I just did an informal study of 75 people using a simple list (no browser or company names) and found that 52 of them picked the center choice. When asked why, they said, "My eye naturally goes to the center first." Did MS come to the same conclusion? Who knows.

Whether it's by company name or browser name, MS ends up in the middle. W

So, basically, Mozilla wants Firefox to show up first on the list.

"Mozilla would be first about 50% of the time, Chrome would be first 30% of the time, Opera 15%, and Safari 5%." Is that their definition of "fair"? Seriously?.

"The problem is, it still puts some users at a disadvantage who randomly get a less popular browser as the first on the ballot." Is getting a less popular browser a disadvantage?

Everyone of you that that responded with a solution should take a long hard look at yourselves. The correct response is OMG, WTF, she has to be joking - or - her blog was purely to foster an online debate against MS.

MS has bent over backwards by displaying the icon and an advertising slogan for each of its competitors and one of them still complains!!!

Suggested alternate advertisng slogans:
Safari: At least we look like Chrome - with more options.
Chrome: The Microsoft of the Internet - We know when you visit.
Firefox: Sure, we are struggling against the new kids on the block, but we are not Microsoft.
Internet Explorer: The Google of the Desktop - We know you have it.
Opera: In music there is popular music and opera, In Browsers there are popular browsers and Opera.

What's Mozilla's problem? The list is alphabetical. A comes before M, unless the brand is first. Then F would come before S. What, do they not teach the alphabet in the school where developers learn about ones and zeros?

I'm quite sure Microsoft figured out the alignment they wanted and then devised a rule that produced that alignment. I also think Mozilla is wrong and the center position is most favorable. You can bet that Microsoft thinks so too.

I thought I'd wait for it all to die down a bit before I posted. I think Boriss should shut her gob on this one. Mozilla are damn lucky they're going to get their browser presented to W7 customers in the first place. Arguing the toss as to in what order the browsers is lame.

Yeah, I think so too. They are damn lucky that another competing software company is putting their browser up as a choice. I have never heard of this being done before in the history of Software.
Now I hope that Apple will do the same. lol

Ugh! re-freakin'-diculous!
you know what ... it's Microsoft's freakin' OS. Let them put there damned browser up first! Who cares?!
As one person said, if you know what you're selecting and what a browser is, you'll pick what you want ... if you don't, it's going to be the 'default' (top left or right dependant) so you're quibbling over who gets that spot really? And that's just not going to go ANYWHERE!
I say again, it's Microsoft's OS! Let 'em be that spot! Apple's OS? sure -- Safari as first selection (are they forced to give options? is there an IE version for Apple? probably not and do you have ANY idea how hard they would fight NOT to have to do that??!) -- Google Chrome OS? ... by all means ... (of course, if what I'm reading is correct and understood, the "OS" is just a glorified Google browser running on Linux kernel ... *shrug* no one but the hardcore are going to use that anyway and ... there again ... they'll know what they want and if they don't like it, they'll remove and install what they like ... )*sigh* ...

EU strikes again - put up a fight where you don't have to ...

This is definitely retarded!!! How about giving average users some information other than just the bloody name of the browser or how cool its logo looks!!!

At best the average user who has no browser knowledge, or interest, will select the browser that shows up left-most (most countries) or right-most (Arabic speaking folk et. al.), or will select one with the best looking logo.

How about providing the ability to compare browsers with a set of around 10 criteria that a layman can understand and relate to. Each browser company is responsible for filling out its own stuff, but the criteria must be fair to all, and just for kicks add HTML5 as the topmost criteria ;)

Wow, what a stupid clusterf*.

So many people are going to turn on Windows for the first time and have this list shown, and be utterly confused as to what is what. Even after years of pressing, my non-techie family and friends don't know the difference between IE and FireFox.

This entire system is just going to confuse the hell out of most people, and if you KNOW the difference between Safari and FireFox, then the order doesn't bloody matter. Good job, EU.

