Claude Code is suddenly everywhere inside Microsoft
(theverge.com)331 points by Anon84 12 hours ago
331 points by Anon84 12 hours ago
> Microsoft really needs to get a better handle with the naming conventions.
They really won't, though; Microsoft just does this kind of thing, over and over and over. Before everything was named "365", it was all "One", before that it was "Live"... 20 years ago, everything was called ".NET" whether it had anything to do with the Internet or not. Back in the '90s they went crazy for a while calling everything "Active".
To further your argument, look at the XBOX. It is impossible to tell which is the latest model by name alone. Where the playstation is simple, the latest is the 5, the previous was the 4, and the one before that was the 3.
Oh no I just realized the next generation will be called Microsoft 365 Xbox Copilot
Some musings from someone who has not worked in microsoft but has in big tech.
This often happens because the people inside are incentivized to build their own empire.
If someone comes and wants to get promoted/become an exec, there's a ceiling if they work under the an existing umberlla + dealing the politics of introducing a feature which requires dealing with an existing org.
So they build something new. And the next person does the same. And so you have 365, One, Live, .Net, etc
The Dev Tools division had Quick- prefix for some tools before settling on Visual- once VB took off.
Then there's DirectX and its subs - though Direct3D had more room for expanded feature set compared to DXSound or DXInput so now they're up to D3D v12.
Marketing has too much power. They get some hairbrained scheme to goose the numbers and just slam a mandate all the way down the org. Is "Copilot" not getting enough clicks? Make every button say "copilot", problem solved. Marketing doesn't know or care what was there before, someone needs numbers up to get their promotion.
It's because Microsoft isn't a software company. They're a marketing company that happens to make software and a few other bits.
We're now on the back end of that, where Microsoft must again make products with independent substance, but are instead drowning in their own infrastructural muck.
>Microsoft really needs to get a better handle with the naming conventions
Microsoft cannot and will not ever get better at naming things. It is said the universe will split open and and eldritch beast will consume the stars the day Microsoft stops using inconsistent and overlapping names for different and conflicting products.
Isn't that right .Net/dotnet
"Microsoft Re-Designs the iPod Packaging" (2006)
I’d forgotten all about this gem. I think it was made by some Microsoft employees, too, which makes it even funnier to me.
Many will never know the joy of trying to search for it back in the days when punctuation was ignored (C# says hello too)
Related: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/windows-servers-iden...
Try going on LinkedIn and searching for C# and .net jobs.
Completely impossible. The search is bad to begin with, but it explicitly ignores anything that isn't a-9.
Nadella has the golden ship taking on water right now. He has entirely botched AI top to bottom. He has screwed that up to such a degree that it would be difficult to overstate. If he doesn't correct these mistakes extremely soon, he'll unravel much of the progress he made for Microsoft and they'll miss this generation of advancement (which will be the end of their $3 trillion market cap - as the market has recently perked up to).
There is no tech giant that is more vulnerable than Microsoft is at this moment.
Most document originations will begin out of or adjacent to of LLM sessions in the near future, as everything will blur in terms of collaborating with AI agents. Microsoft has no footing (or worse, their position is terrible courtesy of copilot) and is vulnerable to death by inflection point. Windows 11 is garbage and Google + Linux may finally be coming for their desktop (no different than what AMD has managed in unwinding the former Intel monopoly in PCs).
Someone should be charging at them with a new take on Office, right now. This is where you slice them in half. Take down Office and take down Windows. They're so stupid at present that they've opened the gates to Office being destroyed, which has been their moat for 30 years.
My peak experience so far was trying to search if there was an extension of dotnet interactive for visual studio or only for visual studio code.
the interactive console is built into Visual Studio, no extension needed
Somewhere and in some universe there was a Microsoft that did so, wreaking havoc across the multiverse.
Not that I disagree, but this is nothing compared to the ".NET" craze in the early 2000s. Everything had to have ".NET" in its name even if it had absolutely nothing to do with the actual .NET technology.
There was also "Active" before that, but .NET was next level crazy...
>>Point it a SharePoint/OneDrive location, a handful of excel spreadsheets and pdfs/word docs and tell it to make a PowerPoint presentation based on that information. It cannot do this. It will spit out nonsense. You have to hold it by the hand tell it everything to do step by step to the point that making the PowerPoint presentation yourself is significantly faster because you don’t have to type out a bunch of prompts and edit it’s garbage output.
Everyone I know who use AI day-to-day is just using Copilot to mostly do things like add a transition animation to a Powerpoint slide or format a word document to look nice. The only problem these LLM products seem to solve is giving normal people a easy way to interact with terrible software processes and GUIs. And better solution to that problem would be for developers to actually observe how the average use interacts with both a computer and their program in particular.
The craziest thing was how Microsoft took the super established brand from decades, and renamed Microsoft Office to Microsoft 365.
I'm not sure if it's named Microsoft 365 Copilot nowadays, or if that's an optional AI addon? I thought it was renamed once more, but they themselves claim simply "Microsoft 365" (in a few various tiers) sans-Copilot. https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/buy/compare-all-micr...
> There is Github Copilot, the coding autocomplete tool.
No, there is Github Copilot, the AI agent tool that also has autocomplete, and a chat UI.
I understand your point about naming, but it's always helpful to know what the products do.
> No, there is Github Copilot, the AI agent tool that also has autocomplete, and a chat UI.
When it came out, Github Copilot was an autocomplete tool. That's it. That may be what the OP was originally using. That's what I used... 2 years ago. That they change the capabilities but don't change the name, yet change names on services that don't change capabilities further illustrates the OP's point, I would say.
