUAL STUDIO NEEDED TO SHOUT AT YOU. IT TOOK THREE MAJOR VERISONS BEFORE VISUAL STUDIO STOPPED LOOKING LIKE THIS COMMENT. OF COURSE THERE WASN'T A SETTING TO MAKE IT NORMAL AGAIN. Until they messed up the whole UWP / WinRT developer experience in Visual Studio. Also VS 2026 was released with a hard milestone, thus while there is a new settings experience, many options show a dialog from VS 2022, because the new UI is still not implemented for the new experience. Note that most organisations have to pay for Visual Studio licenses, and get rewarded with such quality. Slop has also arrived into DevDiv. I think after the failure of Metro, I think Microsoft gave up on native apps entirely and now the story is web or Electron. It appears the problem is more deep than that. From what I could infer from some community talks, podcasts and so, I would assert that nowadays they have the problem new hires have been educated in UNIX like OSes and Web. Thus Windows team gets lots of folks that never coded anything for Windows, and management instead of having proper trainings in place, just goes with Webview2 and Electron all over the place. I might be wrong, this is more my perception than anything else. I would say the web took over as the primary application platform and Unix-likes provided convenient low cost license-free foundations to build them on. No excuse for not having trainings in place for Windows native development, for those new hires. You don't see Apple and Google doing the same Webviews all over the place on their OSes, with exception of ChromeOS, which appears to be on the death row to be replaced with Android anyway. In fact, at WWDC 2025 Apple executives even spoke publicly on the matter against that approach. > nowadays they have the problem new hires have been educated in UNIX like OSes and Web. So, in other words, the kids grow up learning and using Linux, right? Ah, thanks. That must be the link with Simon Peyton Jones as well. Seems to be another case of a marketing machine running away with foundational research coming from Europe.* * no hard feelings But still, Microsoft is the most diversified of the big players - they have Windows, Office, Enterprise, Xbox, Azure, Surface - they can survive a mess like their current copilot mess and still generally thrive It has more to do with Microsoft's size and long history. If you are big and have been doing the same thing for many years, naturally you'll want to expand, some of which do succeed. Is anyone surprised? Windows can't even open and close file explorer reliably without lagging or refusing to respond. How could they possibly rival these models? > push by Chief Executive Satya Nadella to transform Microsoft into an AI-first company Why can't we have a 'user-first' company. Maybe think about the user of your products a wee tiny bit. But no, it is not to be. Go explain that to the board who assigns you. They all know about AI and FOMO it. Anything non-AI will be burried and thrown away. Trend is not close to reversal yet. We need more AI-driven disasters before rejection of AI-centric course will be a socially acceptable course of actions. Plus. Who cares about users? Stock evaluation of the mag7 has few to do with the users and the products. Because most of Microsoft's revenue is not generated by end-users. It's large government agencies and big corporations where the end-user is ten steps detached from the actual decision to buy or not to buy something. Which is why it is baffling to me that MS won't let the end users alone. I am still battling with the fact they are hell bend on removing the whole "local users" approach of personal computing. Why stop giving people the option to use their computer the way they want to?
