Edge

Not as browser but as default PDF reader.

When is MSFT going to add the most basic of functionality to it: [Ctrl]+O or a menu item to Open files, specifically PDF files? Those who use Edge as their primary browser (not me) may want to read PDFs already on their systems. Today, to do so requires launching File Explorer to find the PDF file, then double click on it to open it in Edge. Pretty much every other PDF reader there is would make that process easier and internal.

FWIW, it’s not as if UWP apps can’t recognize [Ctrl]+O. Code Writer recognizes [Ctrl]+O and displays the File Open dialog. Edge can’t?

I’ll stipulate that Edge is a wonderful browser, but as a PDF reader it lacks basic functionality.

Conversation 19 comments

  • jimchamplin

    Premium Member
    02 December, 2017 - 10:09 pm

    <p>Because madness?</p><p><br></p><p>It's like MS works one bit here, then one bit there. They don't want to finish something before moving on to some other random bit.</p><p><br></p><p>Kinda like how they don't want to go through and fix deep system bugs that have existed since Vista because that gets in the way of demi-glitzy features.</p>

    • hrlngrv

      Premium Member
      02 December, 2017 - 11:00 pm

      <p><a href="#223834"><em>In reply to jimchamplin:</em></a></p><p>Re bone-headed <em>'features'</em> which MSFT may never address, Excel may be unique among all GUI software which can handle multiple open files in a single application instance in being unable to load more than one file with the same base filename. Want to open C:\foo\XYZ.XLSX and D:\bar\XYZ.XLSX? Sorry, not possible in Excel. The original Excel on Mac 512s (single floppy drive, no HDD, no subdirectories) could only ever have one file open with a given base filename, and MSFT made design decisions around that, and 3+ decades of new OS features and hardware capabilities are insufficient for MSFT to address this limitation.</p>

      • lwetzel

        Premium Member
        03 December, 2017 - 5:31 pm

        <blockquote><a href="#223837"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Used those same exact names and opened them both in Excel on Windows 10 just now. Not a problem. </p>

        • hrlngrv

          Premium Member
          03 December, 2017 - 7:09 pm

          <blockquote><a href="#223998"><em>In reply to lwetzel:</em></a></blockquote><p>The comment system ate my backslashes \ (I keep forgetting to double them when composing; oddly not necessary to double them when editing existing comments). Now added.</p><p><img src="https://s2.postimg.org/jole9tj9l/deleteme3.png"></p><p>The screen image above shows W:\foo\XYZ.xlsx open and also trying to open Z:\bar\XYZ.xlsx.</p>

          • lwetzel

            Premium Member
            04 December, 2017 - 4:17 pm

            <blockquote><a href="#224005"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I had the same results when the directories are different.</p>

            • hrlngrv

              Premium Member
              04 December, 2017 - 6:16 pm

              <p><a href="#224240"><em>In reply to lwetzel:</em></a></p><p>Meaning you can open two files both with base filename XYZ.xlsx in a single Excel instance? If so, which Excel version are you ising?</p>

              • ErichK

                Premium Member
                04 December, 2017 - 6:59 pm

                <blockquote><a href="#224254"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Actually, now that I gave it more thought, wouldn't this be the expected behavior? I can't think of a circumstance where this would be an issue. Unless there's a way to look at this I haven't seen yet.</p>

                • hrlngrv

                  Premium Member
                  04 December, 2017 - 10:24 pm

                  <blockquote><a href="#224266"><em>In reply to ErichK:</em></a></blockquote><blockquote>. . . wouldn't this be the expected behavior? . . .</blockquote><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Would this be expected behavior? I've seen lots of hierarchical layouts which have dates or locations as subdirectories but same filenames in each directory.</span></p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Anyway, find any other Windows, Mac or Linux program able to open multiple files at the same time which can't open multiple files with the same base filename at the same time. Excel is pretty much unique in this limitation.</span></p>

