"A number of websites do not work well with Opera, so why would people use it. If anything Opera's biggest problem is not IE but Firefox."

@Dermott

...and whose fault is that? Opera is tha most standard adherent browser (check the ACID2 tests) but the problem is that lazy developers code to IE instead of the W3C standards and thus tie people to the poor "standards" of IE and Windows instead of making a truly platform and browser independant website.

As a professional developer myself, I code to the W3C standards which works fine with Opera and FF, on both Windows and Linux, then have to bastardise the code to make it work with IE. This isn't about money, this is about forcing MS to finally comply with international standards, rather than invent its own rules which are intended to stifle any competitors.

Mike, Perth, Oz,

Interesting that so many people still see Microsoft as a successful company and, to boot, an innovator. It is simply a monopoly, and one which has, if anything, retarded PC development. Two examples: email and the physical pc. You can run a variety of IMAP or POP mail agents on your PC and communicate with anyone. You can build a PC with hardware products from a variety of manufacturers. Both are example of the power of standards. MS has always fought standards. The action by the ECIS is very late, but better late than never. The failure of the US courts to have taken effective action is a mark against them.

Jim W, Boston, USA

This is just a lame ploy by Opera to get money. A number of websites do not work well with Opera, so why would people use it. If anything Opera's biggest problem is not IE but Firefox.

If you don't like Vista, XP or IE don't use, just stop moaning.

When you walk into a Audi dealership do they display BMW and Mercedes cars so you have a choice? Of course not. So why should Microsoft bundle anything other than IE with Windows.

Dermott Renner, Auckland, New Zealand

Browser war ? hmmm , I think you'll find Mozilla Firefox blew all competition out of the water years ago ...

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

Microsoft is a successful company and people who whine about it because it's successful are pathetic. Bitch and moan because some of it is crap and doesn't work well is fair sport.. There are other operating systems you can put on your PC, plenty of other ancilliary software. The majority of users want a user-friendly interface on their PC and no-one has come up with anything close. It would be wrong to destroy this company with pernicious legislation. I have other browsers available including opera on my system but still use IE because I like it. No other reason. It is Microsoft that have got the PC where it is today and that should not be forgotten.

David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK

What is this twaddle about requiring one browser to download another? Utter rubbish. There are several ways in which this process could be facilitated, some more technical than others.

The point to note out of all of this is that Microsoft will stop at nothing to gain supremacy. Naive statements do nothing more than exacerbate wrong perceptions

By bundling software components together the user is denied initial choice and indeed the less technically able or knowledgeable are the worst off, as pointed out in some of the comments here. Microsoft, accepts that most purchasers of their software, will be less likely to switch to an alternative product if they have one immediately available; It is simple applied marketing

But the tactics do not stop here; honestly, I know this - from the inside.

The EU case was not a pathetic or cynical attempt to go for the 'big boy' but to deal with the issues surrounding anti-competitive practices.

Williams, London, UK

Is this just a function of Microsoft's size? I've got an Apple computer, and it comes loaded with loads of bundled software - media players, safari, etc etc... why isn't Apple subject to the same rules competition wise? Just because it's only got 6% marketshare?

Ian Bullock, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire

A bad workman blames his tools; a bad businessman blames the competition.

Once upon a time is was possible to make money by selling fragments of operating systems separately, but no more. Today, nobody thinks of purchasing a separate journaling filesystem for his computer because it comes as standard. Same thing with browsers. And internationalisation. And desktop search. And....

A reliable rule of thumb in business is that if you want to topple a dominant competitor, you need to be twice as good at half the cost. So you'll never topple anything that's being given away for free. Get over it.

And even if I'm wrong about all that, given the pitiful number of people who actually bought copies of the special version of Windows without Media Player, I really think there are better things to spend European taxpayers' money on than purely symbolic nonsense like this.

[Posted with Safari and PithHelmet.]

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

I'm no great lover of Microsoft but this is like making Toyota give customers the option of useing Ford,GM ,etc seats in their cars at the time of order. That's just dumb.

Mark, Compton, Surrey

Some of the software technology used in IE is intrinsic to the operation of the operating system. But I do agree that microsoft have too much influence and too little adherence and implementation of the current standards and practises used by other web browsers. I get sick of writing site pages that have to incorporate extra code to accomodate the use of IE and everyone else.

Also, you try running Windows Update from say, Firefox and see how far you get!

This particular practise should be stopped if nothing else, because that does erode competition and flies in the face of what the internet and the www is supposed to be about.

C. Hale, Tewkesbury, U.K.

My biggest complaint about Microsoft, and Vista in particular, is that it installs so much useless bloatware. At least with XP I could dump it. Now, I can't even get rid of Microsoft's worthless calendar program. On top of that, every time I use Hotmail, after logging out, I get automatically directed to MSN. I agree with Dave from Burnley: Windows SHOULD be only an operating system - bare bones.

