Slashdot Mirror
File Extensions And Monopolies
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.
Remember when Netscape and IE fought for .html and URL rights EVERY time you opened them?
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).
Much more annoying is having every new application try and make itself the default for a million other filetypes.
This is just plain ridiculous... I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but saying their anti-competitive because people would have to spend about 5 min learning how to change a setting, but because they're too stupid or lazy to do so microsoft should be forced to hold their hand while they do it?
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.
Ben
from the salon article:
.3 extensions sucks, and I agree that microsoft's interface for changing it sucks.
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).
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
- 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.The arguement is really not an issue for most people. The people who know they can change a file extension asociation, will. The people who want a different program to open it, will learn. Last, the people who don't know, don't care.
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.
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
It's not really that big of a deal. If you want to use a different program, all you have to do is start that program, and open the file that you want to use. All Microsoft is doing here is making things easier for the end user. If you want to stop using Word to open .doc files, remove it, and install Corel Office.
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.
No this is not silly. Last night I had to spend 10 min explaining to an intelligent lawyer friend why suddenly sh could no longer paly CD using WinAmp. The Realplayer had registered it self for that as she hed used it to watch a Realplayer News clip on CNN. Maybe the program warns you but few reads it as they are requesting the clip. One solution would be if you could block all file registration during install and then activate inside the application you are using.
Help fight continental drift.
My experience with file extensions and registered file types with Windows have never been good... but for that mater, I really haven't had greate experiences with KDE either. Their registered file system is built into the Control Center and require you to fully understand nameing conventions and extensions, as well as the names of programs.
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.
Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
Has he ever tried to change the file association on a Macintosh file? He mentions how "easy and convenient" it is on a Mac...
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.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
While I agree with most of your arguement, the vast majority of irritating software is designed for Windows because that's what 90% of their target audience is running. I like and use Linux, too, but frankly it's not as popular and widespread as Windows.
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.
tough shit for joe 'stupid' user, who will never be know enough to probably even CARE wether or not he uses X or Y to open a file as long as it WORKS. If somebody wants something bad enough, they will learn how to get it, or not (see darwin).
"I am a warrior, and information is my weapon..."
Shift right click, or right click in 2k its quite simple. The standard complaint that users don't know what they're doing thus MS is even more evil because it doesn't pay for a class or whatever is groundless. When someone needs to change the file extension they call their PC-smart buddies or asking on a web board or newsgroup.
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!"
So, only actual MS customers can criticise MS. In that case you are applying a filter that says only those who are satisfied with MS (satisfied enough to keep purchasing their OS'es) are allowed to comment.
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.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
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
Uhh. So because *REALPLAYER* gave you fits, this is an example of *MICROSOFT* pushing their monopoly? *MRRRRRRNNNNNNN* please try again. I don't think Microsoft would make it hard to switch BACK to their products in order to RETAIN their monopoly.
Smarter users would be even better, but we know that's not going to happen any time soon, don't we? :)
a right-click should not be considered the primary way to get at a function
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.
Ironic, isn't it? MS is evil 'cause the answer to anything is "reboot the machine". Macs are cool, 'cause rebuilding the desktop is just such a pretty process.
I don't see the problem at all. Here are screenshots of what happens when I right-click a file without any kind of shift-holding-down or other party tricks.
This is NT 5.0, I'd assume it works the same in NT 5.1:
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Dead simple. And it really, really works. I can only assume this shift-right clicking business is something happening in Windows 9x, which is, by all means, obsolete.
I can't honestly believe that microsoft 'hid' the file types dialog box for some evil purpose. they're quite frankly: pretty bad at intuitive interfaces. i mean, c'mon. if they could make a good interface, they would. it sells better. it'd be an improvement, and they can sell improvements.
/. heading that there'd be a rational article behind that link that looked into the ways that companies try to thrust their proprietary file -formats- onto the world, and squeeze developers later on. (a la Compuserve/Gif, and the concepts behind RAND)
and most media programs now (real and winamp included) have code to check the program associated with the media they deal with, and incessently remind you that they can usurp control of those files if you just click 'ok'.
i can't honestly believe that microsoft is going to forge a monopoly through file association. hell, i thought reading the
it's easy to hate the winner, to call them a cheater. much easier than admitting that they're better; that they did the work and deserve it.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Most users I've been around wouldn't know where to find a file to click. They click "Start", "Programs", whatever their favorite program is, and start typing in the blank screen.
A few have figured out how to use "File", "Open" to get an existing file. But they still don't even know that the Windows Explorer exists, or that the My Computer icon is useful for anything.
This isn't an issue for the huge majority of people who are buying computers and software.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
When I bitch about MS's monopoly, my dad always has the same answer: "But I don't want competition. I like that I can just use Microsoft for everything. I don't want to have to think about which word processor, or what operating system I'm using. That's too complicated. I just want it to work."
This is why MS is on top, and will stay there for some time to come. They understand that their users are deeply uncomfortable working with computers to begin with, and even something as simple as installing a new Web browser is often too much for them. Users will take the path of least resistance, and will chose the Hell they know over the Hell they don't every time.
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.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I'm not a smorgasbord.
Right Click -> Open With -> Choose Program
Select your program and check "Always use the selected program..."
How much easier can it get?
This is the dumbest article I've read. I'm not suprised Taco posted it.
...when it's broken. At least on the Windows machine I can (fairly) easily reset *one* file type (shift-right-click). If the Mac ever gets a file type wrong, or I download a file that has a messed up creator tag, I have to go through hell to get it to work again. Open ResEdit (download it if I don't have it), look up the correct creator codes from an existing file, apply these codes and save the file. Now I can open the file. Sheesh. All I want is a simple way to choose which application should open a file. Is that too much to ask? :)
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!