It's stupid because with the other browsers installed will there also be a no need to have I.E

And don't click disagree it's just my experience. Sure I.E ran fine but now it takes 10 seconds to open a new tab, which believe it or not is a pain.

Well Linux is 'bundled' with firefox. I fear that Microsofts dominance doesn't come from have a great O.S it comes from the fact the it's what everyone is used to. No one wants a O.S they are not used to, as more and more companies use Linux instead of Vista then we'll see a change.

That if MS was a European company the EU wouldn't have a problem with MS including Explorer and only Explorer on their OS.

But it's MS' product. They're not preventing you from using other browsers. I'm using Firefox right now but I have no issue with IE being on Windows.

Why should they be forced to advertise and Distribute competitors products in their products.

That's ridiculious.

Secure my arse.

This ruling has nothing to do with the fact that Microsoft has lots of money, has a large swatch of customers, etc, etc, etc... It boils down to one thing. When the PC market was booming and Microsoft was becoming the de facto standard for PCs, people became concerned about the future. If government operations, multiple corporations which represent whole markets, and consumers are faced with buying computers which a majority of the software works on, or buying computers that a minority of the software works on... what will happen if Microsoft simply decides not to create Windows anymore?

Sure, many would say "Microsoft would never do this." However, there is no law to prevent this. Unless, of course, it is determined that too much of the world relies on Microsoft's products for day-to-day survival. By declaring this, Microsoft was (in several courts of law in several countries) determined to be a monopoly. A monopoly isn't merely a company that has became large. A monopoly isn't merely a company whose products most people choose. A monopoly is when there is a greater benefit for people to "go with the flow" and choose the company's products that the majority of the world has consequently gone with. i.e., if Visa card was accepted everywhere and MasterCard were only accepted in a few places... people would choose Visa when faced with a choice... not because Visa is necessarily "better" or has more "features"... but because they will have better luck having a Visa card in terms of acceptance. Likewise, since more people would have Visa cards, more merchants would choose to accept Visa instead of MasterCard, in order to go with the majority. This vicious cycle would create a monopoly and give Visa too much power in the market.

Since this isn't the case... and there are at least two strong players in the market (MasterCard and Visa), there is no "monopoly" declaration... but the two would most certainly be prevented from merging, even though there ARE other options... those options just aren't wide-spread enough.

So, just because Apple makes a great OS... just because Apple's OS is viable, and lots of software is available for it... this isn't enough to consider Apple to having an OS that is comparable to Windows in market-share. As a result, Apple can "get away with" things that Microsoft cannot. Microsoft was legally declared a monopoly and, as a result, has a different set of rules that they must play by. One of those rules which was set a long time ago was that they were not allowed to use their operating system to their advantage, to push a different product onto the consumer and squash competition in this manner.

Microsoft did this with Internet Explorer and, as a result of breaking this rule, they were taken to court. The ruling is only one that Microsoft needs to follow, due to their status, not Apple. It may sound "stupid"... but the purpose behind it is simple... to prevent one company from becoming so influential that no "ma and pa" operation could ever feasible compete with it. One day, two brothers working from their garage may very well create the next Google killer and may even be able to succeed. However, no group is ever going to be able to create a new web browser (no matter how great it is) if the majority operating system continues to push a "default web browser" on individuals.

Keep in mind that this is not meant to protect the computer geeks of the world. Computer geeks already know WHAT a web browser is... that there are DIFFERENT web browsers... how to FIND these web browsers... and how to INSTALL and USE these alternative web browsers. The computer geeks are in the minority. The majority of "computer users" are those who think "The Internet" is "that little blue 'e' on the desktop." They think that installing and using Firefox, Safari, or Chrome is something that only advanced computer hacker types do because they like playing with computers and making them do scary things... they think that using that blue "e" icon (Internet Explorer) is the "real" way you're "supposed" to use The Internet.

It is this way of thinking that is dangerous, and allows Microsoft to crush the competition by continuing to make the typical computer user think that by using anything that isn't default and isn't Microsoft is doing something rather questionable, that you will regret later.

Likewise, I believe the same thing is happening with Google. Many people don't think about what a "search engine" is. They just think that Google is the way you are supposed to find information on the Internet... that all of these other sites like Live and Ask are just "other companies trying to trick them into an alternative way to use the Internet." The difference is, however, that using a different search engine is not disruptive. You can switch as easily as changing a bookmark, typing in a new address, etc... Switching an operating system, however, involves tossing out your old software... re-purchasing your software... finding out that some software is no longer supported in the new operating system... etc... and often involves investments of $20... $100... or $300.

As long as Microsoft continues to have this monopoly, they will continue to have to play by a different set of rules to continue to allow innovation and competition to thrive in the computer market. Sure, Microsoft innovates... and provides lots of things we should be grateful for. However, there needs to be some viable incentive that the Joe Schmoes of the world could feasibly create something innovative and not worry that they will be instantly obliterated once Microsoft steals the idea and makes it a free and default feature in the next automatic Windows update.

And you can be sure Microsoft would monkey up Firefox every which way they could since they're already installing add-ons for it that you have to use the Registry Editor to get rid of.

I'm sure the fact that the Uninstall option being greyed out is just a "mistake" and that Microsoft would never intentionally make it a pain in the rear for you to remove an add on on to Firefox that makes it less secure.