What does MS get out of pushing everybody into online account for an on prem system? It should be evident to them by now that there is a portion of users that will continue to find ways to use their computer the way they want to. This cat and mouse game has gone on long enough. MS should be happy to retain any end user they can at this point and not continue to piss of some nerds that still use your operating system under the one condition that they get to do so the way they see fit. Yeah and even the engineers and architects have no influence on the purchase decision. If you ask us we wouldn't buy Microsoft. But they're really good at rubbing shoulders with the CIOs and convincing them their stuff isn't the mediocre trash it really is. It's a story in Germany all the time that some open source zealots get a town government to switch to an off-brand office suite which is so bad that the government worker's union goes on strike to get Microsoft Office back. You mean Munich, and Microsoft bribed them millions of dollars and a HQ relocation to put Microsoft Office back. Most people are just highly resistant to change, even change for the better. Ok, but let's be fair. Libre Office et al are terrible. Doesn't sound fair at all. What's so "terrible" about it in its current form? We have OnlyOffice as an alternative today. Personally I find the UI quite pleasing. But lately I haven't had any need to use office suite at home so I don't really use it so I have yet to find anything to complain (meanwhile, LibreOffice was horrible, while Office 365 was bearable until you stuff too many things in the equation editor). Its really not that bad. I used to use it at work all the time. I did word processing, spreadsheets and presentations all the time with it. Maybe not as powerful as Excel, but I was never really a power user. But then again I never saw any spreadsheets that anybody used that were particularly complex. At this point, LibreOffice is much better than whatever Microsoft now sells as an office suite. The unironic use of "off brand office suite" here is hysterically tragic. Also, the productivity suite formerly known as Office is these days called "365 Copilot". Which one did they switch to? Here's a case of a recent one which is early in the cycle https://www.pcmag.com/news/german-province-ditches-microsoft... LibreOffice isn't bad at all. LibreOffice is catastrophically bad. It is slow, buggy, and everything it does is either pointlessly emulating a bad product, or pointlessly going against expectations. It exists for one reason only, which is OSS fervor. Great, but that doesn’t lead to great design. I'm with wolvoleo. I'm forced to use MS Office at work but install only LO on my personal machines. It may lack features or pizzazz but as a reliable, unfussy authoring tool, it serves my needs very well. > pointlessly going against expectations If you're referring to the ribbon, I'm not sold on its superiority. The vast majority of other software still uses the familiar menu structure, which is what LO uses too. Granted, well meaning educational programs expose students to MS Office and its paradigm, from an early age. For their sake, I eagerly await a coding assistant AI powerful enough to reskin LibreOffice to look just MS Office, ribbon and all.
_fat_santa - 20 hours ago
ChuckMcM - 14 hours ago
mbreese - a minute ago
ryandrake - 10 hours ago
shigawire - 10 hours ago
bunderbunder - 9 hours ago
nosianu - 4 hours ago
nindalf - 3 hours ago
zuminator - 7 hours ago
Melatonic - 4 hours ago
dahcryn - an hour ago
PeterStuer - 3 hours ago
saidinesh5 - 9 hours ago
bunderbunder - 9 hours ago
Lio - 4 hours ago
anthonypasq - 14 hours ago
ChuckMcM - 14 hours ago
bane - 4 minutes ago
safety1st - 10 hours ago
lizknope - 12 hours ago
autoexec - 10 hours ago
