Why is the Bing search engine not working properly with Microsoft Edge?

Hear hear! Presuming this post has been accepted due to the favourable comparison of Microsoft to Apple :D

I'm with you. It is sad really. Such a big company and not one person who will help resolve these issues.

Hear hear! Presuming this post has been accepted due to the favourable comparison of Microsoft to Apple :D

I apologize in advance for the long reply. . . ;)

 This is a problem that is not only limited to people using MS products. Apple has had a long reputation for outright ignoring long existing issues with many of its native programs and OS the same way. You will find long existing complaints of problems that go unaddressed year after year on many forums. You might not notice it as much on Apple's community forums because Apple strongly censors, edits, and rejects any comments, replies, etc., that in any way make their brand seem anything but what its users are supposed to be programmed to think of it as. But the reality is that the Apple company we once knew and loved AND had a well-earned reputation died with its founder Steve Jobs. Now, it is a greedy and arrogant corporation of unbelievable behavior with a list of malfeasances behind it that people ignore. What destroys me is how so many have this religious devotion to a company of all things, as if to say nothing Apple does is wrong. Apologists abound! In those cases where even apologists cannot soft shoe something, there will always be some fool who responds with, "well, a company has to make money. . ." I have no argument with that, however I do have problems with obscene levels of greed for which I can never justify. The equation is rather simple. The more you have, the more you cost others in some way either directly or indirectly. In other words, the more power you have (and money is an expression of power) the more your decisions and actions effect the world and in a wider circumference.

 So sorry, but I'm no corporatist. I have my business degree, I did my corporate time in NY and I fully understand the hows and why's of business, it's primary goals and purposes, and what those who hide behind their brands are willing to do to achieve them. And let me point this out for those who don't understand, or fail to accept as a reality––corporations are an abstraction from which those who own and control them hide behind. They being largely and overwhelmingly the wealthy eight percent of the population who own and control over ninety seven percent of all American assets and resources. Consider that for just a few moments and think on it. Sadly, we've been programmed to think of the rich as benevolent, just like us, and thus make heroes of them. That is contrary to most all other societies in the world and for due reason. Here? No. You will be hard put to hear someone in America blame specific names for their woes, the most often retort is, "it's the companies. . . " When I've pointed out that companies are nothing more than organizations owned, controlled, and influenced by the top 8% wealth holders in the nation their eyes either glass over, or they reply with some foggy incohesive string of nonsensical words, or worse. . . call me a \*\*\*\* fascist liberal. LOL, at which point I have to point out to them that calling anyone a \*\*\*\* fascist is the equivalent of calling someone a Catholic Jew.  My interest in wealth ceases where the line between ethics and personal values begin. Something that most people seem to have no issue with. But then, I come from a much older generation, and much has changed in society over the past two.

 Just for info sake; Both Microsoft and Apple Corp., rival each other for the number 1 and 2 spot for most highly valued companies in the U.S. In other words, we exist within an oligopoly situation where there is no real viable competition to turn to outside of these two. Sure there is Linux, but for your average user that is either insufficient or not as accessible as Windows or OS. To expect everyone within a society to have programming proficiency to justify their use of a computer or any consumer level technology is unrealistic. This isn't the 1980s or 90s anymore. It is entirely possible to create interfaces GUIs and the like to make computing a non issue. However, this is no longer the focus and neither is technological advancements due to competition either. In a situation such as this, the entire game is to keep things as they are while ensuring or doing whatever can be done to keep competition from ever occurring. Thus major tech breakthroughs on a consumer level have pretty much stagnated. It is also the reason why Apple can offer so little hardware wise, and demand such premium prices. In the PC world the base offering is still 1 or 2 TB internal SSDS and 16G of RAM at a comparably low cost. While Apple only offers 256G and 8G RAM, which is a reversal to the normal trend of offering more as technologies advance and become less expensive. Apple now charges $200 an upgrade per step and only at time of purchase. User's can no longer upgrade later, either through their own hand or even buy Apple itself. Apple must do it at time of purchase and is effectively raping its devoted masses. And unfortunately, most Apple users like it this way. They won't or don't complain and will kowtow to mother Apple no matter what. Even in their complaints, they soft shoe and whimper like beaten children rather than dare call a spade a spade. I say this as a long time Apple products \*\*\*\* since the late 1980s. But whereas once I swore up and down and inside out about all things Apple, I have slowly come to despise the company even more these past five plus years. Why? Well, it would take a term paper to list and outline all those reasons. Job's passed in 2011, that was a decade plus length of time for Apple to switch gears and I noticed ethical changes as early as late 2012. 