Every software creator will want to get part of this new law, Winamp will want to appear next to Windows Media Player as a choice, Openoffice will want to appear with their alternatives for Word or Excel when you install Microsoft Office. Everybody will want to get their piece of the pie.

Eggad!! This is ridiculous!

Yes, ridiculous!

EU has gone nuts and is wasting millions of dollors/euros in time and money. Let MS include IE and then the user can install and use whatever browser he/she wants.

This is getting ridiculous.

Offer a great web browser and they will use it. Offer crap and say goodbye.

Quite whining Mozilla developer.

Microsoft should make the screen scroll with the starting position random so that no one gets the first place. Alternatively, the options should be arranged in a circle.

Yeah, let the sheep follow the masses - great idea. Your comments in this thread are about as ridiculous as the subject matter. Microsoft, pull the browser out and be done with it - let the whiners fend for themselves.

DESERVE? What is with you and this word?

Really. This is getting out of control now.

just sad and ridiculous

who's to say, listing first gives you an advantage? Maybe being in the middle is better because thats where your eyes land first, or being last is an advantage because most people are right handed and their mouse land the last slot first

I think the random solution is better, not by usage share

you can never accuse the random listing as favoring one over another. If you do it by usage share, EU can still accuse MS of monopoly practice because they're giving themselves an advantage

DESERVE? DESERVE? Get a grip.

I think best option would be to list all browsers in circle! instead of left to right.
No one would be first no one would be last. No conflicts.

Isn't that the whole point of brand recognition? That's just the business model we all seem to have decided to support in life.

You know what's funny? Take Internet Explorer completely off the list, and I bet most users will ask "Hey... where's the blue 'e'...?"

I have a brilliant idea for fixing this. The EU should send a letter to everyone using Windows asking them how much they actually care at all about the issue. If the majority of people don't even bother sending a reply - as I predict - we should just scrap the entire idea all together. What an utter, utter waste of time.

move, get out the way!! I want my browser showing up first!! why is my browser I just made up last night not showing!! what BS will come next??

EU: "Microsoft, just give up your s***."
Microsoft: *swt* "...here. It's your."
...
Other browsers: "I want the biggest piece." "No, its mine."

If you are going to provide a menu to choose a browser, why not also provide a menu to choose a media player, Email client, disk defragmenter, task manager, disk cleanup utility, anti-virus software, word processor, spreadsheet, explorer shell, notepad replacement, etc. Why all the undue interest in a single piece of software? Any why not let people share in the experience of finding and trying various types of software and finding the ones that best meet their needs, based on their own experience?

How about a link to the File Forum section of Beta News? I can't tell you how much new software I have discovered here.

I wonder how many people who buy a new computer don't already have their own preferences and don't need to be steered in a particular direction by an overbearing government. When I buy a new computer, I already know what I want to install, and the first thing I do is get rid of all the crap that the manufacturer puts there to get in my way. The next thing I do is install my own substitutes for nearly everything the Microsoft puts on the machine. I hardly ever use, let alone tolerate, the defaults. But, I know what the better choices are. I don't need some government forcing a company to tell me that they think is good for me.

This "choice screen" is just one more hurdle to get past.

The US forces no such "choice screen", but look at the s***ing "market share" of Mozilla vs IE. I put "market share" in quotes, because I don't see this as being a "market" when no money is changing hands.

...and while you are on it, why not provide a menu to install a different operating system, even though you bought windows...

Wow, what a completely ignorant response to a valid question. Next ime take three steps back and maybe you will see why other people, like businesses, will never switch to a Mac or Linux until they change things. If you don't like business running Windows, then you should blame the other guys. Not MS. The others do not work well in large enterprises.

"So Boriss suggests a third option: adjusting the random probability in the browser juggling order, so that the first slot is given to each browser in accordance with its assessed usage share.

