.7z_ files in Microsoft Edge

Hello, when downloading files in my favorite browser (Microsoft Edge) a .7z_ file is downloaded while in Opera and Google Chrome a .7z, I must change the name of the file to open it, why are they downloaded with this format so foreign (.7z_)?
Thanks you.
Mateo Hideg.

Comments

  • Because Microsoft Edge is such decomposing garbage that even Microsoft wants to replace it.

    As far as I can tell, Winworld is returning the correct file extension and Mime Type to Edge. No idea why Edge messes it up.

  • I believe that Edge expects a 3-character file extension and nothing less, and adds the underscore as a placeholder.

  • If you have another browser handy, you're better of downloading the files with that instead. Edge is just terrible, and I question why some people out there even use it.

    Also @SomeGuy, I knew that it would be replaced with something better, although still retaining the "Edge" name.

  • @Bry89 said:
    Also @SomeGuy, I knew that it would be replaced with something better, although still retaining the "Edge" name.

    He's talking about this post, which is about an article in WindowsCentral

  • And now Microsoft will attempt to punish Windows 7/8.x users with the new iteration of Edge.
    https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/12/06/microsoft-edge-making-the-web-better-through-more-open-source-collaboration/#HFEkoa7b1gQWJVIP.97

    Unfortunately they didn't go a step further and "abandon" Windows 10 as a whole, replacing it with something based on Windows 7.

  • If that's going to happen, I'll just reject the update if it comes. I'm more than happy with Firefox thanks very much.

  • Yeah, Edge should really just be an optional download instead of a forced update. Microsoft is trying too hard to make Windows 7/8 look like Windows 10.

  • Oh, thanks you for explaining.

  • @win32 said:
    And now Microsoft will attempt to punish Windows 7/8.x users with the new iteration of Edge.
    https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/12/06/microsoft-edge-making-the-web-better-through-more-open-source-collaboration/#HFEkoa7b1gQWJVIP.97

    Unfortunately they didn't go a step further and "abandon" Windows 10 as a whole, replacing it with something based on Windows 7.

    I fail to see how the linked article mentions anything about Windows 7/8.x...

    It talks about how Edge is switching their rendering engine to one based on chrome's engine. Which, honestly, it's really just a matter of time before Firefox adopts it as well... webkit / blink is pretty much the standard. All this does is make Edge a more viable alternative. But I think it's too little, too late... Edge is already dead in the public eye.

  • @BlueSun said:
    I fail to see how the linked article mentions anything about Windows 7/8.x...

    According to the blog:

    Microsoft Edge will now be delivered and updated for all supported versions of Windows and on a more frequent cadence. We also expect this work to enable us to bring Microsoft Edge to other platforms like macOS.

  • Ahh, well admittedly I skimmed the article and did a keyword search for Windows 7 and 8, which didn't turn up any results.

    Seems kind of silly for them to release it to Windows 7 when it's only going to be supported for another year.

  • @BlueSun said:

    @win32 said:
    And now Microsoft will attempt to punish Windows 7/8.x users with the new iteration of Edge.
    https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/12/06/microsoft-edge-making-the-web-better-through-more-open-source-collaboration/#HFEkoa7b1gQWJVIP.97

    Unfortunately they didn't go a step further and "abandon" Windows 10 as a whole, replacing it with something based on Windows 7.

    I fail to see how the linked article mentions anything about Windows 7/8.x...

    It talks about how Edge is switching their rendering engine to one based on chrome's engine. Which, honestly, it's really just a matter of time before Firefox adopts it as well... webkit / blink is pretty much the standard. All this does is make Edge a more viable alternative. But I think it's too little, too late... Edge is already dead in the public eye.

    I don't think Firefox will ever adopt Chrome's engine (thank God). There isn't much point in having other browsers if they're all going to be Chrome. Firefox Quantum's engine looks very promising and is already faster than Chrome.

    Webkit/blink is no standard. It's the Chromium project's software. The WEB is the standard. HTML and CSS are standards. The job of the rendering engines is to display the standards properly. That's how it's supposed to work. If we lose sight of that and start making software the standard, the Internet is dead and away goes any innovation. I am not happy one bit that Microsoft is giving up on its own engine.

  • Software becoming the standard is not new... it's been happening for years. First thing that comes to mind is photoshop. Yeah there's other software out there, but the graphics design industry has pretty much standardized on photoshop.