To be fair, Github Copilot (itself a horrible name) has followed the same arc as Cursor, from AI-enhanced editor with smart autocomplete, to more of an IDE that now supports agentic "vibe coding" and "vibe editing" as well.
I do agree that conceptually there is a big difference between an editor, even with smart autocomplete, and an agentic coding tool, as typified by Claude Code and other CLI tools, where there is not necessarily any editor involved at all.
all of these companies are going to follow each other's UX patterns for the rest of time.
That's silly. Gmail is a wildly different product than it was when it launched, but I guess it doesn't count since the name is the same?
Microsoft may or may not have a "problem" with naming, but if you're going to criticize a product, it's always a good starting place to know what you're criticizing.
...it gets better:
GitHub Copilot is a service, you can buy subscription from here https://github.com/features/copilot.
GitHub Copilot is available from website https://github.com/copilot together with services like Spark (not available from other places), Spaces, Agents etc.
GitHub Copilot is VSCode extension which you can download at https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=GitHub.c... and use from VSCode.
New version has native "Claude Code" integration for Anthropic models served via GitHub Copilot.
You can also use your own ie. local llama.cpp based provider (if your github copilot subscription has it enabled / allows it at enterprise level).
Github Copilot CLI is available for download here https://github.com/features/copilot/cli and it's command line interface.
Copilot for Pull Requests https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-for-pull-requests
Copilot Next Edit Suggestion https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-next-edit-suggestion...
Copilot Workspace https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-workspace/
Copilot for Docs https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-for-docs/
Copilot Completions CLI https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-completions-cli/
Copilot Voice https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-voice/
GitHub Copilot Radar https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-radar/
Copilot View https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-view/
Copilot Labs https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-labs/
This list doesn't include project names without Copilot in them like "Spark" or "Testpilot" https://githubnext.com/projects/testpilot etc.
Since we're talking about GitHub Copilot I'll lodge my biggest complaint about it here! The context window is stuck at 128k for all models (except maybe Codex): https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/264153 and https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/5993
This absolutely sucks, especially since tool calling uses tokens really really fast sometimes. Feels like a not-so-gentle nudge to using their 'official' tooling (read: vscode); even though there was a recent announcement about how GHCP works with opencode: https://github.blog/changelog/2026-01-16-github-copilot-now-...
No mention of it being severely gimped by the context limit in that press release, of course (tbf, why would they lol).
However, if you go back to aider, 128K tokens is a lot, same with web chat... not a total killer, but I wouldn't spend my money on that particular service with there being better options!
I'm currently using GitHub copilot via Zed and tbh I have no idea which of these this relates to. Perhaps a combination of
> GitHub Copilot is a service
and maybe, the api behind
> GitHub Copilot is VSCode extension
???
What an absolute mess.
You want a mess?
Put together a nice and clean price list for your friends in the purchasing department.
I dare you.
Might be a good time to start a Copilot Copilot company that manages all your copilots.
> so why should anyone pay for Copilot?
The execs buying Microsoft products are presumed to be as clueless as the execs naming Microsoft products.
You are describing everything Microsoft has done since at least the late 90s.
My colleague works in a functional role for a medium sized SaaS company(1000-5000 employees), working with banks, family offices, hedge funds. They use teams and copilot, they all hate it.
One thing that I don't know about is if they have an AI product that can work on combining unstructured and databases to give better insights on any new conversation? e.g. like say the LLM knows how to convert user queries to the domain model of tables and extract information? What companies are doing such things?
This would be something that can be deployed on-prem/ their own private cloud that is controlled by the company, because the data is quite sensitive.
> There is Github Copilot, the coding autocomplete tool.
It's also an LLM chat UI, I don't know if it's because of my work but it lets me select models from all of the major players (GPT, Claude, Gemini)
That's a great analogy, but could be taken one step further. Because Adobe would also have to rename the rest of their products to come close to what MS is doing.
- Adobe Neural Filter Acrobat
- Adobe Neural Filter App (previously photoshop)
- Adobe Neural Filter Illustrator
- Adobe 720 Neural Filter app
- etc.
They will never get better until naming things is a C-Suite level respected position.
I think I could clean up their existing mess if they want help.
Jedd outlines my credentials well here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17522649#17522861
People already do pay for it: office 365. It’s just like getting cloud storage with the subscription. OneDrive has been one of the better cloud storage options for consumers.
Also, a great use is Microsoft Forms I was surprised with the AI features. At first I just used it to get some qualitative feedback but ended up using copilot to enter questions Claude helped me create and it converted them into the appropriate forms for my surveys!
Objectives -> Claude -> Surveys (markdown) -> Copilot -> MS Forms -> Emailed.
Insights and analysis can use copilot too.
Main thing to remember is the models behind the scenes will change and evolve, Copilot is the branding. In fact, we can expect most companies will use multiple AI solutions/pipelines moving forward.
Yes. Similarly I have Gemini through having 2TB space on Google Photos.
I have 2TB with OneDrive too via a Family Office account and I've got no good reason to have the large gapps space.
A ChatGPT account and pay for two Claude accounts.
Netflix, Disney+, Prime.
How did this happen to me?
Perhaps I should sign up to one of those companies that will help me close accounts I keep seeing advertised on YouTube?
I’m not a gamer. But it still strikes me as wild that they let go of the Cortana moniker.
This isn't a Microsoft thing, it's a big dumb corporation thing. Most big corporations are run by dumb executives who are 100% out of touch with the customer (though even if they were in touch, they wouldn't care). Their only consideration is the stock price. If adding new names to things, chanting the magic spell "AI" over and over, and claiming the new name will make them more money can cause the stock price to increase, that's what they'll do. (Making customers happy doesn't make the stock price rise; if it did, we'd all be a lot less depressed and a lot richer)
Its long term microsoft culture to be horrific at external naming
It reminds me of IBM and Watson, most likely the same brain rot at the top.