As Boriss projects it, "Mozilla would be first about 50% of the time, Chrome would be first 30% of the time, Opera 15%, and Safari 5%."

And IE? Has he completely forgotten that IE would be first 75% of the time by that metric?

I thought this whole thing was to give people a choice, but now I see it's all about of making one for them.
No one but EU Commission and browser developers care about this ballot. It will only make final price of the operating system even more expansive because of the resources wasted for this BS.
It is just ridicules, developers crying out loud like little kids: ' Me, me, I wanna be first.' ROTFL.
Just do dynamic page and put stuff in random order. And last but not least LEAVE THE CHOICE TO THE PEOPLE.
If your browser market share isn't as big as you would like to be, then don't blame others for your failure. You know it is possible that people just don't like your browser, and not because they are not aware of an alternative. Suck it up. Get over it.

".. So Boriss suggests a third option: adjusting the random probability in the browser juggling order, so that the first slot is given to each browser in accordance with its assessed usage share..."

ha ha...this has turn into a competition on who will produce the best "fair" looking algorithm that would benefit its browser....
This is rediculous...If you have what it takes, beat Microsoft fair and square...

Let's get this straight. The current ordering is NOT FAIR to Firefox, since it puts it in the very invisible place of NOT IN THE MIDDLE AND NOT IN THE BEGINNING. Total randomness of the list will also not be fair to Firefox since it won't make it visible that this is the browser MOST PEOPLE CHOOSE/END UP WITH AFTER TRYING OUT MANY OPTIONS.

My proposition:
Show the browsers in order of MARKET (DELTA) TRENDS. In other words the first browser on the list will be the browser that has grown fastest percentage wise in the past 30 days (updated daily). The last browser on the list will be the browser that lost the most percentage wise in the past 30 days...

The immediate effect will be that STAGNANT browsers, like Internet Explorer, will go to the end of the list if Microsoft doesn't release new hot versions every few months. You wanna remain relevant, you keep updating your sh1t. Also, say Opera (or Google) releases a fabulous new "dot oh" version and people start giving it a try -- if people actually STICK with the new browser for over a month (to change the statistics) then clearly that new release deserve top VISIBLE position on that list.

Also, the bigger boy you become, the harder it will be to remain in position 1, and you will ALWAYS compete HARD with your runner-up. For example, if Firefox becomes 40%, it probably won't be able to maintain a good position "sitting on its arse", since percentage-wise, a new release of Opera that moves it from 5% dominance to 5.5% dominance is a much higher jump (10%) than Firefox moving from 40% to 42% dominance (a 5% jump) in that same 30 day period.

Naturally, nobody with less than 2% dominance should be on the browser "ballot" screen to begin with...

And, in order to clarify to the ignorant masses why they are seeing browsers in the order they are listed, you have to list under the browser name its "market trend" stats:
"Firefox -- 24%->24.5%"
"Internet Explorer -- 67%->65%"
...
"Stats are based on past 30 day global browsing trends".

The EC needs to pick the idea that most contending browsers will agree to. Randomness, alphabetical order, and current dominance is NOT something the majority will agree on. My suggestion, however, is very likely to be the compromise they can all live with.. All of them except Microsoft, that is...

I think IE would still be first by that method. I get the feeling you've forgotten how many IE 6 & 7 users are still out there and are getting 8 delivered through windows update.

Simple: all of IE's should be bunched together, as all Firefox's various versions.

Only increase in IE would be from new PC users in non-EU countries, since they won't have that ballot screen making them pick a more educated choice.

And to counter even THAT argument, you could make the statistical data based on country. An argument can be made that if your countrymen are more, say, Opera fans, you'll have much more joy with that browser in that country, since you'll get both more support, more speciliazed features added by local parties, and naturally, more places you'll encounter a computer (internet cafe?) will have that browser.

Just a minor kink that can be easily ironed out...

