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.
In Windows 3.1 and presumeably 3.11(Workgroups), it was very easy to change the extentions. You could right click on ANY file and I think there was an option for "Open With..." and you could set it to always do that.
Then with Windows 95, you started to have to struggle.
Salon is not a pay site. Try it again. Works fine.
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!
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.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
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).
This "attempt" at a monopoly through file extensions is something that would only be successful for those who know nothing about the OS at all. Using Win2k as we speak, right clicking on any file and going to "Open with" seems easy enough. Better yet, it has a check box of "use this program to open up the file as default". Very easy. Of course, if no one bothers to look for it, I'm sure it can be considered hard.
I agree that Microsoft does things specifically to retain a monopoly, but does everything it do have that purpose?
I doubt it.
Every program messes with file associations:
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.
A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
Much more annoying is having every new application try and make itself the default for a million other filetypes.
Nah, that's what .pl is for. None of this huge vbs nonsense, *NIX vir(whatever) can be about sixty bytes big and actually *look* like an ASCII art picture of Anna Kournikova.
:)
Hey, that's a thought... With all those perl loveletters around, how hard would it be to make one of them destructive?
We don't need no stinkin' file extensions!
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.
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
People will start to realize this; Even your grandmother.
Got Rhinos?
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
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.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
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?"
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2001/10/08/file _monopoly/print.html
should do the trick
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
This is an annoyance, but I don't think it's such a dark conspiracy. Like others have pointed out, many programs play the "fight for the extension" game, especially for multimedia, and usually the last one in wins.
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.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
- 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.There are times when you need to know kind of file extension it is. ExtSearch is useful. It helps you to determine the file format. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I thought about this some (before this article), and came to the realization that any program I create should steal as many extentions as possible under Windows. Why? Because once you steal the extension, the mindshare is shifted to your program instead of Microsoft's.
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."
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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
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
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.
"Microsoft has always done its best work when faced with real competition"
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.
I don't always see the Open With option.
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.
What happens if I don't have the application that created the file?
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. For on-the-fly editing of type and creator codes from the file's Get Info window, you can use Snitch.
~Philly
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
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).
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
The problem is not merely that file extensions launch programs, and the association between extension and application is difficult to change.
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.
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?!
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.)
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.
The review seems to hold the MacOS up as a shining example of how file-typing should be handled. I haven't really used the MacOS, but if you read this great article at ArsTechnica you'll see how the MacOS uses metadata associated with a file to determine the type of file it is, and therefore the program that should be used to open it.
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?
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
To everyone saying "just right click and hit 'open with...'".
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.
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.
Ok, the author did point out that other applications set their own extensions, but is this really some sign of MS conspiracy or just another example of anti-MS hysteria? There are plenty other ways MS controls mindshare in their software, most notably bundling their own version of an application.
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.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
Linking the file extension to the program that uses the file is simply stupid unless you want to limit yourself to 46656 total apps
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!
Although I also think (like so many other posts here) that the article goes overboard, and that, yes, it's easy for a user to get at the menus that change the association, there are some issues.
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-
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...
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
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 don't always see the Open With option. But even when it works, it lists *all* applications, not just those relavant to the file extension or type.
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.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
This article is just stupid. As the guy already addended, it's an extra key to hold down to "Open With..." and calling the File Types tab "hidden" because it's three clicks down is absurd. It takes a few clicks to get to the network settings, but I don't see anyone whining about MS having a monopoly on that.
Or sounds settings.
Or mouse settings.
Or opening a program.
Stupid.
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.
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...
I don't always see the Open With option. But even when it works, it lists *all* applications, not just those relavant to the file extension or type.
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.)
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!"
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Konq is the *only* file manager I've ever used that made changing file associations easy - just right-click on any file and hit "Edit File Associations" (or something like that). Konq then takes you straight to the File Associations editor, with the filetype of the file you clicked already selected and ready to edit. And if you want to change a different file type, you can do searches with globbing to find the FileType(s) corresponding to any given extension.
Still, extensions are a fundamentally broken and archaic way of handling associations. Bring resource forks to Linux!
