>>I trust you, but You have occasion explain other programers why is images stored to general field very bad way - at this time of upgrading to Windows 11.
>>
>As far as I seem to remember, a general field contains information about which external program is needed to handle it. Maybe you don't have this program installed?

Worse. It assumes that there's a program installed on the machine, which will open that type of file, in a COM compatible window inside your app. Very few apps were capable of that, actually I remember that I saw very few apps which supported embedding objects like that (VFP was one of them) and also very few which were able to offer such an embeddable object to the hosting app. The additional bonus was that the local branch of menu would appear for that window, also embedded in the hosting app's menu.

Too complicated, not robust at all, and most of all they bet the farm on the clumsy concept of „for each file type there is exactly ONE app which will open it“ - which is mostly wrong. For each type there may be a few creator apps, and any number of consumer apps. Consider the image files, which may be created via screenshot, camera, raw camera file processor, any GDI+ processing app, a scanner, webcam, generated from .eps or .ps, extracted from document, unzipped, downloaded. And that's production only; for consumption there may be any viewer, screen saver, text processor, html editor, browser upload, ftp upload, zipper, whatever.

Now under the ONE app concept, some app would register itself as default for that document type, i.e. the one that gets called when the user doubleclicks it. That part works, but if that was a trial and it expires and gets uninstalled, there's no fallback to previous, and the system doesn't have a registered app. Some bad uninstallers would forget to unregister the app, so doubleclick would report „app not found“, or if it did unregister, „no app found capable of opening this filetype“ (even if it's a .txt). Same happened when files with embedded references (i.e. documents with embedded files from other apps, e.g. spreadsheet in a .doc file) would be opened on another machine which didn't have the same apps.

All in all, it's a concept that sounded great in the beginning, and looked great when demoed. And that was the extent of it, any attempt to squeeze any more juice out of it was trouble.