 You can't say Apple didn't waste much time.

 So here we are; within the first rings of a dark cycle of unregulated or deregulated capitalism. Why many contest or even refuse that such a thing exists when I like to think that we all studied from the same economics texts, took the same economics courses, etc., is beyond me. But mass programming is real, happens, and has no bearing on size of a society. It all depends on the type of programming, propagandas and existing value systems of a society that enables the damages to take root and how quickly. Just examine how the Nazi's easily convinced the German people that their problems were all due to the Jewish, when really it was their own doing. But people are people and don't like to take blame when it is their own dish to digest. This is one manner by which conservatism works. 

 As for us? This era's seemingly radical shifts actually are not due to just these past ten years, or even the rise of Trump.  They can be traced back as late as the 1980s or even the 1960s. However history and timelines being constant, one could go as far back as the 1400s when the first Europeans set greedy little gold and natural resources seeking feet upon this continent. It all depends on what point in a timeline seems convenient to prove one's argument. However, I rarely buy anyone's timeline point unless I can go as far back as the first instances or examples of cause. You can blame the breaking of a glass on when it hit the floor, and many will do so. But I will look to the point where that possibility and probably first hit close to 100%. Which would be when you knocked it off the table first and THEN hit the floor. So, for the States, well it all begins with the value systems, needs, and reasons for coming hear at all. And that would have been an element of cause that was one of the most important reasons for our existing as a nation in the first place. Of course, I am not talking about the mythological reasons, fables, and glory stories we love to believe about ourselves, but the actual ones. Those values and needs that drove not just the original colonial settlers but every immigrant that sought citizenship or refugee status here ever since.  It all had to do with the desire to make one's lot better than before. This also includes generations of those already here who wanted to make their children's lives better than their own.  This often translated into a singular concern by too many for mainly the ability to achieve wealth, maintain it, and increase it without any hindrance whatsoever. This may seem like a non issue, or something of little conflict, but only from the standpoint of the individual.  From a society or even a community standpoint it can be disastrous over time. However, this is the underlying essence of our basic value system in a nutshell. So much so that we cannot even conceive of it being problematic but quite the opposite––not only entirely beneficent but incapable of anything but positive results.  And the marker from whence this value system originates from a technical standpoint for me would most definitely have begun to coalesce leading up to and after the days of the American Revolution. Because it had everything to do with the value systems in conflict between those who were for and against our separation from England. 

 This conflict, as always, was a struggle between the classes. 

 A struggle that has been at the root behind almost all conflicts within all of written human history. For us specifically, it was between the wealthy Loyalists; who were the original conservatives (the ancestors of today's conservative ideologies) and the Rebel Revolutionists. The Loyalists, who in their desire to remain under the realm of the King of England, committed all kinds of treason and sedition in the support of the English army. They were entirely against our independence and the formation of an independent nation because separating from the King jeopardized their wealth and positions of power. Of course there was the King himself and his own personal interests in the matter which were entirely in the same lane.  He did not want the separation because Parliament had done away with the King's ability to further increase his own wealth by taxing his subjects.  This being so, one of the only ways left for him to do so was to do so as everyone else did; via business and the converting of natural resources into wealth.  Thus, the New World being filthy rich in untouched natural resources was a gold mine of opportunity for him to increase his wealth.  Therefore,  he was not interested in letting this land fall through his fingers.  

 See how not much changes throughout history?  Just the names, dates, and places. . . 