                • ErichK

                  Premium Member
                  04 December, 2017 - 11:46 pm

                  <blockquote><a href="#224309"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yes, in that scenario you describe I can now see why it would be an issue.</p><p><br></p><p>I just tried the same experiment in Word, and Word did not balk at having two identical base filenames.</p><p><br></p><p>I guess in my own personal case the situation doesn't come up much. Or at the very least, it might not be uncommon for me to have multiple files with the same base filename open in something like Notepad (like README files, for instance), but they open in separate instances of the app.</p><p><br></p><p>Still, with having multiple files open with the same base name, you run the risk of eventually getting confused over which is which.</p>

              • lwetzel

                Premium Member
                05 December, 2017 - 1:41 pm

                <blockquote><a href="#224254"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>No no. Sorry I wasn't clear. I had the same results as you had. Definitely something amiss.</p>

          • ErichK

            Premium Member
            04 December, 2017 - 6:56 pm

            <blockquote><a href="#224005"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Tried this too and I got the same error message you did.</p>

  • Roger Ramjet

    02 December, 2017 - 10:34 pm

    <p>I don't get this complaint. I use Edge, but I don't use it as my primary PDF reader. But if I wanted to open a PDF in Edge and I click on the File Explorer, vs, if I wanted to open in Chrome (which I just tired, I can do what you suggest, I still get to the File Explorer.</p><p>Yes, keyboard shortcuts can be faster for power users who are within their process flow, but that is not how most people will get to read PDF on browsers. Power users who need constant access to PDF would probably be on Adobe subscriptions etc. Essentially this is a power user complaint against a new product saying you should do it the way that fits how I would use a computer, or whatever existing browsers are doing, rather than, for example, whatever actual target audience the software vendor had in mind. </p><p>FWIW I suspect Microsoft have use cases for Edge that are still unfolding and that are different from existing browsers (we&nbsp;are beginning to see things like mobile integration, Sets, recently), and these are probably driving their feature and development priorities. There may be method to the madness, that you cant see; lets see how they further deploy it within the next year or so, as these approaches are implemented and new things revealed. </p>

    • hrlngrv

      Premium Member
      02 December, 2017 - 10:53 pm

      <blockquote><a href="#223835"><em>In reply to Roger Ramjet:</em></a></blockquote><p>You believe most people would always use File Explorer to open files?</p><p>Name any other PDF reader which doesn't have File-Open functionality built into itself.</p><p>Point is [Ctrl]+O or an Open entry in main menus has become BASIC FUNCTIONALITY, like it or not. This srtikes me as another try at Office 2007's magic orb, the UI component from which MSFT was forced to retreat (like Napoleon from Russia), replacing it with the File tab in the ribbon from Office 2010 on.</p><p>Perhaps in 2 or 3 years with many added features it may be less nonsensical, but it still won't make sense.</p>

      • Roger Ramjet

        03 December, 2017 - 5:49 pm

        <blockquote><a href="#223836"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I can't name any because I didn't use the function ever until yesterday. In fact I use very few keyboard shortcuts. For me personally, yes, I open most files via file explorer, except if I am already in the App, and then I mouse click file, open. I have nothing against them implementing it personally, but my point to you is, if Microsoft are properly developing the product, they have a good idea whether the target user is more like me or someone who would reflexively click the shortcut and expect it to work. If they think the former, and there was some penalty to implementing the shortcut, then they have properly ignored it, and are focusing on stuff that will matter to their audience. For example, looks like they are hoping "Edge" gets used at least as much in touch based environments, what use is a keyboard shortcut there?</p>

