Is Microsoft better at translating than Google? here is an example

an example dont mean shit
but googles translation is more algorythm driven whereas microsofts is just a static dictionary

>>57291689
gt is contextual or whatever they call it, meaning that it can and often does get poisoned by a lot of unreliable shit.

There are ups and downs to both approaches, the key is to cross-check a lot and only use it as a low-priority secondary aid.

>>57291662
microsoft has subsidiaries in romania and many of their staff are in fact romanians, out of which some would undoubtedly have worked on the translate algorithm

google does not

it's really that simple

using a made up word and expecting it to be accurate, fucking kids.

>>57291956
>made up word
as opposed to the words that grow in nature?

>>57291956
it's an archaism

>>57291662
microsoft is also better at translating japanese, but maybe that's because IE is still the most popular browser in JP

>>57291662
fix your font rendering you horrible piece of shit

>>57291970
Words tend to have a natural evolution, yes.

>>57291956
>made up word

File: wifey.png (35KB, 700x167px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x167px

Google translate is pretty bad desu