IMHO, I believe a large majority is missing a *very* crucial flaw in the whole anti-bundling argument- the fact that nowadays, it is a necessity to have at least one bundled browser to a lesser degree.
Let's say you re-install Mac or Windows on a machine and start from scratch, with no help form a machine with net access or an external HD. let's see..
-hardware, it's easy- you have driver discs. Check.
-How about productivity software? Ok, so you're a little iffy there... half the time it's on discs, the other half directly from the Internet. Ok, so let's use the Net to look for stuff, huh? oh wait, you need a *browser* first to look it up, don't you? So let's just use that...
oh wait... it DOESN'T come with one?!?!? ok, so get one, like Opera, or firefox.... With what?
Let's face it- when it comes to those two operating systems- we'd be lost without a pre-existing browser. The only workaround would be to get one on CD- which hardly anyone produces anymore for browser software because there's just NO POINT. Linux has the advantage with tools such as APT and the gui-based Synaptic Package Manager- Windows and Mac doesn't. (though they should).
as long as these conditions exist on these mainstream OSs, somebody has to be there to take the fall and bundle- those "somebodies" are IE and Safari.
And if that's the case, why the heck CAN'T Opera or Firefox drop in the bundling game, too?