Like Microsoft Defender, which is now Defender Antivirus, or Defender for Endpoint if you have a real license. You will also get Defender for Identity, and maybe Defender for Office 365, which is probably not ASR. And Defender for Cloud, not to be confused with Defender for Cloud Apps.
> Laptops sell with Copilot buttons now.
Is it the context menu key? Or did they do another Ctrl+Alt+Shift+Win+L thing?
This is funny because everyone’s AI strategy should have been
“What do we actually need to be productive?”
Which is how Anthropic pulled ahead of Microsoft, that prioritized
checks notes
Taking screenshots of every windows user’s desktop every few seconds. For productivity.
Fun fact: I used to automatically screenshot my desktop every few minutes eons ago. This would occasionally save me when I lost some work and could go back to check the screenshots.
I only gave it up because it felt like a liability and, ahem, it was awkward to review screenshots and delete inopportune ones.
Microsoft can use OpenAI models but it's not the model that's the problem, it's the application of them. Anthropic simply knows how to execute better.
As evidenced by Anthropic models not performing well in github presents copilot.
I read that a few times but from my personal observations, Claude Opus 4.5 is not significantly different in GitHub Copilot. The maximum context size is smaller for sure, but I don’t think the model remembers that well when the context is huge.
We love to hate on Microsoft here, but the fact is they are one of the most diversified tech companies out there. I would say they are probably the most diversified, actually. Operating systems, dev tools, business applications, cloud, consumer apps, SaaS, gaming, hardware. They are everywhere in the stack.
That's a "business" model, not a language model, which I believe is what the poster is referring to. In any case though, MS does have a number of models, most notably Phi. I don't think anyone is using them for significant work though.
One has existed since the 80s, when was the other founded?
Although it seems in Europe we might all end up with recall style screenshots and scanning of what we're looking at.
Part of me wonders if Microsoft knew it would appeal to governments.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/12/uk-to-encourage-...
I mean. Ask any gamer if the original Xbox One announcement needing a Kinect and persistent internet connection was a feature request from them or a three letter org.
As someone that was there, we saved the Xbox brand by bullying Microsoft out of normalizing spying on kids and their whole families.
I don’t plan on using the feature and I don’t plan on using Windows much longer in the first place, but I find that going beyond the ragebait headlines and looking at the actual offering and its privacy policy and security documentation makes it look a lot more reasonable.
Microsoft is very explicit in detailing how the data stays on device and goes to great lengths to detail exactly how it works to keep data private, as well as having a lot of sensible exceptions (e.g., disabled for incognito web browsing sessions) and a high degree of control (users can disable it per app).
On top of all this it’s 100% optional and all of Microsoft’s AI features have global on/off switches.
Until those switches come in the crosshairs of someone's KPIs, and then magically they get flipped in whatever direction makes the engagement line go up. Unfortunately we live in a world where all of these companies have done this exact thing, over and over again. These headlines aren't ragebait, they're prescient.
Well, now you’re just doing the same exact thing I described. You’re basically making up hypothetical things that could happen in the future.
I’ll agree with you the moment Microsoft does that. But they haven’t done it. And again, I’m not their champion, I’m actively migrating away from Microsoft products. I just don’t think this type of philosophy is helpful. It’s basically cynicism for cynicism’s sake.
Here are the settlements from Apple and Google regarding “how phones totally aren’t listening to you and selling the data to advertisers”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-voice-assistant-lawsuit-...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lopez-voice-assistant-payout-se...
I love you for this reference lol
I hate how I’ve had a web site with my name on it since 2008 and when you google my name verbatim it says “did you mean Tyler Childers”
Such shade from the algorithm, I get it, I get it, software is lamer than music.
For one reason or another everyone seems to be sleeping on Gemini. I have been exclusively using Gemini 3 Flash to code these days and it stands up right alongside Opus and others while having a much smaller, faster and cheaper footprint. Combine it with Antigravity and you're basically using a cheat code.
This comment is a bit confusing and surprising to me because I tried Antigravity three weeks ago and it was very undercooked. Claude was actually able to identify bugs and get the bigger picture of the project, while Gemini 3 with Antigravity often kept focusing on unimportant details.
My default everyday model is still Gemimi 3 in AI Studio, even for programming related problems. But for agentic work Antigravity felt very early-stages beta-ware when I tried it.
I will say that at least Gemimi 3 is usually able to converge on a correct solution after a few iterations. I tried Grok for a medium complexity task and it quickly got stuck trying to change minor details without being able to get itself out.
Do you have any advice on how to use Antigravity more effectively? I'm open to trying it again.
Ask it to verify stuff in the browser. It can open a special Chrome instance, browse URLs, click and scroll around, inspect the DOM, and generally do whatever it takes to verify that the problem is actually solved, or it will go back and iterate more. That feedback loop IMO makes it very powerful for client-side or client-server development.
I've mentioned this before, but I think Gemini is the smartest raw model for answering programming questions in chatbot mode, but these CC/Codex/gemini-cli tools need more than just the model, the harness has to be architected intelligently and I think that's where Google is behind for the moment.
I've heard Opus 4.5 might have an edge especially in long running agentic coding scenarios (?) but personally yes Gemini 3 series is what I was expecting GPT-5 to be.
I'm also mostly on Gemini 3 Flash. Not because I've compared them all and I found it the best bar none, but because it fulfills my needs and then some, and Google has a surprisingly little noted family plan for it. Unlike OpenAI, unlike Anthropic. IIRC it's something like 5 shared Gemini Pro subs for the price of 1. Even being just a couple sharing it, it's a fantastic deal. My wife uses it during studies, I professionally with coding and I've never run into limits.
