Internet Explorer has security loopholes which are not present in Chrome. It is also slower and more prone to crashes.

Yet; Acrobat and other programs insist on using Internet Explorer instead of Chrome, despite my selecting Chrome as my default browser.

As a result I have to spend hours downloading patches for Internet Explorer when I don't even want it on my computer!

If I can actually uninstall Internet Explorer on Windows 7 then maybe that will be OK.

How about comparing this with the Intel "Atom" monopoly?

Intel offers its own chipset at an uncompetitive discount with the Atom processor, forcing manufacturers to use the inferior Intel chipset rather than making products using the superior Nvidia "Ion" chipset.

Nvidia is currently suing Intel because of that.
In the meanwhile we have just lost a year's worth of Ion-based netbooks thanks to Intel's malpractise.

End result? Consumers lose out.

Except, as per my above comment, even after I have switched from using IE to using Chrome I still have IE pop up all the time & I cannot get rid of it.

I recognise that is just a "feature" of XP and is no longer the case in Vista or Windows 7 but it is still very annoying.

Besides; I wonder how effective the "disable" Internet Explorer feature will actually work out to be? I have set my default browser to be Chrome, yet loads of programs still load Internet Explorer instead of Chrome. I suspect that will still be the case even once I have "disabled" Internet Explorer in Windows 7.

Having tried to un-install Internet Explorer from Windows XP, I am loving this new change!

I used Internet Explorer for years, with a dislike for Firefox, however now I use Chrome and it annoys me greatly that I cannot actually uninstall Internet Explorer from my computer. I managed to uninstall IE 8 so it installed IE 7!! I uninstalled IE 7 so it installed IE 6!!!

Every time Acrobat or various other apps open a link, they do not use the DEFAULT BROWSER (Chrome) but instead use Internet Explorer!!! Annoys the hell out of me.

JT -> Was not the Petaling Jaya, Malaysia factory formerly the Konica Minolta factory for its Dyxum/Maxxum/Alpha products, taken over by Sony for its Alpha brand?

That is the fantastic thing about Capitalism... someone (such as Sony) comes out with a new technology or format that is pretty decent, so its competitors (such as Microsoft) design another (not so good) one to stop the first one being a success.

Is that progress or just petty?

Variable frames rate during video
Manual aperture and/or shutter control during video
Quick autofocus during video and liveview
Tilting LCD display
In-body image stabilisation
Bigger and brighter viewfinder
% Battery display on screen instead of hidden in menus
Built-in flash and wireless flash controller
Weather sealing

Sony Alpha cameras and lenses are actually pretty well priced. Their competitive prices on camera bodies has helped to push prices down considerably. Their lenses used to be overpriced but they are now much better than they were two years ago. There are also a lot of Minolta lenses on the second-hand market, which all work fine on Sony cameras.

The great thing about Sony is that all of your lenses are stabilised, including second-hand or third-party (Sigma or Tamron) lenses. With Canon or Nikon you have to pay a premium to buy image-stabilised lenses, and there are only a few lenses that are stabilised.

The advantage of buying stabilised Canon / Nikon lenses is that you can see the stabilisation effect in the viewfinder, as opposed to Sony cameras where you only have a shake meter in the viewfinder. The disadvantage with stabilised lenses is that they devalue faster, as the stabilisation technology becomes out-dated. They also go wrong more often and they often suffer from the "shake lag" syndrom, where you cannot see or shoot for a while until the stabilisation calms down.

Sony lenses are as good as Canon or Nikon lenses. Some of the Sony lenses are better (e.g. 24-70mm F2.8 ZA, 135mm F1.8 ZA, 135mm F2.8 STF), whilsst there are still some holes in the Sony line-up. There are a few lenses that Sony has which Canon and/or Nikon still do not have equivalents for, such as the legendary STF.

Go ahead and compare to the D80!

The Nikon D80 lacks weather-sealing, has a slower fps, smaller memory buffer, lower resolution, worse high ISO noise, worse build quality, worse on-body controls, no anti-shake, worse AF system, worse AF-assist illuminator, no infrared remote control included in the box, worse LCD display, worse shutter max speed, worse flash sync speed, no InfoLithium precise battery display, and generally worse features.

The only thing that the D80 has going for it, really, is that it can touch up some of your photos for you.

The Minolta hot shoe is actually pretty decent...
http://keppler.popphoto.com/blog/2007/01/shoe_fetish.html
...and personally I hope that they keep it.

Why? Without it I could never add or remove my flash-gun whilst in the pitch black, or zip it on or off in a flash, or put it on without worrying whether I have gotten the connection right, etc.