....holy crap, have Microsoft finally blown 'em? lol! The CONFUSION starts now....

... Total Confusion Marketing from Micro$oft!

I use firefox, but I Fdo use IE occasionally, if the copy of windows 7 I buy doesn't have it, first thing I will install after FF and NOD32 is IE.

Same for Windows media player.

Also, what about people without internet access via another PC? how are they going to be able to download an installer or whatever for IE/FF?

Like MS is not going to pressure OEM's to bundle IE

MS should have been broken up into pieces (perhaps: OS, Office, IE) years ago

Why doesn't Microsoft just ship blank CDs in the box, there is no way they could get in trouble with the EU for bundling then....

Maybe removing IE makes Windows legal in the EU but US remains subject to illegal practices.

The US Appellate Court found commingling the code between the OS and IE was in fact a violation of US Antitrust laws. That illegal act was not corrected because the US DOJ wanted Microsoft to establish a monopoly in browser technology. (Only idiots and fools can conclude otherwise).

And it remains to be seen whether this move by Microsoft permits fair and open competition. Frankly I doubt it will because of the way Microsoft will continue to force the use of IE.

I guess Bill Gates lied when he testified that IE was bundled because of the need to have a single version of the OS. Now they propose how many versions? Bill Gates is just a known liar. He also claimed that he would not sell their OS unless they can bundle IE.

And of course that idiot testified that he thought the removal of an icon on a temporary basis corrected the illegal act of commingling the code. Only an idiot would think that. But, Microsoft lawyers actually told no less than three employees including the idiot Gates that they would have to lie and claim the illegal act of commingling was corrected by the ability to temporary remove a few icons. No engineer could possibly be so stupid as to think that. But, it was necessary to lie to the US court system under oath.

So now we learn that IE can be removed? What? Those idiots claimed that was not possible. Just a big fat lie.

And now we see even more versions of the OS. Again, it points out intentionally false claims put up by Microsoft so that they could force the sale of IE.

Just how the OS will be marketed is unclear. But, you can bet Microsoft will be trying very hard to prevent any consumer from having a choice in the matter. Microsoft not bundling IE is just not relevant if the consumer is forced to take it anyway by some OEM.

Use the acid test.

Allow the EU to switch browser products under any agreed to solution and see if Microsoft still agrees it is fair and open. No doubt if FireFox or Chrome gets favored treatment like Microsoft will gain for IE, Microsoft would object.

When you start-up windows it IS nice to have A browser to get you started.. Do you have to go to the hassle of booting up another PC now, downloading Firefox then putting it on a flash drive, then installing in on your new pc, all just to get the internet running?

Though I'm sure it will be a "critical update" to install IE as soon as you plug in your internet connection =D

Ballmer and Microsoft must be crazy to commit to this, especially as the EC has yet to deliver its ruling on the matter.

The evil child in me wants the EC to make a ruling which screws this Microsoft decision.

Ballmer, because he is crazy evil.

So if I have a program that gives me an alternative desktop to Explorer/Aero, why don't the EU force Microsoft to also release a version of windows without a desktop interface, IE or Media Player so then I can use my own? What about the alternatives to Notepad, Calc and Paint? Why don't they get to have a version of Windows released without those already installed.

If you don't want what Windows is sold with, then just use something that isn't Windows in the first place.

Back the truck up!!! I want a copy of Euro-Windoze! I have nothing against Microsoft's OS, but I can't stand IE! I can't stand how its integrated into the OS and subsequently I'd really like to have a version of windows completely void of IE. I sure wish they'd offer that as an option in the states...

I chose Paris because even she thinks IE blows

Ignoring OEMs for a minute, what if I were to go out and buy Windows 7 (when it's out obviously) over here in the UK. Would it not come with Internet Explorer 8? Meaning that I'd have in theory no browser with which to access the internet? Do Microsoft and Opera and Mozilla and Google give away free browser discs in every damn computing store and supermarket in the country?

Seriously, what's the point? If it comes with a link to allow you to download IE8, I'm gonna use that, then download Firefox. I'd be incredibly confused if it came with download links for other browsers as well. I mean how many do you offer? Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Safari just for starters. How is someone whos bought it and doesn't know which one is better meant to decide? I know, by picking the one that has a name that ACTUALLY SAYS WHAT IT DOES, like Internet Explorer, as that's bloody obvious what it's used for.

If it doesn't come with any browsers, I have effectively no internet access on that PC.

If it does, it's gonna be IE only anyway.

If it were to come with links to all the others, there's potentially too many and I don't see why Microsoft should have to advertise rival products. Can you see Sony ever saying 'bought a new Sony Bravia TV? Why not try a Samsung DVD player?'. People who don't know better are just going to go for the one that does what it says in the name, and people who do know better would have gone for a different browser anyway...

Hi, welcome to Microsoft Windows 7.

Click <here> to install IE 8.

<OK>

So is the fact that my latest installment of Ubuntu came with Firefox, Open Office, and other applications, also anti-competitive? Or is it only Microsoft that can be considered worth taking to court at the tax payers expense? I am sure that giving the user the option of buying a version without IE or at least choosing not to install it, would have been a reasonable compromise.

What next? Will it be considered anti-competitive that when I want an application for my shiny new phone I have to go to the manufacturers web site? Perhaps new cars with a gaping hole in the dashboard so we can all go back to choosing our own car radio that is subsequently nicked the next time we leave the car parked for more than 5 minutes?