It's crazy that we're having such different experiences. I purchased the Google AI plan as an alternative to my ChatGPT (Codex) daily driver. I use Gemini a fair amount at work, so I thought it would be a good choice to use personally. I used it a few times but ran into limits the first few projects I worked on. As a result I switched to Claude and so, far, I haven't hit any limits.
I've used Gemini CLI a fair amount as well—it's included with our subscription at work. I like it okay, but it tends to produce "lies" a bit too often. It tends to produce language that reads as over confident that it's found a problem or solution. This causes me extra work to verify or causes me extra time because I believed it. In my experience Claude Code does this quite a bit less.
I think counter to the assumption of myself (and many), for long form agent coding tasks, models are not as easily hot swappable as I thought.
I have developed decent intuition on what kinds of problems Codex, Claude, Cursor(& sub-variants), Composer etc. will or will not be able to do well across different axes of speed, correctness, architectural taste, ...
If I had to reflect on why I still don't use Gemini, it's because they were late to the party and I would now have to be intentional about spending time learning yet another set of intuitions about those models.
I feel like "prompting language" doesn't translate over perfectly either. It's like we become experts at operating a particular AI agent.
I've been experimenting with small local models and the types of prompts you use with these are very different than the ones you use with Claude Code. It seems less different between Claude, Codex, and Gemini but there are differences.
It's hard to articulate those differences but I think that I kind of get in a groove after using models for a while.
For all the hype I see about Gemini, we integrated it with our product (an AI agent) and it consistently performs worse[0] than Claude Sonnet, Opus, and ChatGPT 5.2
[0] based on user Thumbs up/Thumbs down voting
Maybe it's the types of projects I work on but Gemini is basically unusable to me. Settled on Claude Code for actual work and Codex for checking Claude's work. If I try to mix in Gemini it will hallucinate issues that do not exist in code at very high rate. Claude and Codex are way more accurate at finding issues that actually exist.
Oddly enough, as impressive as Gemini 3 is, I find myself using it infrequently. The thing Gemini 2.5 had over the other models was dominance in long context, but GPT5.2-codex-max and Opus 4.5 Thinking are decent at long context now, and collectively they're better at all the use cases I care about.
I think Gemini is an excellent model, it's just not a particularly great agent. One of the reasons is that its code output is often structured in a way that looks like it's answering a question, rather than generating production code. It leaves comments everywhere, which are often numbered (which not only is annoying, but also only makes sense if the numbering starts within the frame of reference of the "question" it's "answering").
It's also just not as good at being self-directed and doing all of the rest of the agent-like behaviors we expect, i.e. breaking down into todolists, determining the appropriate scope of work to accomplish, proper tool calling, etc.
Yeah, you may have nailed it. Gemini is a good model, but in the Gemini CLI with a prompt like, "I'd like to add <feature x> support. What are my options? Don't write any code yet" it will proceed to skip right past telling me my options and will go ahead an implement whatever it feels like. Afterward it will print out a list of possible approaches and then tell you why it did the one it did.
Codex is the best at following instructions IME. Claude is pretty good too but is a little more "creative" than codex at trying to re-interpret my prompt to get at what I "probably" meant rather than what I actually said.
Try the conductor extension for gemini-cli: https://github.com/gemini-cli-extensions/conductor
It won't make any changes until a detailed plan is generated and approved.
Can you (or anyone) explain how this might be? The "agent" is just a passthrough for the model, no? How is one CLI/TUI tool better than any other, given the same model that it's passing your user input to?
I am familiar with copilot cli (using models from different providers), OpenCode doing the same, and Claude with just the \A models, but if I ask all 3 the same thing using the same \A model, I SHOULD be getting roughly the same output, modulo LLM nondeterminism, right?
I've had the exact opposite experience. After including in my prompt "don't write any code yet" (or similar brief phrase), Gemini responds without writing code.
Using Gemini 2.5 or 3, flash.
My go-to models have been Claude and Gemini for a long time. I have been using Gemini for discussions and Claude for coding and now as an agent. Claude has been the best at doing what I want to do and not doing what I don’t want to do. And then my confidence in it took a quantum leap with Opus 4.5. Gemini seems like it has gotten even worse at doing what I want with new releases.
I've never, ever had a good experience with Gemini (3 Pro). It's been embarrassingly bad every time I've tried it, and I've tried it lots of times. It overcomplicates almost everything, hallucinates with impressive frequency, and needs to be repeatedly nudged to get the task fully completed. I have no reason to continue attempting to use it.
Same. Sometimes even repeated nudges don't help. The underlying 3.0 Pro model is great to talk and ideate with, but its inability to deliver within the Gemini CLI harness is ... almost comical.
Eh, it's not near Opus at all, closer to Sonnet. It is nice though with Antigravity because it's free versus being paid in other IDEs like Cursor.
I'm also using Gemini and it's the only option that consistently works for me so far. I'm using it in chat mode with copy&paste and it's pleasant to work with.
Both Claude and ChatGPT were unbearable, not primarily because of lack of technical abilities but because of their conversational tone. Obviously, it's pointless to take things personally with LLMs but they were so passive-aggressive and sometimes maliciously compliant that they started to get to me even though I was conscious of it and know very well how LLMs work. If they had been new hires, I had fired both of them within 2 weeks. In contrast, Gemini Pro just "talks" normally, task-oriented and brief. It also doesn't reply with files that contain changes in completely unrelated places (including changing comments somewhere), which is the worst such a tool could possibly do.