--
CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum
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
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
An analogy:
/*Unix*/
char fname[PATH_MAX]; strcpy( fname, "foo.c" );
char fname[9]; strcpy( fname, "foo" );
char exten[4]; strcpy( exten, ".c" );
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
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
What a bunch of losers, everyone should know about shift-right-click, it's plainly described in the Windows User's Manual. Oh wait, there is no user's manual. Microsoft, being so enviromentally sensitive, doesn't want to burden the end user with useless frills like documentation.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Read the article through to the end of it. He *does* know about the right-click method.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Smarter users would be even better, but we know that's not going to happen any time soon, don't we? :)
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why does everyone out there seem to think that because the justice department was ordered to stop pursuing a break up, it won't happen? Its not the prosecutions position to decide the sentence. If judge Kollar-Kotelly decides that breakup is the only effective solution, it will be the decision made even if the justice dept. doesn't ask for it.
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?
Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
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
First of all, I don't know what the deal is with "shift-right click". Maybe I'm missing something simple here, but all I need to do is right click. If I shift-right click, I get the wrong menu (I get a menu that refers to the space around the file (desktop, file manager view, etc.), not the file itself). If I right click, I only get the "Open With..." option if the file extension doesn't already have an association. Once the file has an association, the "Open With..." option is replaced with an "Open" option, thus removing your ability to change the association via this menu.
Also, under the File Associations tab under windows explorer, not ALL file extensions are represented. Example:
Someone asks me to look at a script created by program FooScripter. The the file he sends me is called script.t (notice the ".t" extension). I do not have FooScripter installed on my machine, so I right-click on the file and choose "Open With...". I choose notepad, but I forget to uncheck the "Always use this program" box (which I think should be unchecked by default, but maybe that's just me). So now I have this file association that I didn't mean to make. According to windows, it is now a "T_file". It is, however, for a reason I can't figure out, not an association that has representation in the "File Associations" tab in windows explorer. This is the first place I looked to get rid of it. To make a long story less long, the only way to fix this was to change it by hand in the registry. (Lesson in mind numbing tediousness, try searching your registry for the correct instances of "t".)
Anyway, based on this experience, I think the Salon article makes a good point. Changing file extensions is not always as easy as some of you are trying to imply.
if MS is at fault (or even attempting further monopolizing the market) we (the linux folks) are in deep shit indeed. we don't even let people switch printer with the lpr command if the user don't know how to -P. cvs seemes to be illegally tied to vi (unless you change the $EDITOR or something silimar) and the list goes on and on... get a grip. if you don't know enough to change a setting you don't deserve to change it. ie. you're better off being spoonfed. at least MS let's you be spoonfed. as long as MS let's apps like real-player change the file associations when they are installed i don't smell a foul play. if MS hadn't allowed any application to change the associations, then scott's arguement would hold water. this 2 page article in one sentence is "MS is furthering it's monopoly and killing is't competition in the process by providing a *default* setting that points back to it's own application." that sound foolish if said in those words, doesn't it? the interface is there to change it. he argues that it's 'hidden' deep down. but then, even if MS were to comply, couldn't we argue about every registry entry the same way? what then? bring up 10000+ item menu on a right click to access every entry in the registry? if you can't make heads or tails of what's inside the hood of a car, much less change the engine, are you going to call a car a 'bundled' product? after all, you can't simply switch the default engine that comes with it without going thru major pains.
Just wanted to point it out. There are plenty of people at my job that do not set Windows to show file extensions. This is one reason why some viruses/worms can spread so quickly. "Oh, here's a cute icon, I think I'll double-click it, it's called 'readme,' after all..." By having this the default, it saves some users from having to know certain things, but it probably causes more harm, ultimately, than good.
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
On Mac OS 7.6/8.x/9.x there is a Control Panel called File Exchange that has an index of every common file extension and lets you pick the application for it. Under the Internet Control Panel there is a similar feature for picking "helper applications" for Internet related file types and applications.
Or if you like, you can drag the file to the alias or the icon of the application you wish to open the files in. This works for the Desktop, Finder windows, the Dock (OS X) and the Application Switcher (OS 9.x).
Most users are tech illiterate.
Think about this for a second, because it's really quite scary. Back in the day computers were the domain of technically skilled people, who understood how to pull out instructions when they couldn't figure something out. People who weren't scared that every mistake was going to be fatal. And most importantly, people who believed in learning how to use their expensive technical resources.
The only way to justify Salon.com's arguments is to recognize that everything that enters mainstream use is suddenly suppose to be idiot proof. The US has warning labels that coffee is hot for God sakes. For some reason many people think that everything they do in life should be fundementally intuitive. Making tools which are both intuitive and versatile is hard in any environment.
