File Extensions And Monopolies 881
A_Non_Moose sent us an article from Salon that talks about how file extensions are one of the tools used by Microsoft to extend their mind and market share. It's a very simple idea but its honestly something I'd never thought about. Definitely worth a read, and a few neurons to realize how its really the simplest of things that will guarantee that this monopoly isn't stopped even if Microsoft's deep pockets didn't let them buy the law.
Windows 3.1 (Score:2, Informative)
Then with Windows 95, you started to have to struggle.
Re:Windows 3.1 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Windows 3.1 (Score:3)
don't underestimate the effect of simple adjustments in usability -- it's sort of the heart of the accusations of bundling -- sure, you can use netscape, or aol, but the icon for msn is right there on the desktop. these things have a subtle effect, and besides, how many oem installations of windows even come with the documentation you reference?
Give me a break. (Score:2, Troll)
Short of a complete re-write of the entire FAT-32 filesystem there is no solution to this, aside from teaching new users that "Hold down shift, right click, then hit Open With..." will solve this problem.
Honestly, this seems like some Salon.com columnist had nothing else to do and decided to bitch about Microsoft for a while cause, hey, it'll get on Slashdot!
Re:Give me a break. (Score:2, Informative)
The article is just braindead. (Score:4, Interesting)
Registered file types were just a typical Microsoft hack designed to get the system to do essentially what Macs did, but without all the coding overhead and file/creator nonsense. Personally, I'm glad they cheaped out instead of doing file/creator typing, because I like to be able to change a file extension merely by clicking on the filename and changing 3 letters (after setting the newer versions of Windows to show the file extensions, of course--hiding them was another hack to be more like Mac, but a stupid one).
And the average user will never have to change what kind of program opens a certain type of file, manually. See, when you install new software on a Windows box, the new software almost always asks the user whether he wants documents with such and such extensions to open in this new application. Yes is the default and that's almost always what the user selects. No manual changes necessary. It's only computer literate people who should be tinkering around with registered file extensions anyway--because illiterate yahoos can "accidentally" make it so that double-clicking things does nothing, or opens a file in the wrong application. That's why Microsoft put the feature where it did instead of into a separate control panel, where "average" users would no doubt fsck themselves up.
Is MS evil and a predatory monopoly? Yes. Is their handling of registered file types part of their bid to rule the world? No. It's set up just like it should be--literate users know where it is, and average yokels can't ruin their systems by messing with something they shouldn't touch, and installing new apps to handle that file type will give the user the chance to change to opeining files of those types with that program. Or should we put a big shiny button in the control panel that performs a full fdisk just because that functionality is hard to find for the average bloke? No? Didn't think so. The writer of the Salon article is just blowing smoke up our collective arses at best, and at worst is a blundering moron. Nothing personal, of course...
And he thinks Macs are better at this????? (Score:3, Insightful)
On a Mac, without special 3rd-party hack programs (like ResEdit or Snitch), it CANNOT BE DONE AT ALL! Talk about monopoly power!
Man... if he can't handle right-clicking on a file, and selecting his own alternative with the provided "Open With" dialog (recent OS's), then he shouldn't be running a computer at all!
MadCow.
Re:And he thinks Macs are better at this????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect. Open desired application. From within application, File menu, Open, open the desired file. Now without making any changes to the file, re-save it in the same place with same filename.
Now the file's icon changes to that of the desired application. It now is "associated" with the new app.
This wasn't the most efficient approach, but it was the most obvious. The Mac often wastes computer resources and keystrokes at the expense of saving "brain-strokes". Although, often, if you look deeper, there are numerous shortcuts to do the same thing more efficiently.
Re:And he thinks Macs are better at this????? (Score:5, Informative)
The Mac's file system stores 2 equivalents to the file extension for each file, the type and creator codes. The type code indicates what type of file it is, the creator code indicates the application that created it. The key concept here is that on a Mac, those 2 bits of metadata are orthogonal, and with a simple file extension they cannot be without some serious filesystem hacking, which MS hasn't bothered to do.
Also worth noting that Mac OS X has most of the features this guy requests; you can remap a file's ownership from the Get Info window, and make your change global from the same location.
Re:And he thinks Macs are better at this????? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was first introduced to this when I tried to open an
"Could not open the file because the application that created it wasn't found" (Right before a "Sorry a system error occurred. Error type 7. Restart" - patronising twat of a machine!)
An HTML file for fucks sake! Plain text with markup! Opens in IE, Mozilla or Simpletext. Just open the fucking file!
"Sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that, Dave."
It had a file extension. It was UTF-8. It was a plain and simple bastarding HTML file. And the Mac sat smugly. And refused to open it.
In the end I had to copy it across to a Windows machine and back.
And this guy at Salon thinks that's easier?
In Windows, whenever an app steals a file extension (which only happens during installation, not whenever I open a file), I take it right back, maybe leaving it in as an option on the context menu. I have Notepad on the SendTo menu, so I can always open anything as if were text. I can make
Can I do any such thing on a Mac? No. I'm stuck with the icon whichever app chose for it. If I save an HTML file from dreamweaver, I can't view it in IE without dragging it into an IE window. If I save it from fireworks, it has a different icon again. Very soon it gets impossible to tell the difference between files. A
And that's less confusing?
People are so blinded by Jobs-worship that they forget to realise that someone else is doing The Right Thing. A file type is as distinct from it's creator as it could possibly be. OSX is better, though. Guess what - it uses file extensions when the resource fork is missing. And it lets you change the app a particular file type opened with, relatively easy. But there can only be one app which opens a particular file type. Which is the Wrong Thing.
File types are not a Windows idea. They date from the pre-unix days. It makes it easy to tell what a file is by looking at it's name - handy on a teletype, or even by ftp. It also makes it easy to change a files meaning without changing its content (eg txt to html). It separates the content of a file from the application used to create it.
Another poster noted that you can drag a file onto any applications icon in Mac OS. So? That's not new. Windows does it, and so does KDE (I think - can't check right now).