Edit: Reading some other comments here I have to add that the 1., 2. ,3. numbering of comments can be annoying. It's helpful for answers but should be an option/parameterization.
I think you’re highlighting an aspect of agentic coding that’s undervalued: what to do once trust is breached… ?
With humans you can categorically say ‘this guy lies in his comments and copy pastes bullshit everywhere’ and treat them consistently from there out. An LLM is guessing at everything all the time. Sometimes it’s copying flawless next-level code from Hacker News readers, sometimes it’s sabotaging your build by making unit tests forever green. Eternal vigilance is the opposite of how I think of development.
It's ok, but it too frequently edits WAY more than it needs to in order to accomplish the task at hand.
GPT-5.2 sometimes does this too. Opus-4.5 is the best at understanding what you actually want, though it is ofc not perfect.
I use Copilot in VSCode at work, and it's pretty effective. You can choose from quite a few models, and it has the agentic editing you'd expect from an IDE based AI development tool. I don't know if it does things like browser integration because I don't do frontend work. It's definitely improved over the last 6 months.
There's also all the other Copilot branded stuff which has varying use. The web based chat is OK, but I'm not sure which model powers it. Whatever it is it can be very verbose and doesn't handle images very well. The Office stuff seems to be completely useless so far.
Have you tried any other popular agentic coding tool? Like Claude Code, Cursor, Opencode, or Codex or something else? Because I've used all of these and Copilot in anger in the last three months, and Copilot wasn't even in the same league as the others. Comparatively it just plain sucked. Slow and gave poor results. All the others I mentioned are withing spitting distance of each other from what I can tell from my usage.
They launched GitHub Codespaces, a free containerized dev environment with VScode & Copilot, and it's broken six ways from Sunday. VScode/Copilot extensions are constantly breaking and changing. The GitHub web interface is now much harder to use, to the point I've just stopped browsing it. Nobody over there cares if these things work. (But weirdly, the Copilot CLI works 4x better than the Copilot VSCode extension at actually writing code)
The "smart autocomplete" part of Github Copilot is still the most useful AI coding thing for me at the moment. I continue to subscribe to it just for that.
Did it have all the hype and momentum, though? It was pretty widely viewed as a low- to negative-value addition, and honestly when I see someone on here talking about how useless AI is for coding, I assume they were tainted by Github copilot and never bothered updating their priors.
just my experience of course, but it had a lot of hype. It got into a lot of people's workflow and really had a strong first mover advantage. The fact that they supported neovim as a first-class editor surely helped a ton. But then they released their next set of features without neovim support and only (IIRC) support VS Code. That took a lot of wind out of the sails. Then combined with them for some reason being on older models (or with thinking turned down or whatever), the results got less and less useful. If Co-pilot had made their agent stuff work with neovim and with a CLI, I think they'd be the clear leader.
My first experience was with cursor and my entire team went through a honeymoon period before it got kind of sidelined. Average usage was giving an agent a couple shots at a problem but usually solving it ourselves ultimately. Internal demos were lackluster. Team was firmware though so might not be a great topic for GenAI yet.
It really says something that MS/Github has been trying to shovel Copilot down our throats for years, and Anthropic just builds a tool in a short period of time and it takes off.
It's interesting to think back, what did Copilot do wrong? Why didn't it become Claude Code?
It seems for one thing its ambition might have been too small. Second, it was tightly coupled to VS Code / Github. Third, a lot of dumb big org Microsoft politics / stakeholders overly focused on enterprise over developers? But what else?
I think the answer is pretty simple.
It's pretty clear that Microsoft had "Everything must have Copilot" dictated from the top (or pretty close). They wanted to be all-in on AI but didn't start with any actual problems to solve. If you're an SWE or a PM or whatever and suddenly your employment/promotion/etc prospects depend on a conspicuously implemented Copilot thing, you do the best you can and implement a chat bot (and other shit) that no one asked for or wants.
I don't know Anthropic's process but it produced a tool that clearly solves a specific problem: essentially write code faster. I would guess that the solution grew organically given that the UI isn't remotely close to what you'd expect a product manager to want. We don't know how many internal false-starts there were or how many people were working on other solutions to this problem, but what emerged clearly solved that problem, and can generalize to other problems.
In other words, Microsoft seems to have focused on a technology buzzword. Anthropic let people solve their own problems and it led to an actual product. The kind that people want. The difference is like night and day.
Who knows what else might have happened in the last 12 months if C-suites were focused more on telling SWEs to be productive and less on forcing specific technology buzzwords because they were told it's the future.
Having worked in large orgs, I can totally imagine someone having an idea like Claude Code and it getting quietly shelved because it
(A) doesn’t align to some important persons vision, who is incentivized have their finger on whatever change comes about
(B) might step on a lot of adjacent stakeholders, and the employees stakeholder may be risk adverse and want to play nice.
(C) higher up stakeholder fundamentally don’t understand the domain they’re leading
(D) the creators don’t want to fight an uphill battle for their idea to win.
Microsoft can just get one of thier devs to build a coding agent but instead all of these companies are just bowing down to Anthropic just because Anthropic is selling execs a dream situation where they can fire most of the devs. None of the other coding agents are any worse than CC, Gemini & Crush are even better, Codex is decent and even something like Opencode is catching up.
Nah, Claude Code is really that better. I should know, every few months I try to move away from Claude Code, only to come running back to it.
Gemini CLI (not the model) is trash, I wish it weren't so, but I only have to try to use for a short time before I give up. It regularly retains stale file contents (even after re-prompting), constantly crashes, does not show diffs properly, etc, etc.
I recently tried OpenCode. It's got a bit better, but I still have all kind of API errors with the models. I also have no way to scroll back properly to earlier commands. Its edit acceptance and permissions interface is wonky.
