This is clearly about opinion rather than real facts.
I remember a not-that-scientific test made on common searches.
You take 50-100 basic search terms, then query MSN, GG and Yahoo, then do a human review for all websites shown on the first SERP for each engine and rate from 1 to 10 relevancies.
fact is the 3 engines are similarly relevant (or not relevant) on the average - period.
MSN's algo is very close to Google’s and Yahoo just does not have the technologic background to keep it up so they rely on human review....which is not anymore organic search in my opinion.
My site does better on Google but I find MSN usually as relevant as Google.
They both have their weaknesses but saying that MSN is a catastrophe compared to Google is just untrue, not facts.(Talking about dot com, I dunno about .de, .co.uk)
Not only I find MSN very close to Google, but at least they do not play the update game with ranking fluctuations such as Google does - because that my friends is called Marketing, they know they have more traffic and people make money out of their engine, so Google takes advantage of it and do anything they can to entertain the average webmaster for weeks or months - so they keep on talking about Google here, Google there.
The only problem with MSN is the low traffic - Yes that is a problem - However it may depend on the industry.
A position of #1 on MSN will likely bring more traffic than a #8 on Google.
To give you an example of one of my friends marketing manager in a very competitive industry (they get 120,000 unique per month): Their position of #2 on MSN is providing more traffic that their position of #5 on google for the same keyword. At the same time they are ranked #6 on Yahoo for the same ultra competitive term and there they get less traffic than both Google and MSN separately.
I'm trying to throw 2 cents...but with facts, not that I like MS ... I think Google craves for ultra dominance and money as well - No good guys only businessmen and share olders.