On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:46:17 -0400, FiOS-Dave wrote:
> Try using Bing. When it was first available, I made it the second
> default tab. After a few months, I made it the Primary tab, followed by
> Google. Now I have both default tabs set to Bing! Not only do I find the
> search results to be more relevant and targeted to my location (when
> appropriate), but I've already saved around $20 using the Bing Cashback
> tied to my Paypal account! Dave
Have perused Bing. It like Google is a power-search tool, and looks it,
even though Bing has a more artsy-fartsy home page than Google. (Guess
the pretty pictures make it work better.) However, I still prefer Yahoo
overall. It is where I get the news, the weather, my mail (several
yahoo.mail accounts), and, the occasional search, all from the compact
default Home page that is like the front page of a properly laid out
newspaper. I've never even personalized it with the exception of moving
the "hard" news section above the "soft" news.
To each, his own.
Stef
> "Stefan Patric" <not@this.address.com> wrote in message
> news:Whjnn.83989$K81.73394@newsfe18.iad...
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:50:04 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:22:40 GMT, Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:57:09 -0500, Paul H wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't remove it. What program do I uninstall using "add remove
>>>>> programs"? TIA, Paul
>>>>
>>>>Did "add/remove" list Windows Live Essentials?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe, this will help:
>>>>
>>>>http://ask-leo.com/how_do_i_uninstall_windows_live_messenger.html
>>>>
>>>>It was the first link listed from doing a Yahoo search: "uninstall
>>>>windows live messenger."
>>>>
>>>>B
>>>
>>> "Yahoo search", two words I haven't heard since about 2003. Thanks for
>>> the flashback.
>>
>> I rarely use Google for searches: way too many hits to wade through.
>> More isn't always better. Yahoo seems to do a better job at filtering
>> and organizing the most relevant hits. After all, all I need is that
>> one link I'm searching for, not 136,235,124 is 2.36 milliseconds.
>>
>> Stef