I think the bad part is that small things like ordering can sometimes have large influences on companies (and even elections, as we saw back in the Bush -Al Gore race)

Although that isn't to say that the proposed fix is bad...

What influenced it was central Americans with no ability to punch a hole in a bit of paper correctly.

What influenced was a fraudulent handling of an almost tied election. In that case every vote counted and they did their best to not count the ones that they didn't want.

Usually, OEMs are compensated for bundling someone else's software (trial or full versions), or by advertising on behalf of the 3rd-party software developer / distributor.

Is Microsoft going to be compensated by Apple, Google, Mozilla, or Opera by marketing their products for them? I think not...

In other news:

The letter "A" comes before "M"

Here's an idea - add up the IQs of all employees of each company and order them based on that.

I thought the purpose behind antitrust legislation was to safeguard societal welfare by increasing competition. Whose welfare is really being served here? And where do we draw the line?

I would think the only concern needing to be addressed would be, "Is Microsoft, being in the position as the OS monopoly, disincentivizing the pre-installation of competing products on hardware bundled with their OS?" It should be that simple.

This whole nonsense of requiring them to educate the public to the various choices available to them is ridiculous. Shouldn't the marketing of competing products be the responsibility of the competition? Today, it's a bundled browser. Who is to say tomorrow it isn't a text editor? After we're done including ballot screens for every conceivable application and feature enhancement, perhaps we should move on to the operating systems themselves. To be fair, we can't leave anyone out. I'm sure neophytes the world over will be thrilled with such freedom to customize their computing experience with the thousands upon thousands of available choice permutations.

Instead of allowing the hardware manufacturers the freedom to bundle and configure their product in a way they feel is most competitive, perhaps we should legislate no computing device be shipped with a bundled OS or applications. Now that's competition! Vive la libre entreprise!

Thank you EU for turning the business of insuring free and fair competition into an absolute farce.

Thank you EU for turning the business of insuring free and fair competition into an absolute farce.

Thank you USA for not breaking Microsoft in pieces when it should have been done and letting the browser market stagnant enough by IE dominance so other players have to come in.

I agree the Microsoft Antitrust was also bungled by the US on several occasions. I believe proper application of the law would have alleviated even the need to consider the break of Microsoft. Legislation should promote competition not punish success.

This browser scenario eerily uses the language of altruism to exact change that is only nominally in the interest of the public. Seems to me to be serving only special interests. They might as well call it the "Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule," or "The Equalization of Opportunity Bill."

I know it must sound like I am some Microsoft Zealot but in reality, I prefer the Mac platform and don't use any Microsoft products at present. Strong competition spurs innovation that benefit all users regardless of platform. I am not saying Microsoft is guiltless, I am only saying the "solution" is turning out to be more concerning than the problem.

One idea that I don't believe has been submitted has been to only have a very basic browser included with the OS. It allows web browsing, no tabs, no add-ons. Just enough to get online. Then those who care to do can either upgrade it to a full fledge IE or download their favorite browser through it and the "baby browser" can stay there as a quick alternative.
User moses wonders why people don't just use IE and we shouldn't try to get "converts" to alternative browsers. I'm curious if he has ever even tried an alternative browser, I'm guesses not. Sure IE is fine for many, but it lacks in many areas that those of who have tried another browser really enjoy having to assist in browsing the web. All we are saying is that IE would not be the browser of choice for many if they had had the opportunity to try other choices instead of simply going with whatever the OS came with.
Sometimes just good enough isn't enough. Use IE, that's fine by me, just don't put down those who have chosen an alternative and want to share their good fortune with others.

GhoS, so you want IE 2.0 installed out of the box?

The only way team Firefox would be happy is if the only option was Firefox.

Now Mozilla has became as petty as MS. Sad.

Sometimes pithy is good... but this comment begs for elaboration.

Must we consider everyone that uses a computer a complete idiot! For people that don't think they are as smart, they'll likely ask someone they trust. This is stupid, any order is fine.

