Don't stop there. Microsoft should let people decide to install Unix, MacOS or Windows when starting their Windows installation.

how will i download a browser from the internet if i dont have a browser ??

@radha
i was thinking the same i guess u would have to buy it off retail!

Opera FTW!

"I think Microsoft are 100% entitled to include whatever programs they want in their operating system, be it browsers, music players, etc."

It's perfertly legal to bundle and integrate software with an OS. But it's illegal to use is as a strongarm monopolistic tactic as proven by the Department of Justice vs Microsoft back in the mid 1990's. Often in the past, companies tried to take Microsoft to court for pro-monopolistic/anti-competitive practices. The problem lies where these companies had to first prove that Microsoft was a monopoly. All Microsoft had to do was to continually tie the preceding in court by financially draining these companies so that no justice was to be heard. But it wasn't until 20 states heard of the compaints from companies of those states that sparked the Department of Justice vs Microsoft court case. It was proven in court that Microsoft was specificly using its monopolistic stance to stint competition, thus potentially hurting business and consumers.

There is a history behind where Tetzcher is coming from. Just Google "Department of Justice Microsoft Internet Explorer Netscape." There is a lot to be learned here.

@radha

I hear Opera wants Microsoft to include several browsers on the Windows disc, so when Windows is installed, you have to choose which browser to install with it

@Jordahn, yea they went after Microsoft during the 90s for anti-trust but nothing ever came of it. Pretty much USA doesn't give a shit about any monopoly and hasn't busted up a monopoly since the early 1900s around Standard Oil, etc... time.

It was a guilty vertict that was to be followed by a breakup.  Microsoft was to be broken into two separate companies, a OS company and a software application company.  This way it would have allowed for other software application companies (including the break off from Microsoft) to be able to compete better with each other.  What had happened was that eventhought the guilty vertict was justified, Judge Thomas Penfield personal comments were enough to justify an appeal to the Surpreme Court in which the breakup was denied.  Instead, it was only a slap in the wrist in which Microsoft's internal records were opened for only five years to prevent them don't anything monopolistic behind closed doors.  But in the public corporate world, five years is nothing compared to the long term running of a public corporate business.

Ah, yea I forgot there was originally a guilty verdict and possible breakup. I just remembered the end result wasn't much.

There are solutions. The problem is because it is a matter of competition probably whatever the solution adopted it would end necessarily including anyone applying. 

The key here is that while you need a browser to access websites, you do not need a browser to access the internet. So it would be possible to setup a system such as after the internet configuration step of the OS installing process, the installer would conect to an external repository and then present the user with a choice of browsers. But this is a) complex b) requires overseeing c) costs money.