Registered file types are not a means of Microsoft brainwashing. They are simply the best way to handle file typing (I know that sounds weird). mime-types are fine, until a file has unrecognised type, and is not so easy to change. File type and creator metadata is just plain wrong.
Remember: just because you don't have a clue, doesn't mean Bill Gates is out to brainwash you (hey, that rhymes...).
Re:And he thinks Macs are better at this????? (Score:3, Informative)
--script to convert files to Maple 5 Notebook
on open(theList)
tell application "Finder"
repeat with theItem in theList
set creator type of theItem to "REL5"
set file type of theItem to "MVNB"
end repeat
end tell
end open
Not exactly simple, but it can be done with a Apple provided program. (And it is faster than ResEdit).
I am sure that in the coming years, Microsoft is likely to provide a online, for-fee, version of Office. It could be problematic if instead of launching StarOffice, double clicking on a spreadsheet file would preferentially launch the network Excel application...
Apple has, to my knowledge, no such plans...
Re:Give me a break. (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course a non-techie is having trouble, because the option unearthed by shift-right-click is not, in any way shape or form, visible to the user of the GUI. It's not necessarily his fault whatsoever that he's not aware of this -- it only denotes a lack of random experimentation.
This is the inherent problem with all "right-click" contextual menus -- a right-click should not be considered the primary way to get at a function, as before the user right clicks, there's no way for the user to know the functionality is even there.
What it really is is bad GUI design, and seeing as it's a GUI by designed by MS engineers, it's had to say if the flaw is intentional or not.
~jeff
Re:Give me a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
And why not? It is right there next to the Left mouse button. Why is it a less valid as a primary way to get at a function? It is only bad GUI design if you can't wrap your brain around more than one button. I suggest you unplug your keyboard and stay away from any mouse with a wheel on it.
Oh You Have NO Idea! (Score:2)
I'm starting to see the same calls with the IE users, for some odd reason. It doesn't appear to be server side with them but the number of calls have been fairly low thus far, and I don't do Windows. Once we start seeing a number of them, my PHBs will start demanding that I make IE work just like Netscape currentl does. Joy.
Re:Give me a break. (Score:2)
Perhaps, I'm just being cynical, but most of the time I encounter people who are interested in alternative software packages, they already know about file extensions.
The average user isn't horribly interested in Real Player so long as Windows Media opens the files. Joe Average seems to be too scared/ignorant/incompetent to want to even try finding and using alternative software, even when he's told of how much better it might be. The only time your average guy installs new software is when he wants to do something he doesn't know how to do right now, and sad as it is, Joe Average rarely thinks of things he wants to do that the Microsoft monopoly hasn't already provided for him.
Mac solution is nice but... (Score:3, Informative)
Over time, I got irritated with soundjam and went back. I got rid of the program but the association is still there. I know how to fix it, but if someone was a little less knowledgeable or someone writes a program to change all my associations, I'd be quite.. irritated.
I know, its possible for any dos/win program to change my PC file extensions too, but its more obvious and probably a lot less likely.
Re:Mac solution is nice but... (Score:2, Informative)
It's the kee-jerk solution to 90% of all pre-MacOS X problems:
reeeeeebbbbuild the deeeeeesktop.
Why the desktop on OS 7/8/9 didn't just rebuild itself once a month I'll never know. Oh well, it's a non-issue now.
~jeff
Re:Mac solution is nice but... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I dont know how easy/difficult it is to change a file's association on OS X.
Re:Mac solution is nice but... (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, OS X uses a combination of the old Type/Creator codes and the file extensions. However, any individual document can have a specific application associated with it.
Click on the file's icon, type Command-I. (For "Info".) It's the second option down on the popup window.
Its not just MS . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
RealPlayer, Winamp, Winzip, photoshop, even stupid ass AOL all do this . . .
Installation defaults of all these apps try and steal file extensinos away from programs. Its just a matter of knowing what boxes to uncheck during the installation. Ordinary users simply dont know what they're clicking through during an install.
Once a program gets a hold of an extension its almost impossible for a normal user to fix it. You cant expect users to know where to reassign file extension ownership (in the file association tab under folder options).
I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Much more annoying is having every new application try and make itself the default for a million other filetypes.
Re:Its not just MS . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Man, the worst offender I ever experienced was paintshop pro. This was especially bad if you were stupid enough (as I was once) to download and install the TRIAL VERSION!.
It took _every_ file extension it decided it should handle and changed the registered extension app without asking (or even giving an option in the install, custom install not being available in the 'demo').
So, after using the software for 30 days (or less!) and deciding I didn't want it, there was no way to restore the file extension settings (other than manually, of course).
At first, I would still click on the file I wanted to open and PSP would come up and rag at me that my trial had expired and I should buy the damn thing. Of course, my response was to uninstall the stupid thing. Not much better, now windows would report that it couldn't find the registered application for the file I was opening.
You can, of course, hunt down the view/folder options/file types dialog and then manually change each extension back to some other app install on your system. Most programs these days will ask during the install which extensions you want to have automatically opened by the program, and others are even smart enough to offer the right-click/open with option during the install.
Re:Its not just MS . . . (Score:5, Funny)
I'll save you the trouble: it's porn.
Re:Its not just MS . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition to those problems, the single-program-per-extension system forces uninstallers to be unnecessarily complex. For example, if you uninstall Mozilla, apparently it's Mozilla's responsibility [mozilla.org] to tell Windows to switch back to using IE. Mozilla can't just tell Windows "I'm not here anymore, so find another program to handle html files".
And don't even get me started on how hard it is for a browser to determine whether it's safe to open an untrusted file with its default application. Apparently the solution is to hard-code a long list of "dangerous" extensions [mozilla.org] from Microsoft's web site into your browser. At least Microsoft isn't trying very hard to establish a monopoly on secure web browsers...
Re:Its not just MS . . . (Score:5, Informative)
For filename extensions, Microsoft's brilliant idea was to automatically hide the file extensions in Windows 95 and above by default, meaning you have to rely on the stupid icons to know what your file type is, and things like the SirCam virus can come along and fool people into thinking they are viewing a JPG when they are in fact launching an executable that will bombard me with 200 copies of their "Jun 2000 Sales Report" or something.
