If only EU gives Apple equal treatment...

yeah, i use IE to watch flash because firefox uses an entire core for some reason. each browser has its place, if the EU wants MS to put multiple browsers on, then it would only slow the computer down more and use up more space

lol it's funny to me that apple wants to join in on this they are a lot worse with their software.

One browser to rule them all!

Personally while I know a good chunk of people are oblivious to the existance of different browsers I don't see why MS shouldn't include their browser since it's free. That is as long as they're not hindering people from using alternatives.

I don't think Microsoft is doing anything wrong here with bundling its browser into the operating system. Most the people I help out don't even know what a web browser is, they just know to call it "internet". If anything Microsoft is just helping those users who are unaware of any alternative. Most people who are aware seem to have Firefox somewhere on their PC anyway. I'm not sure how they should respond, if they take off Internet Explorer there is no way to add other browsers for those users who cannot operate a PC very well, if they put on other browsers then it might cause some confusion or even a trust lawsuit. Who knows what will happen :|

Computers with internet access as a mass market product ends up having this sort of problem. Users in general use what the OS comes with.

Back in the days when IE was in version 1.0 or didn's even exist, people would browse the web using Netscape Navigator, which the OS didn's come with, instead they mostly grabbed a copy from a magazine, or from a friend.

Now some people are lazy, some just don't have the time to find an alternative. If IE is good enough, they won't switch.

In spite of this, Firefox has steadily been capturing market share back from Microsoft (ironically IE captured its market share from Netscape, which is now, in some way, Mozilla - Netscape Navigator's engine codename).

This argument could go both ways, but ultimately I guess it could be easily solved: Microsoft could bundle a very basic Internet Explorer which could basically access Windows Update, the Microsoft site (for download of windows related programs), and finally a shared site, maintained and paid for by Microsoft and all other browser manufacturers interested in adding their name, with a brief description of each broswer, and a link to the respective download. The browser names would display in a random order, each time the page would load, so as to avoid having the discussion "who goes first".

I think this would solve the problem.

So why is this MS's responsibility?

Why not the OEM's? Hell they already install a bunch of their own propriatary garbage. There isnt even anything in the OEM agreement that prevens you the OEM from doing so.

Dell disables Windows Gadgets and installs Googles instead as the default handeler. Acer installs that garbage bar of theirs, which does little more then screw with your boot time and mess with your networking.

So again, why is this being blamed on MS and not the companies who actually install, Package, Sell, and ship the products world wide?

That is pretty much the best solution available the majority of people are not tech savvy enough to go out and figure out which browser best meets there needs.

But I still feel this is going to be a attempt futility. Most companies will continue to use IE because there local Intranets are setup for it and there security policies are written for it since most companies will still be using it most people will feel most at easy with it and feel safer and more secure. You will have more people who will be happy to see the change but I have a feeling just as many if not more will be upset they will few this as just more bloat wear to windows. Windows is starting to become the new AOL. If you ever played with old AOL Software like ver. 8 it was a dream come true it was enjoyable to use it had just the right features for someone who wasn't really tech savvy but wanted a good browser. Then they started adding more and more features and look where they are now.
I feel the truly best solution for this issues is to have the ability to turn Microsoft's Internet Explorer completely off and have it removable so that if someone does choose to use a different browser they can do so with out having extra bloat on there PC. But I do think it should be up to the person to find there new browser seems like society today is becoming lazy not ever thing should be handed to us.

I have a very easy solution to this problem.

Microsoft: STOP DOING BUSINESS IN THE EU. Leave the marketplace all together.

Sorry to those who will say I contradicted my self I don't mean to I just kinda feel split both ways I feel one reason why people are not more tech savvy when they should be is because ever thing is so easy now days

So you go after number one and leave everyone else to do as they please. Then when they drop to number 2 or 3 do go after the new number 1 or just smile because you real just don't like Microsoft? Or maybe you just like the attention and need to justify your job.

Apple does the same thing with safari! what are they bitchin about!?

