Wtih respect to IE integration, Microsoft were forced by the EU to release Windows XP Home/Professional N, which excluded Windows Media Player.
The same is not possible with Internet Explorer as it is almost seamlessly integrated with the OS.
Windows Internet Explorer 7 is a little different on XP in the terms of how it runs but basically ever since the Windows 95 Desktop Update IE as been an essential component of Windows Explorer and the Windows shell and have run operated as one in the same.
Aside from the software technicalities, i dont think it is right for Opera or anyone to force the inclusion of other browser software. For the most part I hate pre-installed software on PCs and insist on removing most of it.
For a while now I have used Firefox, by my own choice. I have also avoided IE7 (because it is ridiculously ugly and horrible to use) by my own choice. I have also used Netscape which was nice and Opera, which either didnt work properly or I was just too dumb to use correctly.
The point being my experience of browser sofware, good or bad was due to personal experimentation and preference, not because it came preinstalled "AOL style" as I refer to it.
My vague point is that surely a successful browser does not need such pre-medatated actions to improve its use or market position. For example I have heard of, and tried Opera and have opted not to use it, much like the monstrosity that is IE7.
Most people only use IE because it is "out of the box" software ready to go. The placement of other browsers preinstalled in its place would serve exactly the same purpose to the average/unaware end user and hence simply make it no better than using IE.
I say leave it to user experience and CHOICE to govern what browser users adopt.
(Also my admiration to james on his altercation and revenge on his old schools IT administrator
)