I am testing free alternatives for it - FreeCommander ATM, thank you very much.

And assuming such a thing would come to pass (which I strongy doubt), I suppose the solution would be similar to the one proposed for the browsers - when installing the system, you get to choose between explorer.exe and some other available shell choices.

I'll get back to that if/when that Google OS ever gets an official RC.

I'd assume that with all laptops that come with an preinstalled OS, the user gets to choose a browser to be installed for the said system, or DL one later with Windows Update. And if you choose not to have a preinstalled system, you're probably knowledgeable enough to obtain an installer without a browser - with, say, a FTP client.

Like Alby_da_wolf said, it's unnecessary, doesn't really benefit anyone besides MS, and causes more trouble than it's worth IMO. And apparently it's anti-competitive according to EU legislation.

That may (not) be, but there was, and it cost them - and it's not exactly the first time they've been slapped for this sort of thing. Hell, they've been in court several times for this specific reason, and it's ended up costing them each time - you'd think they'd have stopped bundling IE with Windows years ago.

I'd see the point...

If Microsoft made it so no other browser worked with windows.

However this feels like saying a car company can't install their own radios in cars.

I mean... wohoo... take 5 minutes to go online and download something else.

If you don't even know other internet browsers exist... (like some people claim)

How informed are you going to be choosing a web browser anwyay?

Well, for me IE is the browser that I use to download a good brower. Thats fine for me.

I definately see WereKitten's point about Microsoft using their OS dominance to sell other products. They do the same with xbox and third party peripherals, but in that case actually prevent people from using non-microsoft accessories like headsets, memory cards, and hard drives. Forcibly preventing choice is probably a bigger infringement than what the EU is talking about here, though the browser case clearly effects far more people.

What does it matter if you can make a faster, more secure, more customizable web brower if most of the market is apathetic or uninformed? A web browser is something a lot of people just take for granted.

So basically M$ needs to be forced to bundle browsers from their competitors on Windows to encourage competition just because there are people out there who are ignorant of a better alternative? Firefox is getting pretty mainstream and has 32% marketshare. There are hot chicks I know (who aren't computer geeks by any stretch of the imagination) who use Firefox. Firefox is not just a thing within the open-source movement anymore. The mainstream is using it. If someone can't figure out what the other options are, it's their own fault. The options are very easy to find. More nanny state BS from the EU government.

EU are a bunch of hypocrites. "Oh let's go after M$ for their "monopoly" (when IE only owns 60% or so of the web browser market now) while Apple has a complete hardware monopoly on the Mac platform. The Mac is a closed platform (almost like a console even except you don't need to pay licensing fees to Apple if you want to create software to run on their hardware and OS), unlike the PC and yet you don't see the EU government going after them. It's become the hip arthouse indie "rebel" thing to bash M$ and like Mac even though their practices are more anti-competitive than M$ (by having a closed platform).

I fully support the open-source movement (short of installing Linux. Because not all pieces of software I use are supported by Linux). But what's happening to M$ is completely unfair. How about the EU go down hard on Apple for a change?

post a screenshot of Windows Update, or ANY internal windows function working in Firefox and I might agree with you. Sure, you can use another browser as play toy, but you have to use IE to do certain things in windows.  Until now. 

IE was/is junk. It only became popular because it was the DEFAULT.  Note that it is no longer the default, perhaps the junk will slowly fade away, as it should have done ten years ago....

I am happy someone finally stood up to MSFT and won. Too bad it took so long!

Really? If you had a lifetime supply fo free toilet paper that came with you toilet, you would ignore it and buy someone elses? Why?

Because i could get antoher lifetime supply of better free toliet paper?

You were using Firefox in 2004?  Before it existed? That's amazing! Were there hot chicks back then too? Did they actually exist or were they also figments of your imagination?

Do you how hard FF had to work to get 32% to overcome the microsoft's forced bundling? Do you think that was fair?

The entire 9 pages of this thread completly miss the point. Sad, really. I was hoping that VGC members would do a little more thinking before they post. The fact is, five years ago - before firefox was even released - Microsoft jammed IE down everyone's throat by abusing their windows monopoly. (a monopoly Apple does not have, and sure as heck didn't have back then as they were almost dead at the time!). Thus IE crushed all competitive browsers, and took over the internet. Microsoft did this delibrately, knowing full well it was illegal.  Now it's five years later, and the trial is over - and MSFT should not be punished? At all? So if you do something illegal, generate massive profits from it*, and get away with it that is OK, now and forever?

Sigh.

* by using a non-standards compliant browser, they essentially forced the internet to be rewrirtten to the IE standard. They sold, literaly, billions of dollars of IIS servers, Tool sets and dev kits during this time. Billions, kids. Billions.

Your missing the point. A lot of untechsavy people would never have known about other web browsers without this. Now these people have the ability to experiment and choose the web browser best for them. This is a victory for protecting the unknowing individuals.

This has nothing to do with us, the techsavy ones on the internet, and you think millions were wasted after Microsoft paid the EU that much? I doubt it.

Firefox WAS released in 2004 and I have used it since then. I don't know what you are going on about. And don't start with the personal attacks. Be civil.

And yes I think it's fair that the Firefox movement had to work hard to get to that 32%. That's how business should be. Work hard to reap rewards. Bill Gates busted his ass and took risks (like most businessmen/women who found success) to get M$ where it is today. There is competiton. All you have to do is google firefox, go to the website and download it. If people are unaware that Firefox is out there, they are not informed enough to make a proper decision about what browser to get anyway.

I don't see an issue. If you think the M$ "monopoly" is unfair, then go around and tell everyone you know about Firefox, VLC and Linux. Even in the OS market, the Windows "monopoly" is only an issue because software developers are too lazy to make their software compatible with Linux or Mac. They are the problem. Not M$. You want change? Go tell the software developers to make their stuff compatible with Linux and Mac. If there is enough demand, they'll do it.