After using it for a few hours, I second that.

1. Similar quality of results.

2. Superior image search. Actually, I think Google's image search is a result of them being on top for so long, it's been the same for years with little improvement. I mean, just look at Bing's.

3. Better video search. I love the hover-preview feature. I can see Google implementing it next year after some other mainstream sites implement it and it's no longer a "Bing thing."

4. Slightly cleaner interface. Let me show you: http://r.im/1rf7 http://r.im/1rf8 Bing has a line-height of 130% which makes it a little more readable in my opinion. Sure it has more clutter in some areas, but the search results are cleaner and that's what matters to me when I'm scanning through them.

I don't use maps, travel, health, etc., so I can't comment on them, but so far I'm very pleased with the results. I didn't think Microsoft could pull it off and they did.

Wikipedia integration is slow to update (granted this example is with a rapidly evolving topic).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(search_engine)

http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/Kumo_(search_engine)?q...

(looks like the May 27 version)

What do you like about the Wikipedia integration? I don't see the value in republishing Wikipedia: http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/Melbourne?q=melbourne&...

I'm not in the USA and I can't get any Wikipedia integration ("deals to hawaii" does nothing special either). Your link works though.

The quality of normal results (the only ones I can get) is bellow Google.

I could try it, using a vpn, from the US and outside the US.

From the US you get powerset-like answers to questions like "president of x".