The idea that the average European customer (like the average American customer) will know how to download and install non-Microsoft software is ludicrous. In fact, MS will probably end up selling an extra CD that contains the missing pieces. Even that will be hard for the average customer to deal with, but MS will make millions of Euros more on it. The EU regulators will probably get a big bonus for their efforts too.

For those that are sideing with the initial EU charges, how can removing components be considered good for the consumer/customer? If you remove Windows Media Player, or Windows Messenger from the platform, you hurt the developers that design applications around those components. At any point, the consumer is able to install a different handler for certain file types (i.e. WinAMP for Windows Media Player), but removing components simply weakens the platform, and increases the test matrix of operating systems that the ISV must try to support; increasing development/test cost, and ultimately cutting into proffitablity or inflating the cost.
In many ways, for the desktop OS, this is the advantage Apple and Microsoft have over the "linux" distributions. At any time, a developer knows exactly what the supported platform will have and support. If a developer uses Slackware as their OS of choice, how will they know with 100% certainty, that their application will run on Red Hat, on Debian, with or without different libs and different configurations?
The platform is what makes that possible. Linux is becoming far to fragmented to make sweeping claims of compatibility across all fronts. Most developers don't want multiple platforms with multiple platform dependancies, and most consumers wouldn't want that if they knew what it was going to REALLY cost them in the long term.
Choice is good in general. Letting consumers choose between Windows or some other OS is a choice. Forcing a vender to weaken their platform while at the same time reducing developer support, is not a choice which benefits the customer at the end of the day.

"For those that are sideing with the initial EU charges, how can removing components be considered good for the consumer/customer?"

Because hackers/script kiddies will not know if they can exploit that pc ;)

Crap. Well thought out crap but still crap.

Developers shouldn't even build around the integrated componets like WMP and IE and Messenger in the first place. Just look what happens then when apps then start using this old and insecure components. Then you get all this crap that is happening now with IE. Users who are blind enough to still use it then get all those viruses and popups and spyware. And beig integrated and unable to install this makes it even worse.

What I am talking about is the platform. There are reasons that APIs are written and developers code to them. By haveing an interface contract, what goes on behind the scenes is (hopefully) independant of the calling program. This means that as problems are found and discovered the changes can be made without impacting the program. This has led to in large part, Microsoft's success with developers.

Features circa 1995 that were considered innovative have since become security risks. In the pre-internet world that most desktop PC's lived in, these innovations had no malintent. Today, those very same APIs that made the platform so inviting are also providing creative ways to annoy and harrass people when the technologies are misused.

With SP2, Microsoft is chosing security over backwards compatibility, and it is causing problems for the thousands of developer's that have relied on certain OS behavior for years. Of course, Microsoft is getting an earful about this as well. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

That doesn't change the fact that something as simple (or complex depending on the level you look at it) as setting up a video stream shouldn't be considered a system level chore. As a developer, if I need to reneder some HTML, why the hell would I rewrite another parser? If the OS can provide some level of support for me, and handle that on it's own, I'd be a fool not to use it.

These so-called optional components are, and more importantly, SHOULD be the foundation that applications are built upon. As newer technologies emerge, I'd expect the OS to surface those as well. Now, the EU issue isn't about security issues regarding WMP, rather the fact that Windows Media Player exists as a part of the platform at all. It is however, and should remain, part of the platform. By removing WMP from the platform, apps will break. A decision by the EU to remove WMP is the precident to break apart every aspect of an OS and regard every innovation as "optional". With that, you lose the cohesivness of the platform, and you are left with nothing but chaos and incompatibility.

As another viewpoint, look at the control Linus has over the release of each Kernel. While there are kernel releases that provide additional features and functionality, there is still a tight process of control over the "official" releases.

If I, as a contributer to Linux, came up with some radical new preocess scheduler that was perhaps for some applications better, but ultimately was incompatible with the blessed kernel, the feature might make its way into the experimental odd point builds, but would rightfully be rejected from the stable even point releases.

Now say that because of the popularity of this change, there was a spur release "unofficial" kernel, that several developers flocked to (if you don't think this sort of thing happens, what do you call the Alan Cox kernel releases). You have now eroded away at what the platform provides you.

With the EU case, you effectively have the commission demanding that the AC builds are provided as an alternate to the "Offical" release, and that Linus must pay them millions for their "wise" judgement. At least with the AC changes, there isn't any huge sweeping architectural changes to the platform; what the EU is demanding is rediculous, and damaging for all parties but the EU.

Unfortunately microsoft limit choice. Removing certain microsoft applications wont degrade usability of personal computers, not even by disabled people.

I would be prepaired to pay even a bit more for better Windows without crap like Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger and MSN. They are uselss and full of security holes anyway.

I wouldn't mind Windows with out:

1 Media player
2 Internet explorer
3 Outlook express
4 Msn messenger
5 Msn Explorer

I would of course like to pay less for that but i hate those apps as they are targeted by hackers :(

I am delighted to think that the Europeans will get Windows without the added functionality that everyone else gets for free. In fact, Microsoft will probably charge a little more for Windows to cover the cost of the fine. The European consumers will get exactly what their governments asked for.

You have the option of NOT using those programs at all. Having certain applications pre-installed doesn't mean you're forced to use them. As one user has already pointed out, you can easily download other programs.

It's the security holes that comewith them that i mind i have unchecked them in the windows components but they are still there they are just hidden because they are tied into the OS :(