Wow.

So Apple can do it but not MS?

FAIL.

My mom got herself her first computer ever, and is going through the process of becoming computer literate. Because it is a netbook (samsung NC10, sweet lil NB) the screen resolution is only 1024x600.

SO, i installed google chrome on it so she could see more of the web pages and less of the title bar and other junk. She is obliviously happy with it. However, I think that MS would have limited her satisfaction with the internet because it takes up more than 1/3rd of the screen...

Having choices is good, but since most people don't know they have one, they will just use whatever they have immediate access to. Why doesn't MS just install Chrome, Firefox, and Opera, (all told less than 100MB of data) and run the user through a selection wizard? Antitrust issues? Solved...

Ya know, Microsoft could make alot of money off of this case. They could offer other browsers with their OS, but charge the browser makers for advertising them. So to meet the standards of EU, they could charge companies to do so. I see good coming out of this in MS's way :-D

Microsoft has earn their troubles with EU. Here is my problems with IE:
1. IE is artificially build in to the OS. This is the main reason why Windows is so susceptible for all kinds of attacks.
2. Because the #1 the Windows some time is crashing completely after IE crashes.
3. IE do not follow established Internet Protocols and as result forces all web sites to developed multiple versions of their sites. It is huge expanse and as result many of them a dropping the support for other browsers.

All three items are done by MS in order to establish monopoly over the Internet. Their strategy partially succeeded. They did the same thing with many other programs and technologies. Remember how many Fax programs was out there before MS included build-in FAX software. This time they got caught and they will pay the penalty imposed by the bureaucrats in EU.
They play dirty game now the going to be played dirty.
The fix is very simple, but for some reason MS is refusing to execute it:
1. Remove the IE from the core system and made it available as option program.
2. Make sure that IE complies with all Internet standards and if the current standard is not working for the new features create new open royalty-free standard that everyone can implement.
If they ever do that the Internet will be much better place then today. By the way MS is going to make good money on it, but of course not all the money will go in to their pockets.

here's another idea, how about MS just doesn't let the IE shortcut be displayed on the desktop unless the user wants it, which could be a question during setup. after all, 97% (random number pick) would think that the internet has been deleted if the shorcut isn't there. and thats from personal experiance

I think that this is the EU stepping over the line. IE is part of the product, if you don't want it, don't buy the product. Generally speaking, every OS comes with default software and functionality. If you want more than that, go out and get it. Telling Microsoft to remove functionality from their product is stupid. Heck, technically it's not even a monopoly. A monopoly assumes a zero-sum amount of possible sales - there are always more people to buy computers. Punishing a company because it has the dominant market share is wrong unless they're actively manipulating things, which MS can't afford to do right now for PR's sake.

It's not their job to help their competition - if the competition can't compete (assuming that MS isn't illegally trying to crush them *coughlikeappledoescough*), sucks to be them. Make a better product and people will switch to it.

MS did the right thing by allowing users to turn off IE. It doesn't hurt their product at all, and now it makes it the equivalent of Safari in OSX (included but not required), so other companies can't crab about it...

...although they probably will anyway. :\

Maybe it mattered 10-15 years ago, but nowadays a web browser is just as necessary as a local file browser or a text editor. Any OS you install is going to have one bundled with it. If the bundled browser fits your needs, fine. Otherwise you install a better one.

If you're going to say Microsoft can't bundle IE with Windows, then you may as well make them remove all of the other GUI tools they include. We can just go back to using a command prompt until we finish evaluating the myriad of tools available so as to make a fair choice (¬_¬)

Tell your mother to press F11. Works on both Firefox and IE. I don't have Opera installed at the moment, but it should work too. Clutter problem solved

As to your final suggestion, I think it wouldn't work. Browsers are updated all the time, so the system needs to be dynamic. You want the browsers you use updated, not unnecessary updating clutter for those you don't. Moreover, by including the most popular ones, you'd kill monopoly, but end up with oligopoly. Some company would end up complaining. In this respect I think my suggestion is better.

