The problem with previous version of windows was that the IE backend was integrated the core OS, so key parts of the OS and many programs that relied on it wouldn't work without IE installed. I think it was perfectly reasonable for the EU to demand MS stop doing that as it is unfair competition. The rest of it, ie stuff related to how the end user chooses which browser to use, is largely secondary to this. So long as it's possible uninstall IE, it's legal.

In reply to a post by zebedeee:

In reply to a post by Taras:

They should really add in a wizard to configure which browser you want - at install time.

My god, is it really so hard to choose an icon to click on ? It is possible to have more than one browser installed, and all you have to do is choose ! You can even say which one is the default.

pmsl - you should see the comments I got on neowin when I mentioned that idea ...

In reply to a post by 12eason:

I think it was perfectly reasonable for the EU to demand MS stop doing that as it is unfair competition.

The EU ? Since when have they ever made a sane decision ?

It isn't unfair competition - you buy the Windows package, and it comes with a browser at no extra charge. It's a bit like arguing that Ford are being unfair because they won't supply a car without wheels, to cater for the car enthusiasts who want to fit their own chrome plated ones. As long as Microsoft don't stop you from installing other browsers, then it's not unfair competition. It doesn't matter whether you can uninstall it or not, because nobody's forcing you to use it. I have 3 different browsers installed on this PC - but most of the time I use IE - I have the others mainly to see what my company's website looks like on other browsers.

>I use it once on each build...to downoad firefox

Snap.

You know, this prompted me to reveiw the case. The EU original did this with Media plaer, not IE. The've onl just recently threatened to do the same over IE. Anways, MS fought the EU in a court, with the worlds best lawyers, and lost. So that's enough for me.

This latest action comes from a complaint by the makers of Opera, who reputedly have a 0.7% share of the browser market. One wonders why anyone would want to go to all this trouble unless at some time in the future they intended to sell their browser ? That will be the clincher - people say they love Firefox, but would they love it enough to pay for it ?

Er, it's GPLed. Bit of a redundant question don't you think?

I don't know - you tell me - court actions cost money. Why take Microsoft to court over a browser that you're not profiting from, or won't profit from in the future ?

Opera is ad-driven afaik. FF will never be chargeable as it's GPL.

So what have Mozilla got to lose over Microsoft's alleged unfair business practices ?