Don't include a browser and only place a link to the Live suite which will probably include IE now.

So not only will a lot of people download IE8, the people that didn't give a crap in the first place will now also get the entire live suite which they would otherwise probably have missed.

From a marketing point of view this is brilliant. From the UK perspective this is probably exactly what they didn't want...

Paris... cos she outsmarts them all.

What the article does not tell us is whether there will be pricing differences between the versions. If someone wants basic Windows 7 without the glorious splendour of IE and WMP, does it come cheaper?

Without a browser how do you download a browser? be it IE, opera or fireferret.

it wont include the program persé, but obviously IE is going to be included in all of them, as long as there's windows explorer, there's IE and i simply don't believe they've managed to seperate the two. they can *hide* IE, but they cannot remove it without fundamentally altering windows.

It is early morning and I may be missing something but ... say your average home user , who isn't tech savvy purchases a version of windows with no IE ....

How does he then connect to the internet to download an alternative browser ?

. . . and stupid. MS only need one version, and three questions in the setup:

1. Are you a business or home user?

2. Do you want to install Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer and all the other crap we bundle for free in our OS?

3. If you answered no to question2, please choose which of the following you wish to install:

[Insert list of browsers, media players and other cool non MS stuff]

Now what's so difficult with that?

Well if there is no IE installed on a computer with Windows 7, how the heck are you supposed to browse the web to locate your browser of preference, whether is be IE8, Fox, Opera, Chrome etc... Its totally counter intuitive. Think about the poor netbook users who dont have an optical drive, they are totally screwed.

This is just rubbish. If I buy an OS I expect it to be able to play my audio and video files as well as browse the web. Do Apple and the hundreds of Linux variations also have to ship versions without a browser?

As for the idea of MS preloading Opera, Firefox, Chrome, RealPlayer and VLC on their systems: please no. It's hard enough trying to remove all that trial crap from a PC nowadays. I am with MS all the way here. If Opera or Mozilla are crying foul, maybe they should build their own operating system and sell that just increase their browser market share.

Far more valuable would be for the courts to compel MS to ship a 100% standards compliant browser. Well it would have been 10 years ago. IE8 is now OK.

Imagine the EU forcing automakers to give consumers the choice of having their competitors components in the cars in the showroom, not very likely you say? Why treat a software maker any different then?

I'd be much happy if EU forced software makers including microsoft to release bug free products rather than penalising them for creathing successful enterprises.

How much for a version without Windows? No, really, they need to release "Windows NOT" edition, which is just an expensive box containing a blank 3.5" disk with a boot sector virus and a WGA authentication code that serves no other purpose but to identify the user as a thickie.

Or does such a thing already exist?

I am not one to be an MS fan boy, especially after finding OpenBSD, but I will say this is just ridiculous.

First off, you will often hear different OS's touting that their OS has some "nice packages installed" with a web browser, text editor, photo editor, cron tools and such like, so MS is just shipping an OS, with a browser so people can get on to the internet. I mean, to the average user, no web browser, how the fuck are they going to get any browser? FTP? Average user? Please wait while my phone rings from every average user friend I have asking how to get a web browser and then scratch my eyes out trying to tell them how to use windows FTP to download a firefox install..oh wait, windows can't use THEIR ftp program, that hurts competition of WS_FTP or cute FTP or WHATEVER FUCKING COMPANY WANTS TO FUCKING MOAN ABOUT THIS.

Windows 9, now comes with a 9 hour install while you pick which version of every single package you install, choosing between MS and rival versions because everyone has jumped on this bandwagon. do average users really care whether they use WMP or Winamp? I really don't think so, most only have iTunes due to having ipods.

I am all for choice and having different applications does mean that one virus doesn't take out half the worlds computers, but having applications to allow you to work is part of an Operating System. I see no halm in having a choice built in to windows, and they having now separated IE and Explorer, about time too, but to have editions without things included is just too far for me.

OSX without Safari?

That's just plain stupid. What is the point of all this? They should rather said that all computers are sold OS-free with easy to use image of chosen OS on DVD. I think it wouldn't be such a problem for customer to put DVD on first boot, isn't it? And then everybody would see how much each OS actually costs...

All that "sans WMP" and "sans IE" is just a huge waste of time that will do nothing, except create confusion.

I messed around with Ubuntu the other week and found I couldn't uninstall Firefox so it's interesting that only Microsoft is getting forced to removed the browser from it' own product

And of course I'm sure we can trust Apple to not ship Safari with their products, right? And they certainly wouldn't do anything like slip it in an automatic update.

I can't think of any other industry where the market leader is "encouraged" to promote their competition. Why the hell should MS bundle rival browsers or use it's update services to distribute them? It's crazy. It's like expecting Apple to sell (or give away, which tbh they'd pretty much have to) Zunes in their stores. This is business. If other browsers want more users then either find a equally good/better distribution method or make them outperform the competition by a sufficent margin to make people switch.

I feel this is a very clever move from Microsoft. They undermined the EU position, and upset Opera, at a stroke. I don't see how the EU could now force them to distribute other companies web browsers (Operas fav. option) when they won't even supply their own. The smaller companies will now have to work to get their browser out to customers as they will not be able to easily download it, and it's going to cost them to do this.

The only downside, is are we going to go back to the days of the AOL coasters being provided with every magazine, newspaper, and coming through the letterbox every few days; so we could install their browser.