RoddaWallPro - 13 hours ago
toomuchtodo - 13 hours ago
ChuckMcM - 13 hours ago
fallous - 11 hours ago
magic_hamster - 5 hours ago
missingdays - an hour ago
vor_ - 3 hours ago
heraldgeezer - 2 hours ago
pjc50 - 41 minutes ago
datsci_est_2015 - 12 hours ago
rightbyte - 14 hours ago
alsetmusic - 12 hours ago
jamesnorden - an hour ago
fallous - 11 hours ago
autoexec - 10 hours ago
saghm - 8 hours ago
xmcqdpt2 - an hour ago
ajkjk - 11 hours ago
vor_ - 3 hours ago
reaperducer - 14 hours ago
toomuchtodo - 14 hours ago
xyzsparetimexyz - 13 hours ago
6510 - 10 hours ago
autoexec - 10 hours ago
deckar01 - 14 hours ago
quietbritishjim - 3 hours ago
iteria - 13 hours ago
yoyohello13 - 10 hours ago
bonesss - 6 hours ago
direwolf20 - 14 hours ago
SilverElfin - 6 hours ago
podgorniy - 16 minutes ago
heisenzombie - 14 hours ago
jukkan - 7 hours ago
xmcqdpt2 - an hour ago
inglor_cz - 27 minutes ago
tartoran - 8 hours ago
alkonaut - 5 hours ago
PassingClouds - 7 hours ago
Daz912 - 12 hours ago
onion2k - 7 hours ago
bonesss - 5 hours ago
gtowey - an hour ago
kryogen1c - 19 hours ago
xmcqdpt2 - an hour ago
WillAdams - 20 hours ago
llama052 - 20 hours ago
mook - 19 hours ago
basch - 20 hours ago
mzajc - 15 hours ago
mattmaroon - 11 hours ago
primax - 11 hours ago
mouth - 7 hours ago
gtowey - an hour ago
apercu - 20 hours ago
hibikir - 12 hours ago
apercu - 3 hours ago
MattGaiser - 11 hours ago
downrightmike - 11 hours ago
nitwit005 - 15 hours ago
simonw - 14 hours ago
egl2020 - 12 hours ago
jacquesm - 10 hours ago
dahcryn - 4 minutes ago
user3939382 - 9 hours ago
starik36 - 14 hours ago
Sharlin - 13 hours ago
sandworm101 - 13 hours ago
alex1138 - 14 hours ago
reddalo - 13 hours ago
paride5745 - 5 hours ago
tester756 - 14 hours ago
jazzyjackson - 14 hours ago
trinix912 - an hour ago
cursuve - 14 hours ago
Onawa - 13 hours ago
jamesnorden - an hour ago
Tempest1981 - 12 hours ago
romanovcode - 5 hours ago
shevy-java - 14 hours ago
Gigachad - 10 hours ago
direwolf20 - 15 hours ago
Sharlin - 13 hours ago
aleph_minus_one - 13 hours ago
Dylan16807 - 10 hours ago
aleph_minus_one - 2 hours ago
Avamander - 14 hours ago
RandomTisk - 15 hours ago
profsummergig - 14 hours ago
Sharlin - 13 hours ago
FearNotDaniel - 6 hours ago
Izikiel43 - 12 hours ago
stickfigure - 14 hours ago
taeric - 14 hours ago
rockskon - 14 hours ago
stickfigure - 14 hours ago
tsimionescu - 3 hours ago
rockskon - 14 hours ago
aleph_minus_one - 13 hours ago
rockskon - 12 hours ago
veqq - 14 hours ago
quantummagic - 10 hours ago
Telaneo - 12 hours ago
chakintosh - 17 minutes ago
JohnMakin - 20 hours ago
anthonypasq - 14 hours ago
Dylan16807 - 10 hours ago
Saline9515 - 13 hours ago
snarfy - 39 minutes ago
MBCook - 11 hours ago
ajkjk - 10 hours ago
KoftaBob - 12 hours ago
JohnMakin - 14 hours ago
basch - 20 hours ago
JohnMakin - 20 hours ago
heresie-dabord - 3 hours ago
cadamsdotcom - 16 hours ago
PaulHoule - 20 hours ago
ifwinterco - 20 hours ago
keeda - 13 hours ago
pjmlp - 20 hours ago
exceptione - 20 hours ago
pjmlp - 20 hours ago
brg - 20 hours ago
direwolf20 - 13 hours ago
pjmlp - 20 hours ago
PaulHoule - 17 hours ago
pjmlp - 17 hours ago
MisterTea - 14 hours ago
pjmlp - 6 hours ago
h3lp - 15 hours ago
exceptione - 20 hours ago
codeulike - 14 hours ago
g947o - 2 hours ago
ProfessorZoom - 14 minutes ago
Eddy_Viscosity2 - 21 hours ago
podgorniy - 14 minutes ago
Etheryte - 20 hours ago
InterlooperX - 5 hours ago
wolvoleo - 20 hours ago
PaulHoule - 20 hours ago
direwolf20 - 15 hours ago
stock_toaster - 20 hours ago
outside1234 - 15 hours ago
jamesnorden - 42 minutes ago
syockit - 10 hours ago
olyjohn - 11 hours ago
speed_spread - 10 hours ago
senko - 20 hours ago
jetbalsa - 20 hours ago
PaulHoule - 20 hours ago
wolvoleo - 20 hours ago
simonask - 15 hours ago
sanjayjc - 14 hours ago