        • hrlngrv

          Premium Member
          03 December, 2017 - 7:04 pm

          <p><a href="#224000"><em>In reply to Roger Ramjet:</em></a></p><blockquote>. . . <strong><em>except if I am already in the App</em></strong> . . .</blockquote><p>Exactly the context I meant.</p><p>Edge provides no [File-]Open menu item, nor [Ctrl]+O, nor shortcuts, nor any other way to open PDFs except [Ctrl]+T to open a new windows and typing in a file:///… uri for the file in question.</p><p>If you believe MSFT always has nothing but good UI ideas, you haven't used MSFT products either very long or in much depth. MSFT has a long history of providing bone-headed <em>'features'</em> several times a year.</p><p>As for touch dictating design, what penalty is there for supporting <strong><em>additional</em></strong> keyboard shortcuts since Edge already supports [Ctrl]+T and [Ctrl]+W along with most other now standard browser keyboard shortcuts? And what % of all currently circa 600m Windows 10 devices are PCs with keyboards? 95%? Almost certainly more than 90%. In that context, discarding standard keyboard shortcuts makes sense? As much sense as Windows 8 discarding the Start button?</p>

          • Roger Ramjet

            03 December, 2017 - 8:40 pm

            <blockquote><a href="#224004"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I went into the Edge menu to investigate your complaint, and yes, I do not see a way to mouse click open a PDF file. Even though I never had a need for it, I agree that it is sensible to have a way to open a file the App can open from within the App, as I stated earlier.&nbsp;So,&nbsp;this would have been a&nbsp;stronger complaint off the bat, rather than, we can't [Ctrl]+O, to open. </p><p>But even if reasonable, it does not mean it should necessarily beat whatever other priorities they have with their limited resources. Again, for example, I have used Edge &gt;80% of my browsing for more than 1 year, and I never even realized there was any issue here. So, it depends on what they are trying to do with the tool, and what they are seeing in their customer profiles. </p><p>Sorry, I don't know what specific penalty there might be, I am not a software engineer,&nbsp;and&nbsp;I have no depth of insight into their project management list of priorities, but just sensibly, resources are&nbsp;usually limited, at the least, you work on getting the browser to open files, it means you can't work on something else those weeks with those same engineers.</p><p>PS: A real gripe I would have is Edge still isn't supported universally by websites. I was doing some work testing out Amazon Mechanical Turk recently, and&nbsp;3 major current browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari) were able to do a file ID upon upload, Edge was not. This is the typical chicken/egg dilema that ends up killing most software. </p><p><br></p>

            • hrlngrv

              Premium Member
              03 December, 2017 - 9:29 pm

              <p><a href="#224012"><em>In reply to Roger Ramjet:</em></a></p><blockquote>. . . this would have been a&nbsp;stronger complaint off the bat . . .</blockquote><p>I listed both [Ctrl]+O and an entry in the menu in the original posting. I should have included [Ctrl]+T followed by entering a <strong>file:///…</strong> uri, but as Edge lacks a toolbar, there's no other standard means of initiating a file-open operation. What else were you expecting?</p><p>You're assuming MSFT has well-considered priorities for Edge. I'm not. To me Edge looks slapped together with sizzle features added, standard but mundane features deferred over and over again.</p><p>You may not have noticed this if you don't read many PDF files. Just like I won't notice any glitches in Edge's live tiles since I use Classic Shell and never see live tiles.</p>

              • Roger Ramjet

                03 December, 2017 - 10:56 pm

                <blockquote><a href="#224022"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>You are correct, I did not read your initial complaint carefully enough. You did put in "..or a menu item." So, I guess, the force is with you. </p><p>Yes, I assume that Microsoft "has well-considered priorities for Edge", because that is what I would expect a large company with strong expertise to do. I know like almost nothing about software development, but I know you should have *requirements* there somewhere, pretty early. I do know about business, and for that I am certain a big priority should be how your product will be used. </p><p>But sure, a team may have well considered priorities, a plan, etc, and when they get into the field they loose discipline, you know what the great philosopher said: "everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth …" It's possible. In fact it's probably the case to at least some extent for every entity that faces again, competition, limited resources, human fallability, etc the only question is whether it is so bad they can't cope, or they are mostly still on their plan, which we don't know until it unfolds. </p>

  • Wings Io

    03 December, 2017 - 9:51 pm

    <p> I am looking to learn more about this issue. Thank you for sharing. I will follow this site regularly.</p><p><br></p>

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2024 Thurrott LLC