I only use IE to do 2 things;
1) Download Firefox, Seamonkey or Opera
2) Test websites in IE to ensure they look OK (generally they do, I use IE8)
I'd be annoyed if IE wasn't available, as it'd mean making more effort to get a (proper) browser than is needed. There's no way I'd mess with Command-Line FTP transactions (I use a GUI-Based OS to get away from CLIs) FTP functionality in Windows Explorer is a part of IE, so that's not going to be an option.

I use Windows Media Player for all my music, and am yet to find a FREE alternative that is better, I find iTunes too resource-hungry (and incompatible with every MP3 player out there bar the iPod, I wonder if Apple should be sued for that, as it's killing the competition especially with Mac users), I love VLC and use it for DVD playback all the time and have done for quite some time, but the Music Library isn't too great. If I can find a Media Player that's better (for me) that WMP I may change, but so far I haven't.

Now, on to the actual issue I have with this daft EC decision;
Firstly, it's their OS, they made it, paid to develop it etc... would Ford get sued for shipping the latest Focus with ford alloys and in-car entertainment systems? No, of course not! There are better car stereos out there than the Ford one, but not everyone cares if they have the best one in the world, so long as one's there that works. There are probably better Alloy wheels out there than the ones they stick on at the Ford factory, but why the hell would you buy a car with no wheels, no stereo, no steering wheel (and so on) and have to spend time, effort (and money) on all the missing parts? Some (a lot of) people will have to pay someone to install a browser, media player and all the other stuff MS aren't allowed to bundle. If they want, they can easily replace the apps later (like I can and have fitted a better stereo to my car) but that's their choice, and it's unfair to force them to mess around with installers and configurations just to use their PC. Mac OS Comes with iTunes, Safari etc...should they be sued too? Of course not, they made the OS, so why can't they bundle their own software with it?

Imagine a user who is new to computers...who just bought a PC to listen to music, browse the Web etc... They pop a CD in the tray, it does nothing...a call to tech support and they have to download some Media Player software, as Windows no longer ships with WMP. So they try to go online, nothing! Another call to tech support later, 'oh yeah, you need to download a Browser too!'. How do you expect them to do that, my Dad knows how to use IE, Firefox, Word MSN and Windows. It's all needs to know, so my Dad should have also learned how to use some crazy command-line FTP to download a browser? If anything that'd have stopped him from even bothering with computers all together!

So the end user has got a computer that can do nothing for them, so they either pay somone to fix it for them (if there's no one around who can do it for free), or just leave it there as a great big doorstop! It's stupid! Admitted IE sucks, but the user has the choice...a lot of them chose Firefox. Why is it MS' responibility to ensure users know about alternatives anyway? How about system builders? They choose to put MS Windows on their systems, so why don't they get sued for not putting Firefox, Opera or Google Chrome (etc...) on the PC as well, after all they're the ones who choose what goes on the PC in the first place (Dell, for instance put Dell Support, Dell Wireless Client...etc on the PC and provide it on a disc for backup, why not also add a choice of browsers?).

An option to uninstall would be good, but IE and WMP are part of windows, they allow Web-Content and Media Content to be integrated with Explorer (apparently, I know in win2k you could play an MP3 inside explorer in the left toolbar). If MS left all that integration to other companies to mess with (who may or may not understand how windows works as well as MS do), all that'll happen is PCs would be crashing left-right and centre because a 3rd-Party app isn't as compatible with Explorer as it thought it was. At least this way if there's a windows fault, it's MS's fault, and they can fix it. Who do you turn to if it could be one of a number of 3rd Parties who could have made the error? If a feature in a specific application relies on the browser performing a certain task (such as HTML help, or integration with an application), they can set it to work with IE because IE is available on all Windows PCs. If it weren't available, imagine the hell the developer would have to go through trying to find out how to integrate with EVERY browser on the planet, in case that's the only one installed? Sure, they could bundle a compatible browser with their software, but then they'd probably get sued for it...unless they were apple as they're allowed to bundle iTunes and Safari with OSX (as soon as they get as rich as MS though I bet the rules will change for them as well!)

Microsoft are not without fault, their software is never perfect (IE is a PITA when it comes to web standards and the like), but it's always worked for me. I also use Linux, so I am not a fanboy by any stretch of the imagination. I just don't see how it makes sense that MS are not allowed to bundle their own apps with their own OS?

PS

Sorry the post's so long, just had a lot to say!

Really what Microsoft should do is has an option to 'fully' uninstall WMP and IE from windows if the user chooses. Not just uninstall the latest version, which only reverts it back to whatever came with the OS originally, or hide the icons. That would solve the issue, period. I still don't buy MS's insistence that IE or WMP MUST be integrated with the OS.