Why doesn't the US version have this? Cause our government is paid off by these people (left or right both are equally bad). Oh well...

the US and the rest of the world does not need a ballot because , we are not EU morons, honestly I like to make my own decisions and don't need a union of no idea telling me that I am too stupid to download another browser. I have used Firefox, Chrome and even went on a Safari to nowhere. If people can't ever figure out the basics a browser ballot is not going to help . why not a virus ballot, after all it's only a matter of time.

also why does this not apply to the other guys namely "I am god, fear me now Jobs) Apple, they appear to be able to do as they want regardless of what their moronic user want

Must we consider everyone that uses a computer a complete idiot! For people that don't think they are as smart, they'll likely ask someone they trust. This is stupid, any order is fine.

Yes, I think that any order should do. And why unlawful actions happen... because the law let it happen as companies won't do something not beneficial for them if not forced.

You know rorybaust, is not about you but about new users. We're talking here behind the comfort of our already setup computers. The EU doesn't and shouldn't care about you but about people who install their computer for the first time.

Why is it that you who use other browsers think that everyone want to use them. I have been with IE since the first day. Everyone was glad for IE because it was free and they didn't have to pay to upgrade every six months. What happened to "make a better mouse trap and everyone will buy it". Most of we "Elderly" will either be able to load what we want no matter where it is in the list or we will have sons or daughters 0r granddaughters or grandsons who will do the upgrade and load wwhat they think will work best for us. I plan on doing the upgrading to Windows 7 myself and no matter where IE is in the list I will select it.

I don't agree with the ballot BS BUT the point of promoting other, MUCH better browsers than IE, is "web standards". You're happy probably because you haven't tried for yourself how much better and speedier other choices are, like say Firefox, Chrome, Opera or whatever suits you. IE is keeping the web from advancing because of it's stubborn non-standards rendering engine.
Anyway, MS shouldn't be forbidden to stuff IE in it's own OS. That's obvious.

It is so funny to see that even some parts of Microsoft aren't caring anymore about their IE. Sharepoint 2010 won't support IE 6 and will handle pretty well Firefox. In fact they are using it for some of their preview screens. :P

If you take IE6 out of the equation Firefox wouldn't be so far for IE anymore in the markets where IE is still relevant. :P

Has anyone considered what we are going to do with hanging chad? Are we going to have to call Al Gore in to decide?

Alphabetical order, eh? Yeah--great news for the new Aardvark browser :)

Seriously, this whole ballot box thing is getting sofa king ridiculous that I'm tired of reading about it. If you don't want to use IE, just download another browser, disable IE from Programs and Features, and be done with it.

Well, in that case the solution first requested would have been the best. NO browser at all for new Windows installations and let people download whatever they want.

But without a browser, how exactly will people, especially those new to computers, download a browser?

This is total crap. Every vendor is opposed to any solution that doesn't give them the preferential treatment. I think Microsoft should be allowed to run their own browser, and I think Mozilla should be allowed to advertise all the reasons you should switch. Apple is more interested in you switching OS platforms, and they can advertise that all they want. Google can continue to work on their plan to tak over the world and have their turn with the EU. Opera can continue to be irrelevant.

(deleted)

Since VW outsold 40 manufacturers in Europe in 2008 by a considerable margin, I suppose the EC is due to force VW dealerships to display brochures informing customers of the existence of Renault, Peugeot, Fiat, Opel, Ford, etc.

nah. More likely they'd be forced to sell Renault, Peugeot, Fiat, Opel and fords. :)

Nice. =)

Actually, I'm still waiting for the day to come when the EC gets around to forcing Microsoft to change the name of Internet Explorer.

Even if it were displayed dead last on some ridiculous list, the name itself is an "unfair" advantage in Microsoft's favor.

Well, you don't have to sell the REnault or Ford, you just have to offer their engines, at random according to some, even though you just want a Golf or Passat.