Bill Beetham, Moscow, Russia

Many independent analyses of software in the 80s and 90s found that when Microsoft had a product in the field, consumers got much better value through falling prices and product development than when MS wasn't competing. It has been successful by producing software which has been widely accepted, and gaining a prime mover advantage - it's easier to choose a product which is widely used, in which many people have functional competence. That's not grounds for competition lawyers to intervene, and I think that the EU's previous case was spiteful sour grapes about an American firm's success. Similarly with the browser - there are many free browsers readily available, I'm using Firefox although I sometimes run IE (partly because my ad-blocking works better with it). In the information age, serial monopoly will be a frequent outcome, given the first mover advantage, competitors just have to raise their game or do something else. Economic Darwinism at work.

Faustino, Brisbane, Australia

In my experience, more and more people are using Firefox, a free browser which seems very quick and safe. But, significantly, does not have an advertising budget.

James T, Colchester, UK

Might be suicidal or just naive on my paart but presumably if Uncle Bill: sold Windows just as an operating system; and used a menu for people to install their preferences eg Internet Explorer or not, Outlook Express or not everyone'd be happy and clear about user preferences?

David, Burnley, UK

If you want to download a program from the Internet, you typically use a browser to locate the program and perform the download. It's true that there are other ways to download, but they are much less convenient and they are known to few people.

So how exactly are people supposed to find and download an alternative browser to their computer if there isn't already a browser running on the computer? One could argue that Microsoft's browser offers an essential service to other vendors by providing a way for people to download their browser.

CalAussie, San Jose, USA/CA

This is just griping from a company that has never had a foothold in the browser market.
They've seen MS be hit by anti-trust rulings and have decided to get on the band waggon.
I have two machines at home both running XP with Firefox and Thunderbird on them and Seamonkey on my laptop.
I find Firefox coupled with Adblock and NoScript add Agent switcher to Firefox and you can browse using any browser softwarenperfect for browsing the web and much safer.
You only have to downoad the software for free and check the default browser box and hey presto no more IE.
I also find Open Office perfect instead of MS Office and one hell of a lot cheaper.
The only problem is getting Windows Mobile devices to sync with them, maybe they can sort something out about that to allow full third party interfacing.

N Morgan, Stockport, UK

The fact that Microsoft is using it's Windows monopoly to unfairly compete in other markets is self evident. When I install a Windows Vista machine by default I have am using Windows Live Search, Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer.

Since I am tech savvy user I can rediect Live Search to Google and install Firefox, but the average user can't do this. Particularly with the new User Access Control which pops up with omnious warnings before any new software is installed (good or bad).

The issue of Internet Explorer is important because Microsoft never implements standards such as CSS in a consistent way so it is very difficult to write websites that work across all browsers. Things have improved with IE 7.0, but there is still a question mark over when IE will support CSS properly.

Phill (Wirral) is wrong, it's like Microsoft providing the Engines for over 90% of all cars and then bundling their own SatNav, Stereo System and Control Panel. Would you use a satnav from MS!!!

A. Mahmood, Birmingham, UK

Phil you missed the point. Most users, especially those who are not tech-savvy, can't be bothered to download and install an alternative browser so IE gets to have a huge monopoly just by being there out of the box. Of course website developers know this and so develop their sites to work primarily with IE, but Microsoft's use of proprietary features and its deviation from open standards in IE means that websites built specifically for IE will not work correctly, if at all, in other browsers. This is due to laziness on the part of developers but Microsoft does nothing to discourage it. A case in point is Microsoft's own Outlook Web Access which has recently changed to run only on IE. It will no longer load in Firefox, Safari etc. Disgraceful and contrary to everything that the net should be about.

hangonaminute..., Hong Kong,

microsoft is a predator and should be broken down into several competing units..each under a different set of managers who are totally independent of what is basicaally a monopoly.
The best analogy was the breakup of ATT by Judge Green.

allan joffe, dresher, pa.

This is getting ridiculous. This is Microsofts software and they should be allowed to install whatever they like.
It's no different to a car manufacturer installing a built in radio, GPS or even an alarm/tracker system.
People have the choice to buy a 3rd party system and have it installed just as they, like me, have the choice to download a 3rd party browser, firewall and media player rather than use Microsofts built in software.
The choice is there people. This is just a lame attempt to follow up the last judgement against MS with another pathetic judgement.

If the EU end up forcing MS to market a bare-bone version of its software then I'll have no qualms in buying my Windows OS from a US retailer.
And I WILL boycott those companies taking action against MS.

Phill, The Wirral, England