Furthermore, until recently, you couldn't search or sort the filename extensions access through "Folder Options" by extension name. You had to know what they are called, or vgrep through a huge list of every file extension ever considered since DOS 1.0 (the list looks practically like
A simple example: I want to reassociate ".BMP" back to the SpiffoPaint program after the BogoPaint trial version stole it away. Prior to Windows 2000, you _had to know_ what file type name the extension is regsitered as (and many weren't obvious). Again that could be any old dumb thing the software developers (like Bogosoft above) decided to call it like "BogoPaint Document" or whatever. If you didn't know that, then good luck finding it by hand, Chester.
In the NT 4.0 days, I personally had to resort to using 4NT's file association feature (I think the NT Resource Kit had something too) because otherwise it was just too much trouble.
And as far as editing the regsitry goes, remember that Microsoft's first plan was to not allow users to edit the registry at all?
Given that I remember in the late 80's that I had to rewrite the installation batch files for most software I installed, the idea horrified me. Now in 2001, not being able to edit the regsitry still horrifies me.
"Where do you want to go today, and how lost are you going to be before getting there?"
Monopoly for the illiterate... (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that Microsoft does things specifically to retain a monopoly, but does everything it do have that purpose?
I doubt it.
Re:Monopoly for the illiterate... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh my god, I better go patent this...
Re:Monopoly for the illiterate... (Score:2)
Postcript: Several readers have e-mailed me to outline what they feel are holes in my argument. They point out that in the most recent versions of Windows, a right click on file names will offer you an "Open with" option, and that if you navigate this properly you can check a box that says "Always open files of this type with this program," thus effectively changing the default option.
This is correct but irrelevant to the point I'm making. The power of "default" settings lies in users' ignorance and inertia. There are millions of Windows users who barely know what "right-clicking" is. These users may be disdained by some of my correspondents, but they constitute a critical mass in the marketplace.
That may be, but what's the likelihood that the people who don't know about right-clicking are likely to open a control panel to configure their own preferred handlers?
I dunno -- this level of government meddling in software design seems like just the kind of thing nobody in the industry wants.
(By the way, using Konqueror, no Salon cookies and no Flash installed, I'm getting a stream of new windows opening and respawning that looks like I'm on a porn site. Is that the correct behavior? Also, why is Slashcode ignoring my italic tags?)
Re:Monopoly for the illiterate... (Score:2)
Er, yes, as Scott goes on to say at the end of his article (having had it "pointed out" to him, he claims). I wonder how many posters here actually read the article to the end?
But either Scott didn't know this, or he chose to "forget" it, and as he still claims that this is too complicated for Joe Sixpack, we can write his article off as flamebait.
The other 90% (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be monopolistic if MS disabled this fuction, but instead this article is perfect for the mindless MS bashing that makes slashdot look so prejudiced. There are real MS complaints and this isn't one of them.
Maybe I'll get a job at salon. "Hi I'm the Slashdot baiter and I'm thinking of writing something inflammatory about the two button mouse. Think about it dudes, Mac has one button. MS is trying to confuse people for their own ends!"
Not exactly.... (Score:2, Informative)
The "Open with" option only appears on file types that don't already have a default handler program selected. If they have one, you just get the "Open" option instead. If you want to change it, you have to know how to change your file associations in Explorer. Most people have no idea how to do this.
Re:Monopoly for the illiterate... (Score:2)
I leave it as an excercise to the reader to see what's wrong with that.
Re:Monopoly for the illiterate... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what I meant! Not at all!
I'm talking about people who use Windows on a daily basis and STILL don't understand the basic workings of it.
True -- someone who does not use Windows is free to hate MICROSOFT all they want for many other reasons from ethical to technical.
The people of which I speak love to rant on about certain things in Windows that (for the most part) simply aren't even true.
For instance -- "HOW HARD" it supposedly is to change file associations when there is a simple method of doing it just by right clicking.
Incedentally, he *does* know about that. (Score:2)
Come on (Score:3, Informative)
RealPlayer, Winamp, Quicktime etc...
What's the difference when it's MS programs?
You can easily change the assocation by holding shift while right clicking on the file and choosing 'Open with'. You then check 'Always open with...' and there you go!
Changing the icon is way harder and is a way more annoying thing in windows.
This is silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
What next... Saying that its unfair to have microsoft.com be the default home page for a newly installed copy of ie just because some idiot might want to change it but doesn't want to take the time to figure out how...???
This goes beyond a legitimate argument to just finding something to complain about because complaining about microsoft is the thing to do.
Re:This is silly... No its most definitely not (Score:3, Insightful)
Monopoly? (Score:2)
People will start to realize this; Even your grandmother.
this is largly hype (Score:2, Insightful)
The trouble is, even if some court orders Microsoft to throw Real Player into the Windows package, it doesn't make much difference if most users can't figure out how to switch the default player of music files from Windows Media to Real. When Joe User clicks on a music file, even if he likes Real Player and prefers to use it, Windows Media Player will open and play the file. Unless Joe is a power user or an extremely persistent fellow, he will eventually give up on Real. The competitor's software will sit on the hard drive, unused, while Microsoft takes over yet another market.
When the author resorted to this argument, they lost some credibility. RealPlayer asks you, repeatedly, if it can set itself to be the default player for ALL of it's supported media types.
I agree that file typing via
But I think RealPlayer making itself the default program for mp3 files (which nobody in their right mind wants) is more of a problem than other media types defaulting to WindowsMedia player.
Afterall, what do you really want to use RealPlayer for besides playing their propritary file format (which will be asigned to it anyway!)?
I realize it CAN play other files, and it makes an attempt to set itself as the default program for other types of files, I just don't think anyone actually wants to use it for those.
I mean, to play mp3s I could use winamp (for free) or I could use RealPlayer (pay or be subjected to annoying ads).
Re:this is largly hype (Score:2)
My solution was to order them to incude the software, and to have no extensions using their software (maybe txt is fine), and instead point to the competators. Also, no other software packages can fiddle with the settings (so installing Office won't reassign HTM to IE, although it is fine to have it launch IE directly). This would either have Microsoft's software sitting on the drive bitrotting, or they will come up with a way to make it easy to manage extension.