    And yeah, there's not much point to other browsers when they're all basically chrome underneath... but that already happened. Opera, Chrome, Safari, and now Edge are all basically the same in terms of rendering engine and very similar in terms of UI design. Firefox is the only hold out... and they already copied the UI design. I expect it's just a matter of time before they realize it's pointless to duplicate efforts and just adopt webkit/blink. They will hold out for a while... perhaps in the hopes that the other browsers will adopt their engine, but it's not gonna happen.

  • This wouldn't be the first time a web browser had a very dominant position: IE6 in the early 2000s, which displaced Netscape (which changed to the Firefox engine).

    It was terrible from a user's point of view. The pop-up blocker, when it arrived was almost useless, easily blocking anything legit but not giving two shoots about the five or six pop-up ads I'd get when opening tripod web pages. I also remember IE being slow and unstable on my Pentium 4 3.0 GHz with 1 GB DDR RAM. Combined with my impatience I accidentally made something like 20 duplicate posts on a forum.

    Because of IE's dominance I didn't know that other web browsers existed until I first saw a Mac. I think the same thing is starting to happen with Chrome for some people, and the other browsers using webkit will eventually die out because nothing will set them apart from each other and any incentives to develop will decline.

  • The reason IE was successful is because it was just there. Users didn't know they could or should download a different browser. Netscape had success before IE became usable, but once it was, it stole the market because it was easy enough to use, it was already installed and it was sufficient to the task.

    Then Firefox came out and power users loved it. It rendered pages better, it was more stable, it had compelling features... I never found it to be faster though. Maybe once it was loaded it could render some pages faster, but IE always beat it in terms of load times... but that's because it was part of the OS and always loaded. Anyway, the power users were able to convince some of the unwashed masses to switch over because of things like popup blockers and neat extensions like adblockers. So a few did switch, but it never completely stole the market.

    Then chrome came out.

    It had similar features to Firefox, but was faster with a more modern and clean design. It just got out of the way and put the focus on the web site rather than the browser. And of course, it had Google's marketing power house to put the word out. So the Average Joe's saw it everywhere.

    Now it is pretty much the defacto standard of web browsing and it's kind of hard to beat it. I mean everything already has popup blockers and extensions. The main rendering engines have gotten pretty good about following actual standards so everything pretty much renders right these days. Also frameworks like bootstrap have done the work of managing cross-browser compatibility for you. So you just write for the framework and you're all set. Speeds are all fast enough these days. So there's just not much left to compete on and actually motivate someone to switch.

    Firefox is banking on privacy concerns. So people paranoid that Google is spying on them have switched to Firefox. Beyond that though? All the browsers are basically the same. So why switch to something different? Edge's best hope is to be good enough that users won't want to bother downloading something new.

  • You're correct about software becoming standard. IE 6 is being mentioned a lot here. It stunk, but it was basically the standard for years because it was pushed on people and web developers caved to its weaknesses (and the whole ActiveX mess).

    Chrome seems to be the new IE 6 these days. It's a terrible, buggy browser (not quite as a bad as IE 6), but I see more and more websites developing only for Chrome. Tidal Hi-Fi, for instance, only works in Chrome. YouTube, a Google product, loads much faster in Chrome, as does any other Google service.

    However, given the history of Firefox, I still can't see them ever switching to a Chrome-based browser. Firefox was only the most popular browser for a very brief period. It's always had a lower userbase than the rest. But, it didn't take the easy way out and switch to IE's rendering engine when that had 90% of the marketshare. I can't see why that would change now.

    Actually, there are more rendering engines out now than there ever have been in the past. There's Blink, WebKit, Gecko, Goanna, Trident, EdgeHTML (now deprecated I guess), etc.

  • Chrome seems to be the new IE 6 these days. It's a terrible, buggy browser (not quite as a bad as IE 6), but I see more and more websites developing only for Chrome.

    Curious why you think Chrome is a terrible, buggy browser... I mean, honestly, all the major browsers are pretty rock solid these days.

    As for sites developing only for chrome, it only makes sense for them to develop for webkit compatibility given that webkit based browsers are the majority. But like I said before, I think it's more a matter that they just develop for frameworks now and the frameworks handle browser compatibility and they simply don't bother to test with any browser other than the one they use regularly.

    Actually, there are more rendering engines out now than there ever have been in the past. There's Blink, WebKit, Gecko, Goanna, Trident, EdgeHTML (now deprecated I guess), etc.

    I'm not sure I would list all of those separately as an argument for having more rendering engines. Most of those are forks of each other... that list basically boils down to gecko, webkit, and trident and Microsoft has pretty much thrown in the towel with trident. The forks do have certain optimizations, but they're not really radical departures.

Sign In or Register to comment.