I would've said dash board, or stuck with the now standard "stereo", for the analogy; but I definitely agree and add that the randomly offered components would be sold by company logo and nothing more than a couple sentences of description.

I was torn with which car component, but the browser is becoming more and more crucial to the OS. But I'll agree with your selection.

Nah, EU being what it is (EU legislation has long ago made a law that enforces "straight" bananas of limited curvature within the member states) I would expect different. Cars are not like operating systems, they are the programs. Which would make the roads the OS of the automotive world (because everything runs on them).

So dear EU, please make it an option for drivers whether they want to use the LEFT or RIGHT side of the road. Equal opportunity for UK drivers (the "Apple" of Europe)!

What a ricoculous waste of time. With all there is that actually matters in the world, for any government to care about this is utter nonsense. When I buy a car there is not a list of stereo manufacturers to choose from, no one asks me what alternate brand of brake pads I want installed...

People are dying, the USA is being forced into socialism by a complete twit and people are crying about this stupid browser BS.

Put me on the first rocket to any planet that as not as dumb as this one.

This is stupid. By Mozilla's argument, no one should be first on the list and having a random listing of browsers is horrible usability wise, especially if the list gets large. I mean, they only show 5 browsers there, but what about all of the other crapware browsers that are out there... how do they also get on the list? I mean, someone might want to use Konquerer or go old school with Lynx. What about Lynx?! :P

Seriously though, this is ridiculous. Further, if Windows has to go through this then EVERY operating system should have to do the same thing. Personally, I want a browser included with the OS and then I'll add the other browsers I want (like FireFox namingly). Then, I'll continue to use FireFox... so I don't see what the big deal is.

Personally, I use Safari on my Macs at home. On my work PCs, I use Firefox. I don't use IE, and probably never will.

My solution?

Just let Microsoft create their ballot box as they see fit and leave them alone already!

Grandma who has never used a computer before can use her Bakelite corded phone to call someone who can help her decide. If she's alone, she can ask the mailman or take her walker to the local senior center and ask for opinions there.

Do you think, maybe, we could harness all of the creative mental energy pedantically focused on this minutia on something that might actually matter?

Random is the only option that makes sense really. I mean, if the purpose is to be a ballot screen where people choose their web browser, the entire lineup should be random.

So it is acceptable when one grandmother that doesn't know better gets an experience that is considered, en masse, as better functionality wise, but a different grandmother gets an experience that is considered as better competition wise? All of this based on radomization? Chance is how we should approach a complicated matter? How does that make sense? All in the name of "that's not fair" or "MOM! Tommy won't stop looking at me. "

And "somename" your suggestion is.....????

Random is the only "fair" way there is with this childish discussion between these children and their many lawyers.

Ummmm, pretty simple. There is NO ARGUMENT. Shut up, let them put up their already ignorant box. Let it go. Of all the things we should be working on, this is not one. If you want to talk about issues in browsers let's start talking about certificates, SSL, and the completely false security everyone thinks they have.

Random is not the only option... and it really shouldn't be one at all, nor should any other option other than the one that Microsoft originally came up with:

Our Microsoft Windows operating systems come with Microsoft Internet Explorer.

I may personally hate the fact that it's not a very extensible browser, but for simplicity's sake and from a security standpoint, Internet Explorer 7 / 8 is the best browser to use with Windows Vista and Windows 7... period.

The European Commission (perhaps not very surprisingly) is being silly on the whole browser thing. This whole whining business is very childish. Here is a thought - if you want fair play for your browser, make your own damn OS. Next time we will hear that Microsoft should provide options for Windows Explorer etc. In a reasonable world (i.e non-European Union world), Microsoft should be able to ship a secure OS (i.e with Security Essentials Installed) along with an active Internet Explorer as the ONLY browser. If users want another browser, they get online and install it (I always do because I use Firefox). Anti-trust laws probably came from a good place, but they have now created a world in which people think they can compete by whining.

all i can say to that mozilla member: stop b****ing. just shut the f up!