Obscure, but not difficult... (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't really weaken Rosenberg's argument, of course, because this is just one of the zillion and three Windows shortcut thingies that Joe Average doesn't know about. Joe's no more likely to use this than he is to fish his way through to the long-form File Types dialogue. But all of us windswept and interesting Slashdotters who choose/are forced to use Windows ought to know it
Dang it, I used to use an Amiga. Directory utilities on the Amiga just looked at the darn file header. Your IFF image could be called notapicture.txt and it'd still display JUST FINE. A 1Gb footprint for WinXP (which, I hasten to add, I _am_ going to install when next I upgrade my Tiny God), and it still can't do that?!
Come to think of it, that'd be an anti-Sircam-ish sort of feature. "You have attempted to open a file whose extension is PIF, but which appears to be an ordinary executable. That's odd. Would you like to check this file against the new and wonderful Microsoft Proprietary Crushing All Opposition Virus Database to see if it's one of the many things that takes advantage of our monopoly almost as well as we do?"
Re:Obscure, but not difficult... (Score:2)
As Scott goes on to say, he's been "told" that under Win2K (and WinXP?) it's a simple right click. I find it hard to believe that Scott didn't know this, and as he sticks to his guns and claims that this is still too complicated for Joe Sixpack, his whole article is basically flamebait.
Re:Obscure, but not difficult... (Score:2)
Most people don't know the little shortcuts in Windows. I don't know of a single person in my office that knows any of the shift-click shortcuts. If you right-click on a file that is already associated with an app, you just get the "Open" option, not the "Open with" option.
How about this then... (Score:3, Interesting)
Make the "Open" option into an expandable menu instead of a single option. List all the programs that are registered to handle that file type in the menu and let the user select the one he wants. You could still select one app as a default for when you double-click on a file, but this way users could select a specific program a lot easier.
Re:How about this then... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think what he's suggesting is instead of a two dimentional table (extension/program to handle it), you end up with each entry for an 'extension' containing a list of all the programs that register their ability to handle that extention type.
If 42 programs want to register their ability to handle GIFs, fine, you have 42 entries.
You can still mark down a "Default" program that is activated when you double click on an Icon, but by keeping all the other info you can:
1) Browse what programs are assigned what extensions, and which ones they want but are not the default, or even create a utility to go through the catalogue and make a particular programs settings the default (again, preserving the current defaults as alternatives).
2) Preserve alternative choices in case the default application is un-installed.
3) Turn the current windows "Open" option when you right click on an Icon into a expanding menubox (ala the "Program" menu) listing all the currently registered options.
Okay. I wish I could take credit for this, but the poster above did. I think this would be a really good idea for a desktop to do. Lets beat Windows to the punch and get this into Gnome and KDE
last one in wins (Score:2)
Of course it's silly how hard it is to "roll your own" file associations, you have to use this weird macro language.
I think smarter programs will always have a preferences screen that let you regrab the extensions. IrfanView is a good example of that. And well behaved programs won't keep trying to intrusively ask you if you want to use them instead.
Never Blame On Malice... (Score:5, Insightful)
- I've spent months trying to figure out how to turn of auto-indenting in numbered lists within Word 2000 with no success.
- Using typeid() and other RTTI features is disabled by default in Visual C++ 6.0 and requires finding a very hidden, nested menu to turn it on. This took hours to find.
In general most of their products seem to lack a good Human Computer Interaction factor. But to go as far as calling bad design, some sort of attempt to keep a monopoly seems rather excessive to me, especially since it's fixed in Windows 2000 so that right-clicking on a file brings up the shortcut menu complete with an option that says "Open With..." where you can specify what program to open the file with and if you want the program permanently associated with that file extension.Re:Never Blame On Malice... (Score:2)
Yeah, and try using styles for nested numbered lists. They don't restart properly!
Off-topic, but related to file extensions... (Score:2)
Ah, but it is also their Achilles (sp?) heel (Score:2, Interesting)
By the same token, would I want Real Player to automatically take over my Desktop? Not a chance. The difference is that Real Player is a piece of bloated s**t that deserves to die. They have not produced a GOOD product in a very long time. Netscape 6.1/Mozilla and StarOffice OTOH, should detect all the extentions it supports, check if they are not registered or registered with "System defaults" (read: Microsoft) and automatically switch them. As long as it doesn't switch any non-M$ software, people will hardly notice and just come to expect the new software. Then and only then will you start hearing "You're still using IE/Microsoft Office? Geez. Go get some real software."
My gripe with extensions (Score:3, Insightful)
My greater gripe is programs that change extensions be required to display a "warning, proceed?" message during installation (much like a security grant for Java or ActiveX) if the extension is already associated with a different program. It burns me every time I install some software and it becomes my cd and mp3 player. Yes, I know how to change it, but it's still irritating.
I never considered the extensions menu particularly difficult to find or use. Not everything can be in the Start menu.
Re:My gripe with extensions (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see what's wrong with putting this under Start|Settings. It is a setting, after all. Why do I have to start up Windows Explorer to change how Internet Explorer opens files?
Windows annoyances (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, Windows applications are a textbook example of competition at all costs. Spyware and "gator" controls install themselves, behind the scenes, and mess with every other application. Many applications install "quick start" programs in the system tray or as services, wasting your resources and time in the vain hope that you'll use their software more often. It's no-holds-barred capitalism. Applications fight with each other over eyeballs and control of your system, and you're left with a mostly-unstable computer that blares ads at you and has a dozen security holes.
And that is why I run Linux. Because the coders who wrote my applications had respect for me, the user.
-sting3r
Re:Windows annoyances (Score:2)
I have never had trouble like this with _any_ Windows applications. I hate installers, and I'm not a big fan of Windows, but I think you're overstating your case.
Full circle, trust me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Give it time. When Linux becomes mainstream, the same programmers that made crappy Windows software will begin to make crappy Linux software. Some of it will disturb/disable other programs, take up resources, and open security holes.