Perhaps what we really need is Windows Idiot Edition, with no powerful options and no allowance for 3rd party software. Just give them a word processor, browser, and instant messaging, and not worry about anything else. Make it as intuitive as possible and have instructions in baby language for anything that you can do with such a system. MS would love this strategy if they really could get away with having total control over software. But of course it would never work because the same idiots who don't want to actually learn about their computer, are also the idiots who will buy anything simply because you tell them its more powerful and versatile.
are the worst designed user interfaces I have ever used. Cram an 800 character include path into a small 40 character NON-RESIZEABLE text box and try to find a typo in it sometime! Hey Microsoft - ever hear about RESIZEABLE dialog boxes? God - Motif, Qt, GTK all have them. Setting TCP settings on all the different flavours of Windows is another nightmare. To my delight yesterday after 3 hours of trying I learned on Windows 98 there were TCP properties on the dialup dialog as well as more properties on the dialup dialog icon (but not if it is a shortcut placed on your desktop). If you specify the DNS settings on the system TCP stack - they are completely ignored by the dialup icon which has its own TCP settings. This user interface of Windows should win awards for being cryptic. Man - screw all these dialogs and put it all in XML flat files so they don't change from one Windows version to the next!
You can always edit the project file. It's text, you know.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
with it says
"It's not in the "add/remove programs" control panel, where you'd expect it. It's not under "properties" when you right-click on a file. It's not in any obvious or easily accessible location."
It IS under the right click on a file in Win2k if you right click on any file and go to properties you will see a "Change" button where you can easily change the file type. I do admit however that it was very difficult to do in Win9x
but then, hey, I wouldn't feel right running that monopolyware on my machine so it's kind of a non issue. BUT...try setting your default web browser using the open with dialog, can't be done to my knowlege. seems odd to exclude the options for setting a default web browser from this list doesn't it?
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
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
It appears with registered file types as well... look again.
That can be a nuisance (of course, you can still open the Photoshop file in JPEGView or drag it into an IE window, or you can change the creator code for the file). But it can be extremely useful to have different files of the same type associated with different applications: a tab-delimited data file opens in Excel, a large ASCII text document opens in Word instead of giving a SimpleText error, the README file for something I'm coding opens with the CodeWarrior editor I'll likely already have open, even though they're all .txt files .
That is because Linux still uses the same primitive mechanism of using filename extensions to indicate both concepts of
A few months ago there was an article and big discussion about metadata. Given the way slashdot readers reacted to that, I predict that Linux will fall into exactly the same set of traps.
[Those who won't learn from history are doomed to re-implement it.]
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
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.
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.
Uh, every software company ever has been doing that. Microsoft didn't invent (innovate?) jumping on the bandwagon. Way back when Adventure became Thief which became Nethack. VisiCalc was great and popular but because its stakeholders didn't smell the fire burning under the IBM PC and Intel processors Mitch Kapor came along with Lotus and blamo it because de facto numero uno. Shit man by the same token you can bash nearly every Linux app meant to replace a Windows app. KOffice is a complete ripoff of Office97 concepts! The only reason your argument makes sense to you is it is easy to notice when Microsoft jumps on a paradigm yet this goes on all the time in all aspects of the computer industry.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I'm not an HTML guy. All my code is back end server stuff. I finally managed to get out of the Windows world completely, I'm not about to go get an MCSE now just because Windows is now an option 3 levels of code away from what I'm doing. I'm passing familiar with Windows but I'm not an expert and I have no intention of becoming an expert because if I do someone might ask me to actually do something with it. Ugh.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If I install a program that takes another program's extensions, then uninstall it, I'm left with bad file type associations. Window's needs to be smarter about this and roll those associations back. It already uses so many resources that this would be a trivial addition.
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
Really, now.
I sympathize with people who think a command line is too hard (although I suspect it won't be for their kids), but RIGHT-CLICKING!?! The second most important button on their thousand dollar device, and you are annoyed that this proposed solution requires people to give up their ignorance of it's existance! How ridiculous is that?
The article says this about filetype associations...
This quote describes almost every operation of every kind in Windows. The only reason anyone calls it user-friendly is because of their perception of the crushing effects of group psychology steered by a monopoly. It's like living in a technological ghetto -- some people whose course is altered under this influence are weak minded, but many of them have no reasonable alternative without radically and permanently altering their lifestyles with no help or prior evidence for success. Like nationalistic propaganda, it's heavily reinforced at just about every level of society. Having a monopoly that pervasively influences every aspect of society is like having narcotics in the water supply.
