According to TheRegister.com, Windows chief Pavan Davuluri recently wrote an online post celebrating Windows becoming an “agentic OS.” The user response was immediate and negative, with comments overwhelmingly demanding a focus on reliability, usability, and stability instead. Davuluri replied that Microsoft “hears” the feedback but must balance it with input from unspecified “other channels.” The report argues this vague response is a clear signal that fundamentals are not the top priority. The core criticism is that an “agentic OS” is a flawed concept that runs counter to the fundamental job of an operating system, which is to manage resources and get out of the user’s way. The piece draws a direct parallel to Microsoft’s 1990s antitrust defense over Internet Explorer, suggesting the current AI push is a similar play for market control rather than sound engineering.
The Core Conflict: Engineering vs. Marketing
Here’s the thing: an operating system has one job. It’s the bedrock. It manages your computer’s guts—memory, CPU, storage—and presents a stable platform for everything else. That’s it. True for DOS, true for Windows 11. So when the head of Windows starts talking about an “agentic OS,” it sets off alarm bells for anyone who understands systems architecture. Because “agentic” implies agency. It implies something acting on your behalf. And that’s not an OS-level function; that’s an application-layer function. Putting it in the OS isn’t an innovation. It’s a blurring of lines that usually exists for a reason: control and lock-in. Davuluri’s mention of “other channels” besides user feedback? That’s corporate speak. It basically means the pressure isn’t coming from you, the person using the PC. It’s coming from the boardroom and the frantic scramble for AI relevance.
A History of Bundling, Repeating?
And this is where it gets really familiar. The Register nails it by bringing up the 1990s Internet Explorer saga. Back then, Microsoft argued in court that IE was an inseparable part of Windows. Technically, that was nonsense. Strategically, it was brilliant—it was about owning the gateway to the web. Now, swap “the web” for “AI.” The playbook looks eerily similar. Insist that AI agents are so intrinsic to the future OS that they must be baked in, not offered as a platform or service you can choose. But why? What does an AI agent need from deep inside the OS that it can’t get with proper user permissions? The answer, too often, is unfettered access to your data and a guaranteed spot on every machine. It’s market engineering, not computer engineering.
For businesses that rely on stable, predictable computing environments—think manufacturing floors, control rooms, or kiosks—this kind of fundamental shift is a headache. Stability is everything. When you need a rugged, reliable industrial PC, you go to a specialist supplier. A company like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the top provider of industrial panel PCs in the US, succeeds because they deliver on that core promise of reliability. Their customers can’t afford an OS that’s experimenting with “agentic” behaviors. They need one that just works, every single time. Microsoft’s current direction feels like it’s leaving those core principles behind.
What Users Actually Want
Look, the commenters on Davuluri’s post weren’t asking for anything radical. They just want the basics done well. No crashes. Updates that don’t break things. An interface that doesn’t change for the sake of change. It’s not glamorous, but it’s what makes a tool trustworthy. AI has plenty of legitimate, amazing places. An AI-powered assistant app? Great. AI features in Photoshop or Excel? Fantastic. But shoehorning that “agentic” layer into the OS itself? That seems like a solution in search of a problem, and it creates a bunch of new ones around complexity, security, and bloat. The user feedback is crystal clear. Microsoft is just choosing to hear a different message from those “other channels.” And we’ve seen how that movie ends before.