And so on. It's amazing how Claude Code just nails the agentic CLI experience from the little things to the big.
Advice to agentic CLI developers: Just copy Claude Code's UX exactly, that's your starting point. Then, add stuff that make the life of user even easier and more productive. There's a ton of improvements I'd like to see in Claude Code:
- I frequently use multiple sessions. It's kinda hard to remember the context when I come back to a tab. Figure out a way to make it immediately obvious.
- Allow me to burn tokens to keep enough persistent context. Make the agent actually read my AGENTS.md before every response. Ensure thew agents gets closer and closer to matching the way I'd like it work as the sessions progresses (and even across sessions).
- Add a Replace tool, like the Read tool, that is reliable and prevents the agent from having to make changes manually one by one, or worse using sed (I've banned my agents from using sed because of the havoc they cause with it).
I think big corporations are just structurally unable to create products people actually want to use. They have too much experience with their customers being locked in and switching costs keeping them locked in. Anthropic needed a real product to win mind-share first, they will start enshitifying later (by some accounts they may already have). The best thing a big corporation can do with a nascent technology like that is to make it available to use to everywhere and then acquire the startup that converts it to a winner first. Microsoft even fumbled that.
Well yeah, it is just better. At my work we have a copilot license, but we use it to access Claude Sonnet/Opus model in OpenCode.
The Copilot-Cli is not so bad,
Can't speak for copilot but Gemini cli is unbelievably bad compared to Gemini web.
CC has some magic secret sauce and I'm not sure what it is.
My company pays for both too, I keep coming back to Claude all-round
Claude Code is one of a very few AI tools where I genuinely think the people at the company who build it use it all the time.
I would love to hear/see a definitive answer for this, but I read somewhere that the relationship between MS and \A is such that the copilot version of the \A models has a smaller context window than through CC.
This would explain the "secret sauce", if it's true. But perhaps it's not and a lot is LLM nondeterminism mixing with human confirmation bias.
Agreed. I was an early adopter of Claude Code. And at work we only had Copilot. But the Copilit CLI isn't too bad now. you've got slash commands for Agents.MD and skills.md files now for controlling your context, and access to Sonnet & Opus 4.5.
Maybe Microsoft is just using it internally, to finish copying the rest of the features from Claude Code.
Much like the article states, I use Claude Code beyond just it's coding capabilities....
The Copilot IntelliJ integration on the other hand is atrocious: https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/17718-github-copilot--y...
I'm amazed that a company that's supposedly one of the big AI stocks seemingly won't spare a single QA position for a major development tool. It really validates Claude's CLI-first approach.
I feel like I must be missing something, but I just cannot understand the hype around Claude Code. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully bought in on using AI for development and am super happy to use Copilot or Cursor, but as an experienced developer just chatting with the terminal feels so wrong. I've tried it so many times to switch and I can't get into it.
Can anyone else share what their workflow with CC looks like? Even if I never end up switching I'd like to at least feel like I gave it a good shot and made a choice based on that, but right now I just feel like I'm doing something wrong.
Workflow is this: - I have emacs open for code editing/reviews/git. - Separate terminal emulator with 1-3 claudes - I work on a story by splitting it into small steps ("Let's move this email logic to the email.service.ts", "here's the fields I'd need to add to the request, create a schema validation in a separate file, and update the router and controller") - I mostly watch claude, and occasionally walk through the code in emacs whenever I feel like I want to review code. - I handle external tools like git or db migrations myself not letting LLMs near them.
In essence, this is pretty much how you'd run a group of juniors - you'd sit on slack and jira diving up work and doing code reviews.
At that point though isn't it just as fast/easy to cut/paste the code yourself? That was my conclusion after spending a week breaking things down - I was able to get good code out of the AI, but only after spending as much time writing the prompt as if I just did it myself. (note that this was my first attempt at using an agent, maybe I'll learn to do it better)
> I work on a story by splitting it into small steps
It's funny because that's basically the approach I take in GH Copilot. I first work with it to create a plan broken up into small steps and save that to an md file and then I have it go one step at a time reviewing the changes as it goes or just when it's done.
I understand that you're using emacs to keep an eye on the code as it goes, so maybe what I wasn't groking was that people were using terminal based code editors to see the changes it was making. I assumed most people were just letting it do it s thing and then trying to review everything at the end, but felt like an anti-pattern given how much we (dev community) push for small PRs over gigantic 5k line PRs.
As an aside: have you thought about using agent-shell?
iterm and talk to Claude, command+tab to vscode fix/adjust things, command+tab back to iterm and talk more to Claude. Not the most technically advanced setup but it works pretty well for me. I don't like the turbo auto-complete in vscode, it's very distracting. If i want an agent's help I tab over and ask claude.
Also, use the Superpowers plugin for Claude. That really helps for larger tasks but it can over do it hah. It's amusing to watch the code reviewer, implementor, and tester fight and go back and forth over something that doesn't even really matter.
One thing I really like it for is if you have a lot of something similar - let's say plugins. I can then just go to the plugins directory, and tell claude something as simple as "this is the plugins directory where plugins live. I want to add one called 'sample' that samples records". Note that I don't even have to tell it what that means usually.
It will read the existing plugins, understand the code style/structure/how they integrate, then create a plugin called "sample" AND code that is usually what you wanted without telling it specifically, and write 10 tests for it.
In those cases it's magic. In large codebases, asking it to add something into existing code or modify a behavior I've found it to be...less useful at.