That is a really great analogy... Imagine if all your kitchen equipment would randomly move around or change into a different model (or device) when you bought something new. That's something laypeople are very familiar with, and can grasp much more easily than file extensions when you try to explain it.
This "problem" also exists in GNOME and KDE. Trouble is, it's not a "problem", it's a feature.
Back in the days of application-centric environments, such as DOS and pre-desktop Unix, you first opened the application then used it to open the document. But today's computing world is document-centric. You open a document and the appropriate application comes up with it. This is a Good Thing(tm).
If it's Evil for Windows to do this type of stuff, then it's equally Evil for KDE to default to KView instead of GIMP when you open up a jpg or png. But of course it's NOT evil for this sort of behavior. We know that we can choose "Open With..." or change the default behavior. The situation is exactly the same for Windows users. If there is a problem, it is that Windows users tend to never bother trying to find out how to change things.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Not sure when this got implemented, but I hadn't noticed it before. We just upgraded to Win2K at work a few weeks ago. This may be because it only seems to work for certain types of files, and it doesn't work for text files on my system. I've been used to changing my file associations manually when necessary.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Again... my bad. I just started using Win2k a couple weeks ago when we upgraded at work. I hadn't noticed this until now. For some reason it doesn't seem to work for certain file types. Some give me the "Open with" menu, and some just give me the "Open with" option that brings up the file association dialog. Text files don't give me the menu. MP3 files do. Not sure what criteria their basing this decision on.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Heh.. ok.. i'm apologizing left and right here. I've only been using Win2K for a couple weeks now and I hadn't noticed this until now. But it doesn't seem to work for all file types. MP3s give me a menu and that "Choose Program" option. Text files don't. I don't know what criteria they base the decision on.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think MS has poorly used the file extension concept. The onus of figuring out what to do with a particular file lies entirely on the OS so it'd be a good idea to give it some context. Windows with its DOS roots doesn't bother much with context. You get three letters to give context to the rest of your system. You run into alot of problems in cases like versioning. Word95 documents have the same extension as WordXP documents do. Then as it happens the two formats may not be compatible dispite the OS saying a .doc file needs to be read by WordXP (assuming that is what you've got). This works in this direction because of backwards compatibility. The concept doesn't do so well when you're on an old system with out dated sofware that can't read new .docs dispite the OS not seeing a difference and therefore assuming it is doing the right thing.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
and that's probably why Gates is richer than Taco ;-)
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Prolog can't do everything that VBS can, what are you talking about?
.. they just go and fix it.
I don't see anybody complaining that running their Prolog files in Linux invokes Perl
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?"
Windowsupdate is one example of a site that must be viewed in IE to work -- MS has added more such pages to the OS as time as gone on. They make a link to windowsupdate in the start menu. But, in an act so dumb I can only imagine it is malicious, they make that link a proper URL. That means that it will be opened by whatever program is registered to open URLs.
So if you change your default browser to Netscape or some other non-ActiveX browser, you can't do anything useful with that link. That entry in the menu should be an explicit command to open IE with the proper link.
It's certainly possible that MS is simply being dense, but I find it much more likely that they are seeking to punish users who change their browser as an example to others. (Of course, you can still open windowsupdate.microsoft.com in IE manually, but many people don't ever realize that it's just a normal web page and not a special program)
The meat of the writer's ire is how buried are on/off switches and options. Frequently there's one path to them.
Take for example what was fretting me a couple weeks back. Icon placement. Simple right? Auto arrange or not. Ok, I'm running Win98SE and I forget how to do this and go into help. I spend about 15 minutes in there and find NOTHING on the subject other than for topics I'm not interested in. Finally is disgust I put the words 'icon autoarrange' in a Google query and get the answer off the web in less than a minute. (Right click on desktop, move pointer to arrange icons, click off the check.) Nothing tricky there, but try to find that nugget in the Help. I did find one thing in my search of Windows help, I finally found the way to disable One-Click which had been driving me mad (what an incredibly bad idea to ship that defaulted on ON to a public accustomed to double-click. If you don't already use it and like it: try it, you'll hate it.)