The mere fact that Google and Mozilla are here to complain means that there is not a monopoly.

Watch your back, EU.

The problem is the way IE was integrated into the OS, you cant get rid of it. Even if you install something else you are still running IE, you can not stop it.

Doesnt matter which browser you have set to default IE will still be used for many things.

If they make IE optional, problem solved. They can still include it all they want, just let me uninstall it without breaking the OS, or better yet choose NOT to install it in the first place.

This is, actually, the main problem: Windows users are forced into using IE: even when IE is "disabled", MS software (or any software for that matter) can hijack user preferences for protocol handlers and start IE.

Why is that so bad? Simply put, MS is responsible for the release of IE. Remember that between 2001 and 2006, there was one version of IE released: IE 6. Five years during which basically no innovation took plae on the Web because the only browser people could use was a figged up POS that couldn't draw a text box at a given set of coordinates, and couldn't handle more than a single event on a page element before going boom (and, as said above, bringing down the whole machine with it).

Now, other browsers did exist. Users could install them. But, due to the fact that most webpages were made for a browser for which 2+2 = 6, pages would often render 'improperly' (as in, the page's programmer had to say 'draw this box at coordinates -186, 222, 154, -30 in order to appear at 20,20, 200,150 in IE') and as such, it became very difficult for those 'other' browsers to get any market share.

until IE became so full of holes everybody including the US government started saying 'use any browser but IE' - and page makers started taking 'standard' browsers into account.

And right now, Microsoft keeps doing the same thing. Their latest version (Ie8) may have solved most of its CSS problem, but HTML is still broken, XHTML/XML unsupported, DOM 2 events shine by their absence, Javascript is still slow (while faster than before, it is now worthy of a 2005 'standard' browser at best), and it doesn't support a set of formats other browsers do: SVG and MathML.

As in, while websites could rignt now use vector rendered forms and gradients with strongly interactive content, we're still stuck in the plain colors and squares CSS 1 gave us. And since IE is artificially fused with the OS, there is no way for anybody to program a full replacement and solve the problem. We are, instead, supposed to use Microsoft Silverlight to do what SVG+AJAX can do in all other browsers.

Which is what the EU takes offense at: unfair use of monopolistic position to impose locked down solutions.

What about MacOS bundling Opera or whatever comes with that OS?!? Also Ubuntu packages Firefox and majority of other Linux distro's with a GUI package some form of browser with it too, do we open an anti trust case with them? And what about Android?? That has a huge amount of Google apps installed by default, do we start a case against that too because Tomtom can't compete against Google maps etc.???

Just explain to me... how do you expect an OS to be delivered without a web browser?

I'll have to use an example I don't like:
Apple uses safari in their OS... they should be targeted too.

Am thankful enough that Microsoft are giving the option to disable their stupid browser.

Oh no... what's wrong with me... I am being absorbed by the field of Windows 7 ~_~

MacOS comes with Safari. I don't use Mac so I can not tell you if safari can be removed or not. But I know that Safari is based on WebKit rendering library and this make Safari very compatible with Web protocols. I believe WebKit is the only library that is passing the ACID Web Standard test. Safari may brake the OS X, but does not brake the Internet.
In Linux any browser can be installed or removed with out breaking anything. The choices are to many to list.
Microsoft is insisting from most of OEM vendors not to sell new PC without Windows. The only the big OEMs like ASUS, DELL, HP have the power to negotiate with MS to sell other OS. All small shops are forced to install Windows other wise they will be out of business because have to install $200+ retail version of Windows. On the top of that Microsoft is forcing the IE that is horrible when it comes to Web Standards.
The EU charges are pending for many years. Microsoft was given long time to comply, but instead Steve Ballmer went on war against EU commissioners. Dirty?! Oh Yes it is dirty game the big business.

