Microsoft May Have to Let Users Choose Browser

Firefox every time!

@TomsHardware: That Windows and Microsoft logo is so out of date that it's disgusting. Make a new one?

Also, I'd go right for Opera, but more importantly, how would they decide which browsers go into the OS? Would it come with the option for the minor browsers? Or would it just be the top5 (IE, FF, Chrome, Safari and Opera)? I'm not fussed, since I'm set on my browser right now.

Another issue is how they'd make it a fair choice. Blatantly M$ is going to make the first option on the list IE, how would people be incensitivised to choose a different one? Descriptions? Screenshots? Who knows, but most people just hit "next next next next" on the Windows installer anyway. Best choice would just to be to bundle them all as default installs and let users opt out, rather than opt in, as it currently is (usually I'm against having to opt out, but here it's more beneficial to the industry)

It's Microsoft's own business what it bundles in IT'S OWN OS. When Google, Firefox or Opera make their own OS they can put their browsers in them as well. It's like asking a car company to include options for other radios when they make their own!

This whole thing is ridiculous, just like the whole argument of forcing microsoft to remove windows media player from some editions of windows. They should be allowed to bundle windows with whatever they damn well want. What will it be next?? "Ohhh windows having CD burning built in it's not faaaaaiirrrrrrrrr"

It is ridiculus. Windows has always come with internet explorer (well in my short lifetime) and if you want to use a different browser, then clearly you are smart enough to know how to download and instal it. I don't see any problem with what Microsoft and Apple do. It is going to get to the point where you buy an operating system and it has not utilities at all build into it.

I think its aload of rubbish, I use Firefox, when i install windows i use IE for a small ammount of time to download Firefox. Admittidally the IE browser engine is used in many other applications (Steam, Xfire) and this is aboloutly fine. Personally i dont see why it matters, Admitidally most users just use IE because its what came on their system, but these type of people are going to look at an install prompt and think well i used Internet Explorer before, i will use it now.
Make people change to your Browsers Apple/Google/Mozilla whatever, dont make Microsoft do it for them.

Opera everytime.

The problem as I see it is not the fact that Microsoft force users into using IE from the off, its that IE has so many security holes and that it takes microsoft ages to plug those holes. Users should be able to decide from the off that they do not want any trace of IE on the machine if they so wish.

I don't see why Microsoft should have to bundle other web browsers with THEIR operating system.

Why is this so important? If people want another browser they can very very easliy download another one, there is NOTHING stopping them. Giving people a choice from start will only confuse less computer literate people. How about microsoft give no browser at all with windows and then you cant download any browser. Also why is this same case not being brought up with Apple and their default browser?

If users want another browser, they'll go download another browser. It doesn't take 2 minutes to do that. MS have every right to bundle their operating systems with whatever browsers they want. It's THEIR software after-all. FireFox, Chrome, Safari, whatever.. they were built to work with WINDOWS, not the other way around.

Not using IE is a bit more complex than just downloading a new browser, as IE will still lurk around and occasionally be used for things. To actually have a windows install without IE requires you to build a custom install with something like V-lite, something which is beyond most users (though in my experience downloading a better browser is beyond a fair chunk of users).

Personally I'm happy if Microsoft bundle IE, windows media player or whatever with windows, provided they make it easier to remove if you don't like that application. Ubuntu (and other linux distros I assume) does this right; most applications you want are included as default, but you can easily get rid of them.

Well, as IE is the ONLY browser I have come across that works with ALL the sites I regularly use, then I will always have a copy of it installed, regardless of whatever other browsers I use.

Tough one - yes it is ridiculous, yes MS is right to include it, yes without IE - we would have issues downloading other browsers... Yes IE's rendering engine is an integral part of other MS's products (Outlook, Office, Messenger - and so on). A lot of corporate applications (Sharepoint Server) use IE's extensions heavily and simply removing IE would cripple the whole OS a lot... Knowing Miscrosoft - they will never remove it from the OS, so effectively you will still have that swiss cheese in your system letting everyone exploit it. Anyway - it's a tough decision to make... Decision that will result in more confused users, less OS integration (Imagine that for whatever reason the FF installation failed during the OS configuration stage - perhaps a network cable was not plugged in yet - who does the user call? Miscrosoft? No... Mozilla? No... Network card's manufacturer? No... Nobody - it's helpless) and more troubles in the end for all of us.

On the side though - I hate to raise it here... But shouldn't the OS be simply an OS? Why adding all this crap? We should be in control of our computers not the other way round. Ubuntu's approach is quite good here...

Personally I use Chrome. But I still want IE installed because there's some things that just don't work in Chrome, like downling W7 RC for instance!

I only use IE to download Opera. But it doesn't bother me that MS bundles their own browser.

I think it's ok for IE to be bundled with windows. I just use it to download firefox and it never bothers me again. I think this is an easy solution.