Don't even get me started on spending 20 minutes trying to disable all the automatic crap in Word everytime I get a new system with it installed. Sheesh.
Some good could be done with little effort on the part of Microsoft. Ship things like word with the auto stuff disabled and highlight in a handy card what features there are, what they do, and how to enable/disable them. For all the glowing reviews I've ever read, here and elsewhere, about Microsoft books and documentation, I still say Bull, it's some of the worst. Disorganised, inappropriately indexed, combined examples which confuse the reader, etc. Yeah, they have a great site full of help, which I generally don't visit because there's dozens of far better sites on the web. The key to wisdom is knowing where and how to get the information you really need, that is the Zen of Google.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Really now, have you ever tried to talk your mother through getting pictures off of a CD? Mother - "What do you mean what drives show up? All I see are little folder things on the left, and little gray things with them".
I must admit however, that the solution proposed by Mr. Rosenberg is a bit misguided. The whole thing with XP was that it was better to take all the icons off the desktop. Putting a big ol' dialog up there saying "Which program do you want to view with?" is hardly the best in terms of GUI design, but he does have an interesting point. Currently I have RealJukebox and Winamp installed on my Win2k machine, and I still can't friggen figure out how to make only Winamp startup when I put a CD in - and I read /.!
Regards,
-Tammie
We shouldn't forget about the great "Send To" item on the right-click menu either. Chuck all your favourite apps in the send-to bin, then you can whip them up whenever you like.
.c files in notepad (so that I don't have to load bloated Word/Wordpad, or my compiler, just for some quick reference), or to view any other file in notepad (or vi for that matter).
I usually use this to view readme and
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.
Lets not forget that Microsoft has set up the Windows Explorer not to show you what the extensions are on "recognized" files anyway. On Windows 98 you can't change the extension of a "recognized (microsofized)" file without disabling this setting...
Winamp is gay for CDs anyway, because it finishes one track and the player starts the next track by itself, but then Winamp notices the track is done, stops, and starts again, it is incredibly annoying. MS CD player is best for playing CDs, unless you want fancy shit.
in post-98 Windows, pull up the "Internet Options" appelet in the Control Panel, and go to the "Programs" Tab. From there, you can select the default e-mail application in a drop-down menu labeled, simply enough, "e-mail."
The drop-down list only has those programs that told Windows that they are e-mail programs, but the feature's been in so long that most apps should be able to do it.
In Windows XP, this same feature affects what shows up on the Start Menus as well--and both Netscape 6.1 and Mozilla 0.9.4 show up as choices when they are installed. I don't know about Eudora, though.
i think that you're missing the point, which is that it's possible, but that it's very difficult -- go ask my mom or your aunt or someone if they know how to get there, and my bet is that they don't.
add to this the fact that changing associations *used* to be in filemanager right under file..., and it's clear that MS has removed functionality, and it's not too difficult to see why they might interested in doing so, given that the functionality's main, um, functionality is to allow the use of alternatives to their own products.
god is just pretend.
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.
"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
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
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"?
If you don't want this information in the filename, you could design the filesystem to hold identifying information in some other way. Apple, for instance, has always stored filetype information along with the other metadata. ProDOS filesystems (used by Apple IIs) allocate 8 bits for a filetype and 16 bits for an auxiliary type for each file, while HFS filesystems (used mainly by the Mac, though the IIGS can use them as well) use 32 bits each for filetype and creator fields. I can have a file on my GS named CS301.PAPER and know that it's an AppleWorks word-processor document because that info is stored along with the other metadata. Without the filetype, what clue would the Finder have that CS301.PAPER is an AppleWorks file and not plain-text, ProTERM settings, a GIF, an application (whether 8-bit or 16-bit), or whatever?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Well, that's certainly the conventional wisdom. However I expect some enterprising virus writer to prove it wrong. For example, mail a .jpeg that contains a buffer overflow exploit for a popular image-viewing program. The virus would, among other things, look in likely places for mail messages: ~/mail, ~/Mail, /var/spool/mail/$user, harvest some addresses and mail itself out.
The email could say, "Where I work, they just installed a 5000-node beowulf cluster. Check out this picture."
Well, u know, the concept of file extensions was invented/patented by an independent company way before MS DOS. In fact, I believe MS pays a licencing fee for using it in Windows.
Customize those context menus. Or just change the assotiation on the fly. When I used Windows, I read all of the site (mainly around 1995/1996).