Why is this such a great concern? (Score:3, Insightful)
Other companies (as was pointed out in the article) have been doing this for years. Why is this suddenly such a big deal? Because the author needed to come up with a column. Pick something that wasn't a big deal, and turn it into one.
Microsoft should not be painted with such a black brush simply for trying to make it easier to be a user of their software.
Not the greatest article. (Score:2)
Does the author mean their best software? If he did, then that would be MS-DOS 5.0, circa 1990. I would truly take this statement to mean their best marketing work. Gates has admitted it before, that when the going gets tough, they throw some more money into marketing.
Why do we not encode the company/product name? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ugh. I'm sick of programs fighting each other for the user's attention. Who would buy a blender that detected other blenders in the house and tried to disable them? Should my Sony TV ask me every day if it should take over the remote control for my Magnavox? Why do we put up with this?
We should have a file typing system that incorporates the creating company/software package into it, like how UPC symbols list COMPANY/PRODUCT_NO so both Jiffy and Food Lion can both sell peanut butter and the register knows the difference. That way Joe Shmoe can double-click on his RealMP3 and it won't open in WMP.
Re:Why do we not encode the company/product name? (Score:2)
"We should have a file typing system that incorporates the creating company/software package into it, like how UPC symbols list COMPANY/PRODUCT_NO so both Jiffy and Food Lion can both sell peanut butter and the register knows the difference. That way Joe Shmoe can double-click on his RealMP3 and it won't open in WMP."
The problem with that is that you would have to have 20 different programs to play your MP3s. Many programs play MP3s; I wouldn't want to have to download RealPlayer just so I can play a "RealMP3" that someone had on their website.
Imagine telling someone on a 56K that they have to download 8 different JPEG viewers because Photoshop wrote proprietary information into one, and Photo Editor wrote proprietary information into another, etc.
We already have proprietary formats; it's not easy for a .doc file to be opened in anything but Word, so basically, the problem has been dealt with by specifying certain formats as "open" and certain formats as "proprietary."
Evil will always win because good is dumb... (Score:2)
Not to mention this guy sounds like a moron. I wouldn't expect add/remove programs to have the file extension list, nor would I expect to have the poperties for a particular file provide the option to change what file types get opened by what.
And as far as mac's having a more elegant solution, I don't buy that. Number one I'd rather be able to look at a file and be able to tell exactly what kind of file it is than to have it hidden withing the file. Number two, it's simple and easy to change the associated program to a file by changing the extension, is there a program to do that on the Mac? (I'm not bashing the Mac, just pointing out the flaws in this guys article).
It may be a conspiracy (Score:2, Interesting)
The larger problem is this: new application software for Windows is typically file-extension oriented, and it's Microsoft that defines the important extensions. For example, I was evaluating a Windows full-text desktop document indexer recently, written by a small Windows development house. It was fast (written in assembly), and it could even do PDF and ZIP files.
But then I discovered that the years of files I had saved under legacy systems, starting with DOS, were completely invisible to this package. They were ASCII files, and I used my own file-naming conventions for the extension, so they weren't easily convertible to *.txt files. I had just been punished by this application for not going along with the Redmond game plan.
And here's another nightmare:
Consider, if you will, what happens when you ask Explorer to save a web page to disk. It uses a huge filename, and saves the images in separate directories. There's basically no way to get the thing back from the disk without using Explorer. That's why I take the trouble to Lynx-strip everything I want to archive, and put it into ASCII with a short filename.
Have you ever considered what it would be like to convert to Linux if all the filenames on your Windows system were around 80 bytes or so? Both Windows and Linux will accept filenames up to 254 bytes, but no one except a masochist would ever use a command-line system on filenames that long.
It's a conspiracy, I tell you. You gotta use a mouse, you gotta be using it in Explorer, and you gotta be interested in approved Microsoft files only, or you can forget it.
How is this different from KDE? (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, if I want mpgs to be play by KDE's Media Player by default, I need to understand all of the various forms that mpgs can come in and the associated extensions... and to make it all the more worse, I need to know that the KDE's Media Player run command is noatun.
It seems that this is an issue that crosses all OS operating systems (yes... even Macs, anyone remember fighting over conflicts with Claris Works and early version of MS Word?) and one that is probably never going to be within the relm of the "average" user. The solution lies with the developer and whether they wish to play fair or not. An example of a company who still plays be the fules is Nullsoft and their mp3 player Winamp. After a succesull install it asks what kind of files you wish to play... in plain english.
That kind of behavor is a far cry from installing Word and having it automatically associate mp3s with Window's Media Player.
Blaming Microsoft for "users' ignorance"? (Score:3, Interesting)
The remedy Salon suggests? "It would probably take one of Microsoft's developers a short afternoon to build a simple, forthrightly labeled control panel that sits right on every user's desktop and asks, in plain English, 'Which program would you like to open Web pages? Or text files? Or MP3 audio files? Or photo files?'"
So these users, who the author seems to think are too stupid to know what right-clicking is, now have to know the difference between a text file (*.txt) and a Word file (*.doc) and which program goes with which extension (no, wait, which program they want to use to open which file types!)
Microsoft isn't even the real perpetrator of these things. It's companies like Real, which have programs like RealDownload (click here [tccug.org] and here [grc.com] for examples) that really go overboard with the registered file types thing. RealDownload attaches itself to your web browser in such a way that the only way to stop it from popping up every time you try to download a file is to uninstall it. It also comes preinstalled on a bunch of OEM computers, so people are afraid to uninstall it. That's just one example...
There are lots of horrible pieces of software in the Windows world: spyware like the stuff that comes with BearShare and Morpheus, the Real "suite" of products that tries to take over your computer; AOL, which tries to eat your TCP/IP stack for lunch and replace it with its own TCP/IP stack. Instead of focusing on how Microsoft is horrible because it HAS registered file types, let's focus on programs (Microsoft ones included) that abuse their privilege and try to force you to use them for everything under the sun.
Finally, please continue to educate our user base, instead of just assuming they are "ignorant" and unable to take control of "where they want to go today" (and what program they want to use to do that.)