I'll take a crack at it. I liked using Cursor and it was my first introduction but my main editor is Emacs and I like Emacs, it has a bunch of configuration that has built up like barnacles on the bottom of a ship so it was kind of hard using VS Code. I use a project package (projectile) that allows me to quickly move between different projects (git repos, TRAMP sessions, anything really) and I can open a CC terminal there that I can have pop in and out as I need it. Really it's pretty similar to how I used Cursor.
I use it like having a bunch of L3/L4 engineers. I give them a description of the changes I want to be made, sometimes chat a bit with it to help them design the features and then tell them to have a go at it. Then I create PRs and review them and have them clean up/improve the code and merge it. I try to balance giving it enough stuff to build so I can switch to another agent, and not giving them too much so that they make a weird assumption and run really far with it.
I got really good at reviewing code efficiently from my time at Google and others, which helps a lot. I'm sure my personal career experience influences a lot how I'm using it.
FWIW, I use Codex CLI, but I assume my flow would be the same with Claude Code.
So, is claude code really better than codex with latest gpt model, or do people just hate on openai so much that no one (but me apparently) is using them? I am asking this question seriously because if so I will make the switch, but codex seems to be quite good to me so I don't want to waste time switching.
I used to use Claude Code with Opus exclusively because of how good it is IME. Then Anthropic banned me so I switched to OpenCode. I really want OpenCode to win, but there is long way for it to get the same polish in the UX department (and to get a handle on the memory leaks). I am 100 % sure Claude Code is hacks upon hacks internally, but on the surface, it works quite well (not that they have fixed the flashing issue). With OpenCode I also switched to GPT-5.2-Codex and I have to say it's fairly garbage IME. I can't get it to keep working, it takes every opportunity to either tell me what I should do next for it or just tell me it figured a particular piece of the larger puzzle out and that if I want it can continue. It is not nearly as independent as Opus it. Now I'm on the Codex CLI with GPT-5.2 as I figured maybe the harness is the issue, but it is not very good either.
I'm one of those really odd beasts that feels some sort of loyalty to Microsoft, so I started out on Copilot and was very reluctant to try Claude Code. But as soon as I did, I figured out what the hype was about. It's just able to work over larger code bases and over longer time horizons than Copilot. The last time I tried Copilot, just to compare, I noticed that it would make some number of tool calls (not even involving tokens!) and then decide, "Nah, that's too many. We're just not going to do any work for a while." It was bizarre. And sometimes it would decide that a given bog-standard tool call (like read a file or something) needed to get my permission every. single. time. I couldn't do anything to convince it otherwise. I eventually gave up. And since then, we've built all our LLM support infrastructure around Claude Code, so it would be painful to go back to anything else.
I don't really like how Claude Code kind of obscures the actual code from you - I guess that's why people keep putting out articles about how certain programmers have absolutely no idea whats going on inside the code.
It's truly more capable but still not capable enough that Im comfortable blindly trusting the output.
> Claude Code kind of obscures the actual code from you
not sure what you mean, I have vscode open and make code changes in between claude doing its thing. I have had it revert my changes once which was amusing. Not sure why it did that, I've also seen it make the same mistake twice after being told not to.
That's the big difference for me. I use Github Copilot because I want to see the output and work with it. For people who are fine just shooting a prompt out and getting code back, I'm sure Claude Code is better.
This is not a problem when you assume the role of an architect and a reviewer and leave the entirety of the coding to Claude Code. You'll pretty much live in the Git Changes view of your favorite IDE leaving feedback for Claude Code and staging what it managed to get right so far. I guess there is a leap of faith to make because if you don't go all the way and you try to code together with Claude Code, it will mess with your stuff and undo a lot of it and it's just frustrating and not optimal. But if you remove yourself from the loop completely, then indeed you'll have no idea what's going on. There still needs to be a human in the loop, and in the right part of it, otherwise you're just vibe coding garbage.
After their gaming stock crashing, making Windows 11 completely useless, not to mention its Copilot adoption getting nowhere, this was just a matter of time.
Windows 11 falling apart after AI adoption tells their AI, vibe coding is not going as planned.
If you saw their latest report claiming to focus on fixing the trust on Windows, it is a little too late, even newbies moved to Linux, and with AMD driver support, gaming is no longer an excuse.
Kinda reminds of the time Microsoft used git internally but was pushing Team Foundation Server.
There is an entire generation of devs that TFS ruined for version control. I've had to essentially rehabilitate folks and heal old TFS wounds to get them properly using git (so many copies of repos on their filesystem...).
So Copilot is for customers, Claude is for getting actual work done?
Neither is Copilot. The title explicitly mentions Claude "Code".
True story: a lot of the Microsoft engineers I interact with actually do use Apple hardware. Admittedly, I onto interact with the devs on the .NET (and related technologies) departments.
Specifically WHY they use Apple hardware is something I can only speculate on. Presumably it's easier to launch Windows on Mac than the other way around, and they would likely need to do that as .NET and its related technologies are cross platform as of 2016. But that's a complete guess on my part.
Am *NOT* a Microsoft employee, just an MVP for Developer Technnolgies.
Probably because "Windows Modern Standby" makes laptops unusable by turning them on in your backpack and cooking them.
I remember having this issue back in 2014... maybe the tech is not there yet.
100% true story - until a couple of months ago, the best place to talk directly to Microsoft senior devs was on the macadmins slack. Loads of them there. They would regularly post updates, talk to people about issues, discuss solutions, even happy to engage in DMS. All posting using their real names.
The accounts have now all gone quiet, guess they got told to quit it.
> WHY they use Apple hardware
Because Windows' UX is trash? Anyone with leverage over their employer can and should request a Mac. And in a hot market, developers/designers did have that leverage (maybe they still do) and so did get their Macs as requested.
Only office drones who don't have the leverage to ask for anything better or don't know something better exists are stuck with Windows. Everyone else will go Mac or Linux.