:)
(Aside) MS really did pack in a lot of useful features (even if the UI never tells you things like F2 = rename in explorer). The closest file manager tool I've found for Linux that's as useful on the get go as Win95 Explorer is Midnight Commander, which I spend most of my time using (even in Gnome/KDE). No GMC, Konq, or Nautilus for me
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
554 5.0.0 <scottr@salon.com>... Service unavailable
Apparently he's not allowed to receive messages with a clue.
(Possibly also, messages are blocked if they contain; "stupid", "truly dreadful article", "suck", "say you're sorry" or "computer illiteracy is a pre-requisite for management positions".)
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
You're right, I don't get it. Explain to me how you'd make it "intuitive" for Joe User to realize a) that his file types are determined by an arcane and archaic 3 (or 4) letter extension, which is hidden from viewing by default, and b) that there's a huge database (the registry) that maintains info between the 3 (or 4) letter extension and his programs? If you can't understand that, then it won't be intuitive. The best you can do is have the option in each program (which most do) to take over file types. In your example (Mozilla and Opera vs IE), Opera has a pretty easy way to go about it. File->Preferences->Default Browser. If the preferences/options for your chosen program isn't intuitive enough, I'm really not sure how Add/Remove programs would be!
However, I was a little annoyed to find out last night that I couldn't set a WinAmp association for mp3s in Explorer ("Always use this program to open this type of file") because the newest version of Windows Media Player overrides whatever preference you set in Explorer; you have to go into Windows Media Player's application preferences and explicitly tell it to not associate itself with mp3s. This means that other programs cannot "reclaim" mp3 association or set it in an installer because wmplayer overrides the setting externally.
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.
Ok, did anyone realize that windows 3.1 had a registry? Yes, it did. In the heady days of win 3.1, I found a text editor (shareware) that would, ironically, open up a 5Meg text file of MS's ftp site. (would note pad do it...oh, hell no).
... shitware editor is not installed, please re-install (ok, this is the exception, not the rule to winfile rules all).
/. knows that...guess what, people...most people don't.
/.'ers are so far removed from the real world/ the 'trenches' / the 'average user' that they *conveniently forget* what being a newbie is about. It is about fear of the unknown, or at minimal, not knowing what to do and hoping for some guidance.
... some one is usually helpful.
Well, after figuring out that this text editor sucked, I un-installed it. Double clicked on a text file...shareware editor is not installed.
Associated it via the file manager
Ok, so I write the programmer and bitch him out saying "WTF did you do to my machine?"
I de-installed your program and *IT REFUSES TO GO AWAY*.
Well the response was a walk thru into the registry to remove the association.
(he was offended by my language, but that was the point, however could not refute my claims of screwing up my machine...let me repeat *MY MACHINE*)
Back then the registry was just another idea to give *programmers control of machines* not the person who owned/used the fricking thing.
These were in the days when if a program, oh, say deleted critical dll's (like a solitare prog that would delete vbrun*.dll) if you fiddled with it or tried to fool it. Malicious intent, I believe it was called.
Yes, I know I can "right click, open with or drag and drop or drag a file from explorer, hover it over an open programs taskbar icon and drop it on the title bar {did you know about that one? probably not} to open the file". 1001 and one ways, same goddamn cat gets skinned over and over.
I know that, most of
Case in point: 2 graphics artist I used to work with...one was a "mac veteran" the other a windows user, on a mac @ work... neither one knew you could drag a file (just about any) onto a program/alias(aka shortcut) and have it launch/open the file.
I was dumbfounded... the "newbie", ok, the "mac vet"... You're kidding.
Hell, 90% (and this is being kind) of the users I've run across will find a file in windows explorer and then run their program to open it and do the "File->open" and *renavigate* instead of double clicking on the *file*.
OMG... the shame, the shame...
I ask why? Why? the answer is usually along the lines of "that is what I know".
No matter how many times I show them the easy way...the always go back to what they know (right, wrong or indifferent).
(Sigh)
And what is even more appalling is the
With mac's, it is there to an almost zealous extent.
Unix? there is some community nature, ignoring the RTFM's/flames
Windows? Hah! It is an *industry standard*, on 9X% of computer in the world...you should be *born* with the knowledge! Seems to be the opinion even from windows users themselves.
Yeah, mucking with extensions is not high treason.
But, we've been here before (at least I have).