How does the MacOS do it? Other OS's? (Score:2)
On the MacOS, although the implementation seems cleaner (metadata vs. file name extension) the same issues of applications fighting over file types can arise in OS X, since an application can "claim" file types. The older Mac OS's seem to have opened a file based on the software that created it, which has its own set of problems. (Just because I created a JPG in Photshop doesn't mean I want spend 90 seconds firing up Photoshop every time I want to see it)
Keep in mind I have almost no Mac experience, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just trying to check out the authors claim that the Mac offers a better way of filetype/application binding, and after looking into the way Macs do things, I'm pretty unconvinced. I think I actually prefer Windows' "Open With..." right-click option to create the associate itself, although I don't like the way applications can repeatedly reclaim file types without asking the user. So how do other OS's do it?
To all the "just right-click" people (Score:2)
You're forgetting one detail. "Open With..." appeared in Win2k. Everyone still using 9X/NT doesn't have that option, so they have to do it the hard way, as referenced in the article.
Re:To all the "just right-click" people (Score:2)
Re:To all the "just right-click" people (Score:2)
If anything, Microsoft's sin is making it too easy for programs to change important registry settings. It is so very very annoying when a program's installer maps every file-type under the sun to itself (I'm not talking about Microsoft apps here, more like RealPlayer, ICQ, etc), changes your homepage, and commits various other acts bordering on trojan-horse type activity.
Pluralism (Score:2)
Sometimes it's a cultural shortcoming, but too many people are stuck in the rut of thinking without Set Theory... only one answer per blank to be filled. *NIX variations are a terrific start for departing from this, but sometimes the programmer hasn't learned from history, or just doesn't have the time to do better then M$.
This fits politics, too... The unfair will never 'get' pluralism. Notice how Bin Laden pigeonholes all Americans as faceless criminals deserving of indiscriminant destruction. Meanwhile, NATO forces are trying to bomb the Regime while simultaneously giving humanitarian aid the Afgan people. America is all about a melting pot of cultures cohabiting the planet harmoniously... Not a Monopoly to say "there is but one God, and our one people has the monopoly on what He's about..."
Harmony is a good thing.
Interesting, but /.-worthy? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yes, changing the file type can be a bit daunting to the average user, but the average user is also the one who uses IE and WMP without bothering to look for alternatives. They don't care if a file opens with app A or app B, just as long as it opens. MS preys on that by providing a quick and easy way to open files. Those of us who do care know how to change the file extensions.
Can we, just for once, not go with every bit of anti-MS hysteria that comes down the pipe and focus instead on the real issues? The article started out good, then dropped into an almost laughable Lone Gunmen style conspiracy argument.
File Association Wars. (Score:2)
1) After finding the menu option to change the association, it's not always clear how to change it... for one thing there are Open, Print, PrintTo and New options attached to DOC files... and all these need to be changed. Then there is the DDE thing... what's that?
2) After actually changing the registry stuff, any upgrade of MS products will clobber your change, and the default if existing products find a change is to change it back (with a promp, sure). Although this is a good idea for inexperienced users who use a purely MS system, this can drive people like me insane...
I use Opera for browsing, IrfanView for Picture viewing, and Agent for email and news.
My programs are all at war!
:P
How I DO miss my Amiga... -sigh-
Better idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, perhaps one of these guidlines should be that the installer registers what file types it is capible of handling. This is different from registering it as the default viewer.
Then, all MS would have to do is create, say, a control panel applet for the file types. Shouldn't be too hard. It would present you with a file type (sorted into say, images, video, audio, documents, etc...) and what applications are able to handle that file type. Then you just select the program you want from the list that support it, instead of having to remember what program views what.
Go a bit firther and require installers to prompt before changing and you should be set.
This would be an improvment to the current setup, and I can't imagine that the talented Windows developers (they have to have some talent, the OS does run rather decently...) could do with the next service pack.
Mindless Anti-Microsoft Droning (Score:2)
Or sounds settings.
Or mouse settings.
Or opening a program.
Stupid.
This article is misinformed and dangerous. (Score:5, Interesting)
Below is the text of my letter:
---
I think Scott Rosenberg is way off the mark in his article regarding 'registered file types' for Microsoft Windows. In reality, it is not as hard to change these file mappings as he portrays.
To begin with, the user would very rarely want to change one of these file type mappings; it is the sort of action you tend to perform once and then leave alone. As it is such a rare event, it makes sense for it to be somewhere deeper within the UI than an action that you would want to perform very often. There's only so much space within the UI for quickly accessible items, and they should always be items that are used regularly by a majority of users.
Further, it is a lot easier to change these file-types than he portrays even if you want to change them. Since Windows 98, at least (I don't remember far enough back to know if Win95 supported this), you can right-click a particular file, choose "Open With.../Choose Program" and an easy-to-use dialog pops up which allows you to pick which program to use to open that file-type and even change the file mapping for that file type by choosing 'Always use this program to open these files'. Making this change is not exactly rocket science.
And lastly, while it is true that the process above may not be completely intuitive for new computer users, virtually every application released in the past five years will check the Windows registry to determine file mappings when it is launched and offer the user the option to change these mappings so that the program just launched will become the default for the file-types it supports. When this occurs, it is generally via a simple dialog box popped up when the application is launched, it is hard to argue that this interface is too difficult for users. One of Scott's own examples, RealPlayer, is adamant about informing users of file-type mappings at startup, and offering the choice to remap files to RealPlayer (using a simple Yes/No dialog), ditto for Netscape (and IE), and countless other applications.
I believe Microsoft has many questionable business practices, but file-type mapping is not one of them, and highlighting such a non-issue just detracts from the real problems via crying-wolf-syndrome.
RTFM (Score:2, Informative)
Seems simple to me... What does this guy want, dialog boxes everytime you open a file?
"You are opening this file with Windows Media Player, do you want to use another program instead?" ['click' NO]
"Are You sure? You may actually like Real Player better, or maybe WinAMP." ['click' YES]
"OK, Your default player has not been changed, but we will check back with you to see if you've changed your mind next time you open a file."
