According to the Urban Dictionary:

1. bing: prison or jail

Perhaps this will be used as a platform to promote ActiveX technologies and more lock-in. This in turn will increase malware developer interest in the platform which will result in more OneCare/Morro subscriptions.

1. morro: A verb, meaning to borrow with absolutely no intention of paying back. An underhanded way of taking advantage of a good soul.

Microsoft...you make it sound like you are surprised with your findings...?

It will be tough to replace Google. It's hard to break into a market when the verb/phrase that describes what your product does is the name of your competitor. If what I said is not clear, my point is we don't say, "I am going to look it up on the internet." We say, "I am going to google it." Once a product has been verbed, it is hard to compete with it.

What if Bing isn't meant as a noun in and of itself, and instead is supposed to be a play on Being? ("B"-ing) That would seem to take on a bit more relevance to me. Either way, we'll see if the engine is useful as that will ultimately be the real measure of its success.

Its ESPECIALLY true in a market where the products are free. Sure, we all say Band-Aid for bandage, Kleenex for tissue and such, but those actual brand carry a premium price tag. In the world of search engines, Google becoming a verb seems to have solidified it as the standard for who knows how long.

If they settle for a simple and efficient interface similar to google, I'll give it a try. If not, then I'm sticking with what loads the quickest.

Bing is also a type of sweet cherry, although, it's being widely replaced by Lapins, which is self-fertile, and at least as high quality.

Probably Microsoft's Bing isn't self-fertile either, and they'll need to cross-pollinate with Yahoo.

Microsoft should know by now they really have no business making anything where there is competition. They can't make a good product, and never could, and they need to stop lying to themselves about it. They CAN leverage monopoly situations to grow related products, like they did with MS-DOS/Windows and Microsoft Office, but without a lot of leverage, they can't really compete with real software developers.

The X-Box does OK though, despite being unreliable junk. So, give them credit there. But, Zune? MSN? Anyone remember Microsoft Bob? How about Microsoft Money? The reality is, they fail unless they can leverage their existing position, almost all the time. Their compilers are even inferior to Intel's, and that's embarrassing considering one is a software developer, and the other a hardware. When you need the best performance, it's got to be Intel's compilers. They generally have better performance even with AMD processors, even with Microsoft optimizations.

Don't get me wrong, Microsoft has been a huge asset to the hardware community - you've always needed modern hardware to run their bloated, incredibly slow, software.

But, expecting them to compete with Google is unrealistic. They can't leverage their existing monopolies effectively enough to gain a big enough advantage, and competing on the merits of innovation has never been Microsoft's strong suit.

bing must be the sound one billionaire hears when he beats another billionaire in business - BING!

ancientnoob, seriously, GTFO of this place already. You ever wonder why you get rated down every single bloody time?

Start acting like a respectable hardware enthusiast should. Otherwise, like I said before, GTFO.

Up to now, in these articles about Live search v. Google Search, I have been defending Live search. But recently I have been taking a second look at Google and comparing the two more. I'm sad to say that Google definently wins. Just two minutes ago I had to type the word Kiopractor. You type K-i-o and then google knows you want Kiopractor. You type K-i-o into Live and it stops right there, with no suggestions. In my book, the biggest improvement Bing could do is improve their spelling suggestions and search results. But then again, that means Microsoft would just be playing the same old game of catch up with Google.

google = 6 char
bing = 4 char

bing = 33% faster!!

When I saw the name the first thing that popped into my mind was Chandler, and then I saw the photo XD

Seriously, though, I hope that bing.com turns out to be good enough to switch to - or at least provide more competition. However, Google is bloat-free, and I really don't need more than a list of results sorted by relevance. Google's search database is also more extensive.

One benefit I could see would be in regards to privacy. I currently use an anonymous scraper for Google. Microsoft seems to be the lesser of two evils when it comes to spying on you. If they can make a low-bloat version and expand their database, I'd be all for it.