Usability and Control over your own system (or that of the average user "we" seem to be wanting to protect and help and free from being a "slave to MS/dmca/sssca/riaa/mpaa" are the same one we are shunning with "they should know this..."
Tell me how many unix systems you could run from the CLI less than a year after birth?
Uh, huh.
I don't know all the answers, but dammit, some of us are trying to find the right questions.
Moose.
"You ain't pretty, and you ain't strong. So, dammit you better be *smart*.
Elenor Roosevelt's Mother to her daughter.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
it is very simple to associate file types with programs ... there are even many ways to go about this task ... hold shift and right click pick open with ... or click properties on a file and then click the button that says Opens with X Change ... and of course in the registry and in the folder options ... i don't think there is some sort of attempt to hide these options ... however there is software (not necessarily by MS) that is very persistant about modifiying these assosciations.
... mac files never want to open with the right program unless they were created on that computer and you have the software installed.
And as far as elegance goes it's a much better sytem than on a mac
there is nothing wrong with file extensions , they are a standard, and i don't believe MS overly takes advantage of file type assosciations.
MoRe... LaTeR... -=PJK=-
Ok, first off, I don't get how this article is "worth a read". Maybe you don't realize, Taco, that MS is designing an OS for total incompetents. I have worked in an office full of middle-aged women who were so computer illiterate, they were almost to the point of calling the mouse the "pointy clicky thingee". Changing file extensions is something that can hose the system up, not in a dangerous way, but it can prevent files from opening properly. I think it's just right in W98 - it's hidden from the lusers and anyone with any curiosity will easily find it under folder options.
Secondly, I don't see how you "honestly never thought about" is before. I'm "honestly" disappointed in you, Rob. =P
Forcing MS to quit hiding OS functions won't help things. Forcing them to stop embracing, extending, and crushing open standards, WILL.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
I think the guy that wrote this article is a weakling. It's easy as hell to change the registered file types. And the people out there that may have problems changing the registered file types are most likely people that are not very computer savy in the first place, and therefore would have no reason to change that registered file type anyway. And when someone wants to open a document in a program other than what was designated to open it, 90% of the time they open that program and go to the file->open menu. You have to remember, windows was made for the idiot user. It was made to let the people of the world that do NOT want to learn what rm -rf, or mkdir, or chown do (didn't want to use dos commands, they are bartely useable anyway), it's for people that like purty buttons and pictures to guide them around the internet and tell them how to do things, and they don't care. Because if they DID care, they'd learn how to change thier registered file types.
I'm not drunk, I'm just in touch with pi.
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.
It should be simple enough to write a program that, upon install, adds an additional key under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shellex\ContextMenuHandlers that gives the user another context menu of "Change which program opens this file".
n install) , perhaps with those known to open the given file type listed first.
:)
The program would bring up an interface perhaps somewhat like "File Types" dialog now, but with simpler options. Something like:
"This type of file [MP3 music file] is currently set to open with Windows Media Player [insert icon here]. Would you like to change this behavior? "
If the user clicks "yes", they are presented with a list of programs out of the Add/Remove Programs list (hklm\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\u
It would have to be AOL-easy, of course, as that would be the target audience...
Any VB/VC/BP/tk coders out there wanna take a crack at it?
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Whizzmo
if you on the file, select 'open with', select your app and tick 'always open with'.
Very easy to do.
-- hjw http://puzl.info/
Synopsis:
MS abuse their monopoly because they make changing File Associations difficult. (Contrary to Napoleon's example, the author attributes this to malice, rather than incompetence). Example: No point the DoJ forcing MS to bundel realplayer if joe public has Media Player load automatically when he double-clicks a content file
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
...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!
Having recieved a porn bomb in Outlook yesterday that exploded from my preview pain when I tried to erase it, I'm suddenly interested in the default behavior of certian files. We run NT, service patch 6, here at work, and the company has been very good about applying Nimda, Code Red, Mellissa, I love you and all of those freaking virus patches.
Well, imagine my disapointment when I could not find file types .jse, .js, .vbs, .vbe, and .wsf, to set the default application to notepad. What a supprise! The default dialog box has hidden those file types from me. Nice security, I can't keep anonymous emails from running as root.
I imagine this same kind of behavior being pushed onto other filetypes soon. Monopoly? They would like to be, but I tell my friends that Debian is easier.
