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.
Scott Rosenberg, the author of the Salon piece, says Windows "makes you go on a mad hunt through menus and folders and options to find the dialogue box that lets you [change the app that opens a given file type]". Well, yes, it does, unless you shift-rightclick a file and use the "Open With..." option.
:-).
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?"
>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.
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.
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.
http://kered.org
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 and here 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.)
The article does have some good points, IMO. But why not take it a step further. MS has the Windows Stamp of approval that goes to software as long as the software follows certin guidlines. By following these guidlines, developers know that their software will run on the Windows platform and the users know before buying the product. (This is very important with Win NT and 2000 actually.)
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.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
I just mailed a letter to the editor of Salon about this article before it popped up on Slashdot. I believe it is dangerous because this whole thing is really a non-issue. File-type mapping is a convience, not a curse, and the article is very misleading about how hard it is to change these mappings...
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.
Rosenberg claims it's hard to change registered file types, then explains how to do it in twenty one words. Like many of you, I'm not all that impressed. (Some Windows programs, such as the wonderful IrfanView, offer to grab or give up the registered file type for various types, at installation or whenever.)
.HTM association! If you've told all your browsers to fight over the default like a pack of starving pit bulls, they'll offer to change it back and forth all too often. Otherwise, you can edit a dozen or so obscure registry entries. There's a commercial (but cheap) utility, BrowserSwitch, that doesn't do anything but this.
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.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Doesn't anyone drag and drop anymore? Wasn't DnD the big advantage to using a GUI?
.html file on to the text editor icon: it's open for editing. Double-click and it's opened by the default browser. Want to see it in an alternate browser? Drag it over to that icon. Drag it over to the printer icon for a hard copy.
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.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
1) When a new app is installed, just put a dialog box that allows the user to associate the extensions with the new program.
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.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
"Registered file types" are there because Windows was designed for non-techie users. It's not part of The Grand Conspiracy, since file typing is still done in Windows XP the same way it was done in Windows 95, and the way to change registered file types is still the same too. I'f they'd made it harder, I coyuld go for the argument. But they didn't--they kept it the same.
;-)
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...
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
If I may ask: In a postscript to your article "The Devil is in Windows' Details", you point out that it is irrelevant that the program used to open a given format can be changed by right-clicking on a file of that type, because there are many users who don't even know what right-clicking is.
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.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Our friend keeps saying there needs to be a way to let YOU decide
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....
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.