Of course Edge doesn't have a monopoly; MS is using their monopoly on desktop operating systems to unfairly push Edge and Bing and other MS products.

And how is this different than Google using its monopoly in browsers to push its other properties?

Are we going after one “monopoly” to help another one?

The principle should remain the same whoever is abusing a monopoly position.

I want free and fair markets with competition to drive innovation and cost reductions.

Using dominance in one market to undercut or destroy competitors in another is the issue. Having a monopoly is not.

But considering how much Google uses their position to maintain the monopoly in Search and browsers, it's in our interest to level the playing field. So, despite the annoyances, we are better off in allowing Microsoft to grow market share. I'm a Windows and Edge user (by choice) and I can very easily neither use Edge nor Outlook if I don't want to.

If Google are abusing their market position then they should face some consequence too.

It's not in anyone's long term interest for the government to pick winners and losers. The law should not be applied selectively.

They are both abusing. Allowing both to go as they are does not pick winners or losers. While you are right in theory, in practice it takes years for antitrust trials to go through - and they fail often.

Actually I'd argue that Google started by abusing its search monopoly. But yes, if I had my way both Google and Microsoft would get ripped apart in court. Neither excuses the other.

The EU is very actively pursuing large tech companies over nearly this exact thing already. The EU commission could very easily decide that Microsoft is a gatekeeper (DMA) and cannot engage in this kind of behavior anymore.