Twitter, posting as anonymous because because the auto login did not work. I hope that this post gets through the other 850 denial of service posts stuck onto this article by the MicroTurds. I'll repost as soon as I can.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Here at work, I no longer have access to file types .jse, .js, .vbs, .vbe, and .wsf. Why not? Because the little "file types" dialog did not show them to me. So there, a great and grevious abuse you can expect as a MS user in the future. What makes you think MS does not own "Open With", "Send To" and any of those other closed source convenience applications?
I found this out after getting a mail bomb from a porn site. It opened two browsers and did God knows what else before I could kill it. Yes, the company has applied ALL of the MS patches. NO, I DID NOT DOUBLE CLICK ANYTHING! As a corporate user, I am powerless. XP, I'm sure, will duplicate this situation with M$ as remote Admin, and user as powerless.
This goes beyond a legitimate argument to just finding something to complain about because complaining about microsoft is the thing to do.
I don't think so.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
There are several easy ways of doing this when you have had a knowledgeable tech mess with your machine.
.reg file and then on their right click miraculously appears an Open in IE and an Open in NN options for local HTML files.
:)
The 2 options I use are to edit the CLSID settings within the registry and give myself an option. Export that registry key and then anyone else just double clicks the
The other is a cleverly crafted shortcut in the windows\sent to folder. These are great if you are advanced.
But can easily be set up so that those not so advanced can easily use for ever more with additional freedom. Not that there are too many non techs who actually want to use more than one product to do any given task. They like one thing to work and they stick with it, (well that has been my experience).
As always each to their own
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
Really? That's interesting. I didn't know.
For those that didn't catch it the first time, I was describing the MacOS model.
I'm not a smorgasbord.
As a hobbyist programmer, I have to say that I feel it is my duty NOT to dance - and nauseate the other dancers - unless one of these two cirumstances applies:
1.)An attractive member of the opposite gender requests that I dance - thus instantly causing me to lose the self-resraint and dignity I normally cling to desperatly, all in an effort to make a favorable impression.
OR
2.) I am attempting to impress a member of the opposite gender who has not yet expressed an interest in me.
Of course, I am only a high school senior, which may have more to do with my opinions on dancing than my sometime-programmer status. Can anyone tell me if this is the case?
I'm the stranger...posting to
The UI for changing file type registrations is not the issue. A court can't order that this be made more intuitive (what's "intuitive"?). However, a court CAN order that Microsoft applications play by the same rules as third party applications and don't get any special preference. For instance, a court can order that preinstalled Microsoft applications DON'T get to commandeer file associations by default - just leave them *undefined* until the application launches first. This is what every other third party application has to do at install, or runtime. Why should Microsoft get a special privilege. There is no technical barrier to this (or at least there shouldn't be one), and if there is one, it only underscores Microsoft's ugly integration and promotion of its own applications. If Microsoft wants to own certain file types, it should have to compete with everybody else on a level playing field - not commandeer them beforehand and then force everybody else to try to take them away. The author briefly touches on this point at the end of the article, but is mostly caught up in the muddy UI issue.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
That's still really not a big threat . Let's assume that there was only one
The basic problem with Outlook isn't that it has buffer overflows, or even that it has a built-in scripting language. The problem is that it runs untrusted code with no (or minimal) user intervention. If an email contains anything other than plain text, it needs to be treated as potentially hostile and handled accordingly. Hell, I want my emailer to warn me if an html email has img tags that reference an external server (anyone know how to make star office do that?)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I don't think there's any way to import things in project files. There's some support for substitution of environmental variables, which might be helpful. In case you didn't know, it's also possible to select multiple projects in the project dialog box and set options for them at the same time.
In practice, such a virus would target x86. Do you really think the proportion of desktop Linux/Sparc is high enough to have a damping effect on the spread of such a virus? Even if 75% of Linux boxes were Sparc, the virus could still propogate by mailing 5 or more copies. But the percentage of Linux boxes which are Sparc-based must be tiny.
The point is, real virus security means that every program which reads untrusted data must be free of buffer overflows. Look how long it's taken to flush out most of the exploits in the suid root programs. You know that the "non-security-critical" programs like image viewers are just as likely to have buffer overflows. Of course I'm posting this too late for you to see it.
Anyhow, you're right that Outlook has horrible flaws, but it offers attractive low-hanging fruit so the virus writers haven't needed to learn about buffer overflows.