Here's how it should work (or at least show how ridiculous this is).

1. All 5 browsers must be installed, but have their address bars removed.
2. Users must use a separate address bar.
3. This address bar then launches the same URL in all 5 browsers (3 times for IE8. One for compatibility mode and another for "porn mode")
4. To resolve issues with which browser appears on the Windows Task Bar first the list is randomized so that no browser ever appears first more than 20% of the time.
5. Additional pages opened in the address bar will open the pages in new Tabs for each browser or reopen the browsers if the user closed the browser session.
6. Additional pages opened must also reorder the browsers on the Task Bar.
7. If any browser is out of date for security patches none of the browsers will open so that no unjust opportunity is allowed to claim that one is "less secure". Heaven forbid we actually admit security sucks on all browsers, and the only security that exists is unplugging.

Makes about as much sense as the rest of this absurd BS.

Here's how it should *actually* work:

Stuff tube socks full of oranges and beat the members of the EC until you juice them, and let Microsoft do whatever the hell they want with THEIR products.

Others have already given excellent suggestions (in this thread and others in the past) for what other companies should do to market their respective browsers ON THEIR OWN.

Pathetic.

The first choice should have the title "BAD Choice" with a button labelled "Do NOT Click Here" and the description "This selection will display a funny dancing baby video, but you are a MORON if you pick this because your computer WILL become infected with malware which will take you weeks to remove and ruin your productivity."

Most likely, 80% of all users will click it. If I could only get a penny for each click...

You can, just write some malware.

The entire process of who is listed where on this form should be %100 RANDOM, so every time this option pops up on a system the choices are switched around randomly. It is a petty thing, but simple to solve, unless you are biased to begin with. Talk about stupid!

That's what i think. Random order, different each time the ballot screen pops up.

It is fair for everyone.

Fair for "everyone" except the actual user.

Just out of curiosity - why bother? How many times is the average user going to even see this stupid ballot? The people who know will pick what they want regardless of position - or download if not on the DVD/Ballot. Those that don't will likely have their tech savvy friend or local electronics megastore do this install for them. Even today most PC owners are not all that tech savvy. And most oft hem will not experiment with other browsers. Whatever gets put on they will use. Regardless of how the OS gets on their machine.

holy crap, this is getting out of hand. There will always be someone who complains and think of a "fair" method that benefits them. Why not just have a roulette wheel then, and the user gets whatever they manage to click on? Or just install ALL of them, and the user can use whichever one they want?

This is bizarre all around. I think what it really says is "Most users couldn't care less".

Actually, I am suprised that the UX expert was complaining how this is unfair in favor of Apple. I think MS did a very good job of taking the next best stance for themselves after the EU rejected their first proposal.

Yes, most of the world reads from left to right and that first spot is typically advantageous but consider that this isn't a text heavy page on the top half where you select your browser. When looking at a graphic heavy page you tend to focus on the middle as that is where the most important elements are normally placed. Think of a photograph or a web page even.

Now look at the dead center of the top line of browsers (before scrolling) and what do you see? Oh wow! It's IE!

Can't wait for Mozilla to change the logo they use on the selection page to a fox with a fireburst around it to draw your eye to it. Or maybe Google will change the Chrome logo so it blinks or something... What a joke this whole thing is.

"Can't wait for Mozilla to change the logo they use on the selection page to a fox with a fireburst around it to draw your eye to it. Or maybe Google will change the Chrome logo so it blinks or something..."

And in a matter of months, if not weeks, there will be a new browser called "FREE PORN!"

*utter exasperation*

Yeah. Should have stuck with Microsoft simply removing the browser completely.