Which is why you see Windows becoming so shit, because none of the culprits actually use it day-to-day. Microsoft should've enforced a hard rule about dogfooding their own product back in the Windows 7 days when the OS was still usable. I'm not sure they could get away with it now without a massive revolt and/or productivity stopping dead in its tracks.
You're an MVP? Minimum viable product? Most valuable player?
I installed Claude Code yesterday after the quality of VSCode Copilot Chat continuously is getting worse every release. I can't tell yet if Claude Code is better or not but VSCode Copilot Chat has become completely unusable. It would start making mistakes which would double the requests to Claude Opus 4.5 which in January is the only model that would work at all. I spent $400 in tokens in January.
I'll know better in a week. Hopefully I can get better results with the $200 a month plan.
Not my experience at all. Copilot launched as a useless code complete, is now basically the same as anything. It's all converging. The features are converging, but the features barely matter anyway when Opus is just doing all the heavy lifting anyway. It just 1-shots half the stuff. Copilot's payment model where you pay by the prompt not by the token is highly abusable, no way this lasts.
I would agree. I've been using VSCode Copilot for the past (nearly) year. And it has gotten significantly better. I also use CC and Antigravity privately - and got access to Cursor (on top of VSCode) at work a month ago
CC is, imo, the best. The rest are largely on pair with each other. The benefit of VSCode and Antigravity is that they have the most generous limits. I ran through Cursor $20 limits in 3 days, where same tier VSCode subscription can last me 2+ weeks
I just upgraded to the $100 a month 5x plan 5 minutes ago.
Starting in October with Vscode Copilot Chat it was $150, $200, $300, $400 per month with the same usage. I thought they were just charging more per request without warning. The last couple weeks it seemed that vscode copilot was just fucking up making useless calls.
Perhaps, it wasn't a dark malicious pattern but rather incompetence that was driving up the price.
I think they are also using AI to name everything because no human on this planet would come up with Microsoft 365 Copilot.
To this day I cannot wrap my head around the fact why did Microsoft allow a culture to grow inside the company (either through hiring, or through despondence) that at best is indifferent towards the company's products and at worst openly despises them?
I'm sure no other tech company is like this.
I think technologies like the Windows kernel and OS, the .NET framework, their numerous attempts to build a modern desktop UI framework with XAML, their dev tools, were fundamentally good at some point.
Yet they cant or wont hire people who would fix Windows, rather than just maintain it, really push for modernization, make .NET actually cool and something people want to use.
They'd rather hire folks who were taught at school that Microsoft is the devil and Linux is superior in all ways, who don't know the first thing about the MS tech stack, and would rather write React on the Macbooks (see the start menu incident), rather than touch anything made by Microsoft.
It seems somehow the internal culture allows this. I'm sure if you forced devs to use Copilot, and provided them with the tools and organizational mandate to do so, it would become good enough eventually to not have to force people to use it.
My main complaint I keep hearing about Azure (which I do not use at workr)
At the beginning of my career, sometime around 1999 or 2000, I was at Microsoft with our team because we were trying to integrate our product with this absolute piece of junk called Microsoft Biztalk.
It simply didn’t work. I complained about it and was eventually hauled into a room with some MS PMs who told me in no uncertain terms that indeed, Biztalk didn’t work and it was essentially garbage that no one, including us, should ever use. Just pretend you’re doing something and when the week is up, go home. Tell everyone you’ve integrated with Biztalk. It won’t matter.
I work for Microsoft/Azure and my incentives are (roughly in descending order): minimize large/long outages, ship lots of stuff (with some concern for customer utility, but not too much), don't get yelled at for missing mandated work (security, compliance, etc.) I'd love to improve product quality, but incentives for that are negative. We're running a tight ship, and every second I spend on quality is a second I don't spend on the priorities above. Since there isn't any slack in the system, that means my performance assessment will drop, which I obviously don't want. Multiply that by 200k employees, and you get the current state of quality across the whole product portfolio.
My experience in the Teams org is the same. It's all about security, compliance, and recently AI. Fixing bugs and similar "non-flashy" work is a sure way of postponing one's promotion indefinitely.
I think is funny, because is not the first time I hear about microsoft employees not using the company products.
I worked on a project with some microsoft engineers to create a chatbot plugin for Salesforce, using Microsoft Power Virtual Agent, and the comunication tool they used was Slack and not teams. And I was obligated to use teams because of the consuting company I worked at the time.
And also the version control they used at the time was I think SVN, and not TFS.
Claude Code is everywhere inside Apple too. Almost everyone has access to it and many use it
Microsoft really needs to get a better handle with the naming conventions.
There is Microsoft Copilot, which replaced Bing Chat, Cortana and uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 and 5 models.
There is Github Copilot, the coding autocomplete tool.
There is Microsoft 365 Copilot, what they now call Office with built in GenAI stuff.
There is also a Copilot cli that lets you use whatever agent/model backend you want too?
Everything is Copilot. Laptops sell with Copilot buttons now.
It is not immediately clear what version of Copilot someone is talking about. 99% of my experience is with the Office and it 100% fails to do the thing it was advertised to do 2 years ago when work initially got the subscription. Point it a SharePoint/OneDrive location, a handful of excel spreadsheets and pdfs/word docs and tell it to make a PowerPoint presentation based on that information.
It cannot do this. It will spit out nonsense. You have to hold it by the hand tell it everything to do step by step to the point that making the PowerPoint presentation yourself is significantly faster because you don’t have to type out a bunch of prompts and edit it’s garbage output.
And now it’s clear they aren’t even dogfooding their own LLM products so why should anyone pay for Copilot?