Besides, if a user likes Real Player (example he used), when he opens the program it will notify him that it is not set up to be associated with certain file types, and ask to correct this. This is in no way anything that contributes to MS maintaining a monopoly. This guy is probably just hacked off because it took him 1/2 an hour to figure out because he couldn't use help. Musta been a slow day over at Salon...
Konqueror got it right (Score:2, Informative)
Still, extensions are a fundamentally broken and archaic way of handling associations. Bring resource forks to Linux!
its not abuse (Score:2)
I have to disagree with him that it is an abuse. The main
arena where this could be theoretically leveraged over the user is in
media - especially video and audio file types. However, the main
alternatives, RealPlayer and QuickTime for video, and Winamp and Sonique for
audio, all make it very *easy* to change the default registered file types.
For example, if you take a Windows installation and then install QuickTime
on it, QuickTime will assume control of the
during installation. If you decide later you want to change it, then you can
do so easily from within QuickTime's controls.
And this is how philosophically the Operating System should operate. The
default settings should be for native apps that are bundled, because that
way you can be fully functional immediately. However, then if you prefer a
separate program, you simply install it and let that program assume control
(which all media apps do, especially Real, which is actually sometimes TOO
aggressive).
For non-media applications, like word processing, who really wants to open
an Excel document in Lotus? The truth is that there are so many programs,
all of which try to define their own new extension, that it's basically a
zoo. The less we users have to deal with it the better, honestly - and I say
that as a power user, not a newbie
The more insidious problems (Score:4, Interesting)
The real problem is, not all interesting associations can be set via Windows Explorer. Programs can tell Windows, "I want to open up a Web page" or "I want to start sending an e-mail message"; what programs do they use?
Setting "the default browser" is more than just setting the
How do you change the default mail program? I honestly have no idea. Heaven help someone with both Outlook and Eudora installed, who would prefer to use the latter.
Various movie formats can be handled by Windows Media Player, and RealPlayer, and QuickTime. Assuming Microsoft hasn't banned the latter two, how can you tell your browser which one you want?
Any solution would need to be at least partially technical. It's not clear how much of a legal solution is necessary; I'd like to hear arguments on both sides.
I agree with Rosenberg in one way: Windows users would be better off if they could make such choices more easily.
Windows Documentation (Score:2)
The better solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Smarter users would be even better, but we know that's not going to happen any time soon, don't we? :)
Why does everyone think MS won't be broken (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I am pretty confident that breakup will probably be the only acceptable solution. We already know that restrictions on behavior aren't enough to tame this beast. With all that in mind discussions about file extension management in the name of antitrust are kind of pointless don't you think?
How I fixed it (Score:3, Informative)
Now everything opens in Emacs, or if it doesn't, I have an "Open in Emacs" option on the right-click context menu in Explorer
Drag 'n' Drop? (Score:5, Interesting)
On both my Macs and my Windows computers, I use DnD to override default file associations. Drag the
Lately, I've been using DnD to extract strings from all of the Sircam-infected Word documents that show up in my mail by dragging the attachment link embedded in the mail message on to the TextEdit icon in the OS X Dock (not that SecretPlans.doc.pif would execute anyway if I clicked on it).
Why bother with the overhead of having a GUI if you're not going to use all the features?
k.
Put it in the setup of the new app... (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Also, put this code in the program itself, accessable from the menu.
3) Put an article in the help file about how to do it manually. There are ways to easily re-register an application. The article makes it sound so difficult (it's not).
How do you change the application on the Mac? Why not provide a GPL'ed program to do this task for grandma, and publicize the hell out of it?
This sounds like nitpicking to me.
My letter to the author of this article: (Score:4, Interesting)
That's certainly true, but at the risk of sounding like an elitist, why should we (the computer-literate people) care? It is really not that hard to learn about the "hidden" features in windows, through one's own experience or research on the Internet, or even in the Dummies books. I agree that the concept of hidden features is anti-competitive, but why should we lose any sleep over people who are, for whatever reason, unable to learn enough to make windows do what they wish? Isn't it best for them that they aren't faced with choices that could tax their limited understanding of technology beyond the breaking point? You and I, sir, and the legions of other competant users, will use whatever software and operating systems we like, no matter what Microsoft does. It just seems to me that people who are being hurt the most by "hidden" features are those who shouldn't really be playing with them anyway, because they have no idea what they are doing.
I know that sounds - well, assinine, to put it mildly - but I'd like to cite an example from my work. I am a part-time computer tech at my high school, and one of my duties (and hobbies, when I am not on the clock) is to assist teachers when they have technical problems. About half the calls I get that don't boil down to "You didn't plug in the power cord" are related to incidents where teachers install some new word processor/media player/whatever that a friend (or email spam that sounded "friendly") recommended. All of a sudden, "My Microsoft looks different!" they cry, and they are hopelessly confused.
Most users really do benefit from using an OS that limits what they can do, because most users lack the initiative to learn how to use a less constricting system. Being held by the hand allows computer illiterates to do, for the most part, what they want to do (word processing/games/web browsing). For those who are capable of a greater degree of computer literacy, the modern versions of windows are simply not appropriate - they are not targeted at us. For computer-literate users to complain Windows over-limits the user is like a racing bycyclist to complain that training wheels greatly limit his/her speed - it's true, but what the heck is he doing with training wheels?
BeOS and Linux are both more powerful, inexpensive operating systems without the penchant Windows has for assisting Microsoft megalomania. I would assert that a user who feels constrained by windows should simply switch - and if he/she has documents or other files Linux or Beos can't run, to complain is inappropriate - find or start a project that is working on what you need, and help it however you can. Don't just sit there.
Really simple/easy/obvious 17+ year old solution (Score:3, Insightful)
So Somebody Should Write This Program (Score:3, Interesting)
what gets opened with what by default. A program that will let you
map a file type to whatever application you wish.
So someone should write this program. Make it freely downloadable.
License it freely to third party software developers who realize this
is one of the best things they can include with their program to insure they aren't steamrollered by Windows. Heck, write your own version of Code Red that installs this program on every machine it encounters. Or release a report that tells IT departments how much they can save in terms of time or TCO if they'll just deploy this in their organization (see, there's default installs, and there's default installs).