Pull the browser out of the OS and let the OEM's make the decision. For Retail/Full/Upgrade/OEM OS-only media, include a second disc with no autorun that includes installation folders for very possible browser at time of launch and be done with it.

This has gone way past ridiculous... no-one should even be entertaining this circus of stupid anymore.

I like the proportional probability suggestion.

You know what would be a better idea? It having several Sort buttons so the user can choose how they are sorted. It would also provide the information used to perform the sort. That way they can make a more informed decision. Whats the point of deciding if you can't be informed?

Maybe a writeup by each of the companies describing their browser.

I have to disagree with any randomness. I do like the idea of allowing users to sort by varying criteria, but that assumes the type user that "needs" the ballot screen is familiar enough with computers to know they can sort; there are many many users that still don't know clicking column headers in detail view sorts the items...let alone that detail view even exists. In addition to that, you'd have every "interested third party" whining about the default sorting order and that some obscure sorting criteria that actually puts them at the top of the list is not included.

Oh come on this is just plain STUPID!! #1 I will select my browser of choice.. and all of those might not be the one in 1-2 years!! So when someone in the EU re-installs a computer with windows 7 in 4 years way will when have to choose from this list??

#2 We all know this is NOT about the Broswer anyways.. it's about the DEFAULT web page because that is how most of these so-called "software" companies make money.. By controling where people go on the internet.

Oh ya do we get these choices when I install Lunix or Variants
, UNIX Variants(FreeBSD, BSD, OSx), Android, Symbian, BlackBerryOS, iPhoneOS..
These all all OS's and need to be treated as such. WHY does Microsoft get singled out?? Money from fines to run the EU???

I would agree with Jenny's concerns if the page were laid out vertically rather than horizontally. Now, i am by no means a UI or human interface expert.

Having said that, if the illustration is correct, the horizontal layout places everyone on the same plane. Therefore, the user won't 'see' Apple as the first option, instead Apple Safari appears as one of many options. Viewed vertically, one could assume Apple Safari would be seen as the first choice, adding weight to Jenny's argument, but such is not the case.

I say it's time to boycott those other browsers so they get the message, people should be free to choose what they want, not malipulated in choosing what Firefox, Chrome, Safari or Opera want. IE8 is the better out of all of them regardless.

Good god people. "this soup's too hot, this ones too cold, this one is still just slightly warm, ...on second thought i don't want any soup, what else do you have?"

every browser maker is going ot b**** and moan if there is even the slightest chance that their competitors have an "advantage." well here is the solution for you morons NO BALLOT SCREEN! If you want your browser included in the windows install talk to the OEM's and strike a deal! It makes me sick that thye just expect something for free, this isn't the IE vs Netscape days. uggg, i could write a really long rant like i have so many itmes before about this but i am burned out.

your Broswers shouldn't even be there in the first place, just be glad you got anyhting and shut the hell up.

Exactly. It's not like most everyone didn't see this coming.

Sort it alphabetically by company name... oh no, not fair!

Sort it alphabetically by product name... oh no, not fair!

Sort it by popularity and highest market share. Wait... that's the whole reason for the ballot screen in the first place. Not fair!

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

no matter which way they want, its preferential to somebody, you wouldn't see them complaining if Firefox were first lol, random is the answer
what utter bulls***

See my previous statement on how this would work out. It's sad to be right sometimes. :-D

This is looking more like a Tom and Jerry show... I mean. gimme a break. This is so unfair for Microsoft. Why not have Macs ship with Internet Explorer then (if at all MS releases a Mac version of IE)??
Tomorrow they will say ship windows with Mac OS, because it gives "unfair" advantage to windows... wtf guys??
And yeah... Alphabetical order?? People like me won't even care. I am not bothered at all if I have to move my mouse pointer few pixels right to select the second browser in the list...duh!!

My choice... sort it by most frequently used to least frequently used...by the user on that particular machine !!

do you understand who loud Opera will whine about this? lol

Just make it a random lucky dip...