At the same time I have to agree. Every time something is bundled it is not for consumer's good. It is to maximize the profit. In US and other industrial countries through the constant adv bombardment they script everyone that bundles are good deal, but they are not. In long run you paying much more. Great examples are the cell phone. Why you think they force you to buy 2 year contract?!

I think every operating system has the right to include the products they want, including MS. The REAL problem is that Windows is on most x86 systems where IE just happens to be a part of. If Google's Android gets onto more systems, than it's most likely that they will use Chrome

doesn't intel have a monopoly owning the rights to x86? doesn't apple own the rights to multi-touch phones and REFUSE to license it to anyone else? the EU is pathetic, going after microsoft seemingly only because the US did it (how many years ago now?). for the majority of ppl who use browser, windows is not a necessity anyway.

Firefox is largely for people who want to feel "hip and unique" as well as a common suggestion from lazy techs to their ignorant friends who have toolbar'ed and activeX'ed their IE6 to death and rather than fix it, it's easier to download a whole new browser and ignore the problem. Success!

Also, the EU has a stick up their ass for the largest corporation in the American Economy and thus will cry at any second they can for another billion dollar cash cow. When Apple and Google poke and prod the situation, they are just taking advantage of a skewed public perception. Because Windows has always been the best and most popular alternative (this is a fact...) for the majority of users, MS is penalized because so many sub-markets have emerged to the point where a new player has a pretty hard time joining the party. But doesn't OS X come with Safari.................. whatever.

@matt87_50: no, Intel doesn't have a monopoly: they have licensed x86 to other makers, and as such we currently have 70% of currently running chips that are Intel-branded, 25% that are AMD-branded, and the rest is a bunch of Via and some Chinese manufacturers (these are approximations). However, Intel also got sued several times in several countries, by AMD, for unlawful abuses of dominant positions, where Intel bribed PC OEMs to include only Intel chips, and discouraged motherboard makers from making AMD-compatible products (the white-boxed, unadvertised Abit K7 motherboards from 2001 tested by THG did have a reason to exist).
The EU goes after Microsoft on the matter of browsers because other actors (Opera Software, helped by the Mozilla Company, and Google) complained. Had their claims been unsound, they would have been rejected. Instead, we got Microsoft adding the ability for IE to be 'completely disabled' in Windows 7, 4 days after the EU notice.

Just to add a bit of food for thoughts: in Mac OS X, you can completely remove Safari and replace it with your browser of choice. Protocol handlers will then be oriented towards the browser you install in its place (say, Chromium 2.5 alpha 1 "with Mac OS X extended support") and be done with it. Same thing, you take a current Linux desktop (or Solaris, or BSD, whatever) and you switch from Firefox to use, say, Gecko-based Epihany (Gnome), or a Webkit-based one, or KHTML (KDE 4) to Qt4's Webkit...

Not in Windows: if you try to remove IE, the system will restore the files. If you try to replace or otherwise modify the files, you need to hijack and/or shutdown the system files protection service (indeed, hack the OS). If you want to replace the components and obtain similar features (such as COM objects), you'll have to sift through huge amounts of improperly documented 'internal' properties. Thus, it is POSSIBLE, it has been DONE, but then you have to cherry pick the OS updates you apply because it will try (and more than probably trash your machine along the way) to restore IE instead of whatever you've exchanged it with.

The problem isn't actually that you should be able to choose which browser you want to use; it's more that you should be able to not run nor host a piece of software you don't want.

As for Windows Update, the update service that runs inside Windows does NOT depend upon IE: it scans currently installed patch sets, downloads a list of published patch sets online, compares the two and downloads the missing ones. Tools that can download data from a web site exist, they're not browsers: wget and curl, to cite only two. Both of these tools are very small (a dozen kilobytes each), and indeed, a simple front-end to download and install this or that browser would take an hour to write and would work beautifully: you'd get an up-to-date browser right away! No need to ship soon-to-be-outdated browsers, just a small utility and a GUI front-end, and there! You're done.

After all, it wouldn't be much different from the time when Windows shipped with installers for AOL, Compuserve etc.