 In American History these subtle yet distinct circumstances (or motives) are not often spelled out so clearly, especially in early American education––and why would it be? Such a thing would be very detrimental to teach American's at an early age, that the very slice of society they are supposed to worship and consider the backbone of their existence happened to be who was against all they've been taught regarding our freedoms and rights. So, the Rebels fought against the King and his army and the wealthy business and politically appointed colonialists did so as well. The Rebels not only fought against the King's army directly, but against their fellow pre-American countrymen who supported wealth and power over everything else; very much like we are experiencing diametrically opposed political divisions today.  Today's division was cultivated beginning during the 1980s and is easily traced by studies performed by Pew as to how distinct this division has become and at what point in our history it began. . . which was the past four decades. 

 Thankfully, the many others who had more than just their own personal interests as a concern and who wanted freedom because they understood how unbridled wealth creates oppression and hell for everyone else eventually won. But even afterwards. . .  There were long contentious arguments and fights as to how we should form our government because some wanted freedom and protections that would help maintain what was known to be a tedious and easily erased form of government for all citizens (Democracy) and those whose sense of freedom, rights, and protections was best reserved for the more wealthy and powerful in a society.  In essence an aristocratic amalgamation of sorts.  And thus today, we have a convoluted Democratic Republic, a lopsided and contrived system that gives more political weight to some over others through the use of an electoral college, radical manipulation of geographic control via gerrymandering, and now through the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of "Citizens United".  A ruling that deems corporations as human and money as speech.  Thus giving momentous unfair advantage in the political system to the wealthiest amongst us. The damage these past ten years since it's ruling has been monumentous.  As can very well be seen. 

So. . . Here we are over two centuries later... worshipping and making heroes out of the very same kind of people we fought to free ourselves from. Today we have one side that sees freedom as nothing more than concerning one's freedom to make wealth with no interference, regulation, or policing whatsoever along with giving the weight of political power and influence to those in the highest wealth class. There are no other concerns outside of that except in terms of how someone else's freedoms, rights, or even ideologies could possibly threaten that class sector's wealth and power. They want no governmental regulating or policing upon themselves or their interests, except for those upon the rest of the society to keep them in check and to profit from. Unfortunately, there is no existence of a non regulated society in the world and never has been. Every society, every community, every family even has rules and regulations if not for the simple reason that when self-interest alone is the only concern, that society is doomed for self-destruction. Again, argue what one will... history proves otherwise by almost 100%.

Today the argument is that since governance is not perfect then governance itself is bad and thus should be done away with. But that is a red herring. The reality is that the idea is for governance upon the ruling class is to be done away with, but not regarding the lower classes. Using the false idea that governance should be perfect in every respect or else done away with is ridiculous. Of course governance is not perfect, and to expect it to be is foolish. However, that does not mean toss it out with the bath water by using imperfection as the justification. Governance, just like all other aspects of human contrivances should be to reassess, fix, and fix again when necessary. And as society changes, and hopefully in a positive and humanistically based manner, so too would any changes to its governance. Nothing is static in the universe, change is a fact of life right there with entropy. To remain stagnant and unchanging is a death sentence. Unfortunately, we are incapable of accepting change let alone moving towards a willingness to repair all the damage caused by stagnation AND purposeful wrench throwing into our government, and for so long. As a result the U.S., is now only in twentieth place for highest standard of living, while Denmark is number one––a constitutional monarchy with a democratic socialist form of government. There are three other EU nations in the top five with another from Asia. And all of which have rather contrary forms of government from what we've been programmed to think (or feel) acceptable.

When you sleep, the world moves on. And so it has.

SOSDF - Yep, were all in the same sinking ship. M$ does nothing year after year.

Ridiculous BS.

I had this problem for a few weeks, so I changed my HOME button to go to Google.

No sooner had I done this, when BING worked again!

Many, many people have experienced this same issue. We have not received any assistance from Microsoft technical support. BING search is not compatible with many programs. Most of us have chosen to move to Google as you have. Many are also moving to Google for many other things since Microsoft support has been non-responsive with other issues and programs as well. Thank you for sharing your experience.