IE NEEDS to be included on a fresh windows install, otherwise how the heck is a 'general' user going to find and download an alternative?

FTP? HA yeah how many general users even know WTF is (or how to use) an FTP?

I won't even go into things like torrents and whatnot.

Slimmed down version of IE. Ok maybe... but whats the point of having multiple editions of IE?

I don't even know if MacOS allows the uninstallation of iTunes and Safari, but if not maybe they should consider it. OMG Firefox on my pristine expensive Mac? such... such... blasphemy!

Linux usually comes with a default browser but you can uninstall it if you download and install a different one. Of course how many general users use any flavor of Linux!

If I were Microsoft, I would quite happily bow to the EU's pressure, as long as I could state on the box in clear print something along the lines of:
'Due to EU regulations, a web browser is not provided with this software. If you have difficulties accessing the internet or getting a web browser, please direct all complaints to the following EU departments:
etc etc'
(departments such as governmental EU departments)

Don't you find it interesting how Microsoft is being attacked for IE and WMP, and yet Apple has the free reign in bundling Safari and Quicktime? hardly fair!

If windows came without a browser
how would the average user get a
a browser.

According to the EU, Microsoft should include a menu with a way to download competing browsers. This is complete BS if you ask me.

very interesting.

Spendings at Microsoft may be suspended.

for more info visit to http://ezinearticles.com...elly-Fat&id=2182121

well, i would suggest for microsoft to exclude its and everyone's internet browser from its windows and then see how europeans set up their internet connection after they install windows.

further, microsoft has the right to provide updates to its products via its product internet explorer and from its server. so lets see how the europeans acquire their updates as well.

basically, people don't need and have the right not install any updates to windows after they purchase it.

so let them have cake and eat it too.

Well, you don't need internet explorer to update windows, it only uses that because it's automatically set as the default browser. Also, you don't set up your internet connection with IE either, so there is no pivotal reason for it to be bundled with windows.

"so there is no pivotal reason for it to be bundled with windows." Other than the fact the OS is a Microsoft product and they should be entitled to include any of their own products in it .. right?

oh yeah, i forgot you don't need the browser for updates.

then it seems microsoft screwed itself.

If I buy a car with brand X radio installed, does that put brand Y at a disadvantage.........this is really getting stupid.

Nope..but if you buy a car with radio X installed, wouldn't you rather have one without..saves you money towards brand Y (if brand Y is your favourite) and also maybe you would like the dealer to ask which brand of radio should be included, considering you are the one paying for such high prices for something that isn't going to provide the right luxurious quality for the money being paid.

Ok..back to the subject. Yes I can see sense where Microsoft has to install IE at its install but then not being able to uninstall something that you were forced to install to find a better alternative in the first place in my opinion is just not right.

It's all a distraction to keep EU constituents' minds away from thinking about how bad the economy is, how badly their politicians are handling it, and so on. Does anyone REALLY care about a stupid web browser THAT much? Come on.

Do you honestly imagine that an debate in the corridors of the EU about IE means 'jack' to the citizens of the EU!?

What "distraction"?

Most people neither know nor care.

Most tech minded know what this is about - and as user numbers show significant numbers have left IE for things like Opera & Firefox - but if you honestly imagine that something like this even could distract those people from the state of the economy you are harbouring some, er, 'interesting' views.

BTW most here in the EU know the current economic problems stem from the private financial markets who managed to saddle the world with (only admitted so far) $700 trillion in losses.

We don't tend to whine much about our Gov's role in this, actually - except that the regulatory and legal framework were nothing like sufficient and failed us abysmally.

It would be hilarious to simple release Windows without a browser for the EU.

Let them ftp a browser if they want it... and watch the number of potential security problems that spring up with folks ftping files.

In all, this is much ado about nothing. But hey, that's what the EU governnance is all about.

"that consumers have a true choice in the software they use to access the World-Wide Web" (and what about to view images, and text files and video files and so on....) .. Hey, here's an idea - if you don't want IE as your default browser use another OS. The EC is absolutely pathetic.

How will I download firefox if I have no browser when I do a clean install of windows?

IE doesn't have to go completely, they can install a basic IE and if you want the full featured IE they can buy it.

Buy it? Have you bought any browsers in the last 5 years? Really? When did you last pay for Netscape Navigator? Mozilla Firefox? Opera? Google Chrome? -_-

Download for free... maybe. Buy it? Ha. And even if it had a tiny bundled version, that would still violate this entirely... This is an all or nothing sort of deal here.

Just stage it. problem solved. The files are there, but no icon. Users can "install" it after the fact or get another browser "from a friend"... Regardless, IE no longer-=the default browser.

@Maymne Opera was advert supported unless you paid, up until 2005 :)

I believe he/she said "bought" - did anyone actually buy Opera?....apparently not.