Sometimes I've wondered if it would be possible to seriously combat how microsoft does their dirty work by setting up a website to the effect of "http://www.betterthandefaultinstall.com". Tips, tools, and free software for the user who wants to get the most out of their computer! This app could go on it....
Re:Salon is now a pay site... (Score:2)
Re:Salon is now a pay site... (Score:2)
It's not like that news isn't covereage elsewhere, but many people (not myself, however) do value Salon's coverage over, say, CNN's.
Re:Salon is now a pay site... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2001/10/08/file _monopoly/print.html [salon.com]
should do the trick
Re:*NIX needs .vbs (Score:2)
Hey, that's a thought... With all those perl loveletters around, how hard would it be to make one of them destructive?
Re:*NIX needs .vbs (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, you ask? Because the Outlook viruses rely on it's behavior of launching, without any additional confirmation, any executable attachment. This is compounded by the problem that Office documents can be "executable" in that they contain hostile macros and viruses. Since Outlook comes with the whole Office suite, a virus writer knows that there will be a standard address book in a known location, among other things.
Linux, on the other hand, doesn't have a single standard for email or office productivity. An email virus targeted for a Netscape vulnerability wouldn't affect people who use kmail or StarOffice as their mail reader. There's no universal address book to exploit, and there isn't the tight integration between the mail program and other applications.
Re:CLI (Score:4, Funny)
Really? You don't put ".c" at the end of C source files? Hmmm. I used those kind of extensions under UNIX ten years ago.
Nitpick point. (Score:5, Informative)
An analogy:
/*Unix*/
char fname[PATH_MAX]; strcpy( fname, "foo.c" );
char fname[9]; strcpy( fname, "foo" );
char exten[4]; strcpy( exten, ".c" );
Re:Yea, it's really hard... (Score:2, Funny)
Right, now I'm going to call your mom and ask her to make winamp the default mp3 player instead of realaudio. I think she'll have to use a life-line, so get ready for that call
Re:Question about "Open With" (Score:2)
I have never had it not appear if I highlight the file first, and then Shift-Right-Click.
A better solution would be to associate *multiple* applications to a given extension, and then have it list that set upon Open With (with the option of adding to the set from the entire pool of applications.)
This is incredibly easy to accomplish with a few simple registry edits. Just clone the existing Open/Open With entries and point them to the apps you want to use.
Re:Question about "Open With" (Score:3, Informative)
A better solution would be to associate *multiple* applications to a given extension, and then have it list that set upon Open With (with the option of adding to the set from the entire pool of applications.)
I don't know about WinME (but I assume it's true there as well), this is a feature of Win2K. First, there's an "Open With" option on the context menu *without having to click shift*. Second, the option is actually a secondary menu that lists *all* of the programs that were *ever* used to open files of that type with the "Open With" option.
I use this feature frequently. I have my MP3 playlist loaded in Winamp, and if I want to check out a song I just downloaded, I right click->Open With->Media Player, so my playlist remains intact. Or I can choose whether I want to open JPEGs in PaintShop, ACDSee, IE, or whatever.
This takes exactly the same number of mouse clicks and marginally more time than double-clicking.
Re:Question about "Open With" (Score:2)
A better solution would be to associate *multiple* applications to a given extension, and then have it list that set upon Open With (with the option of adding to the set from the entire pool of applications.)
I have multiple Windows boxes around me and Win ME does have that kind of functionality. Right-clicking (no shift) always produces an expandable "Open With ->" menu option. This option gives a list of all applications that have ever been used to open a file of this type, plus there is a selection at the bottom to get the list of all installed applications.
It's very useful. I've lost track of how often I've used it choose between Notepad, WYSIWYG editors, and Word for doing various HTML development.
I don't remember if Win2K has the same functionality, and I've yet to use XP so I don't know if it's included in the next generation, but I'd say ME does a pretty good job in this respect. (Now if only it could manage system resources worth a damn.)
Re:Question about Macintosh (Score:2)
It depends.
If you have MacLinkPlus installed, double-clicking on a document whose creator app you don't have, will bring up a dialog listing the other apps you do have that can open it.
Otherwise, the Mac will probably just give you a dialog telling you "The file cannot be opened because its creator app can't be found."
If you have a general idea of what kind of file you're dealing with, try dragging it onto the icon of an application... if the application's icon turns dark, that usually means that it can read that type of file. Dropping the file icon onto the application icon will cause that application to launch, and then try to open that file. You could then do a Save As... and save the file in the format of your chosen app.
Lastly, you can do batch conversions of filetypes and creator codes with a utility called FileTyper [caltech.edu]. For on-the-fly editing of type and creator codes from the file's Get Info window, you can use Snitch [niftyneato.com].
~Philly
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2)
I agree! Just yesterday, I went to install the 46,657th app on my system, and guess what! A problem with file extension mappings. Damn Microsoft. Any company that only lets you install 46,656 applications is EVIL!
Re:Errr... (Score:4, Informative)
My mom is a competent user. But never in a lifetime would she know how to reassociate a file type. She has a crutch in that she can call me and I can either talk her through her problems or go visit her.
I'm continually stunned by the "expected level" of expertise the industry assumes (or fails to live up to). Case in point: the millions of new DSL users with cheap PC's and 24/7 access. My best friend has had me over twice now to fix his machine from malicious ad/spyware stuffed in his registry.
Just how are people supposed to know this stuff? Where are they supposed to learn it?
I'm no friend of the Empire, but they do have a track record of obfuscation. Even if the answer (in 95/98) is a simple right-click, that's a skill that I bet a high percentage of users don't have or understand: "Right-click on this icon, please" [left-click] "OK, I clicked right on top of it. Now what?"
Microsoft has slowly been coming around to the idea of security throughout key configs. Why not take the "A script is accessing..." IE pop-ups and extend them to anything that touches non-app keys in the reg? And, as previously suggested, an audit app that can clearly show you what's associated where, what runs on startup for whom, and validates key DLL versions?
GTRacer
- When Konqueror is as good as IE 5.5...