Apple Event: May 7th at 7 am PT

Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Level 1

5 points

Is there a way to hide ALL file extensions?

Hi

I am looking for a way to get OS X to hide ALL file extensions on the entire computer. I don't know why, but they really annoy me! I liked OS 9 and earlier because they didn't have them, and including them in OS X seems like a step backward to me. Wherever I can I simply don't save with file extensions (MS Office still retains this ability), and most applications will still open their files if you delete the file extension, but I do have a number of applications that require a file extension (such as OmniGraffle Pro), and it is very laborious to have to go through every file in order to hide the file extension. Is there some kind of master setting that you can apply to a volume in order to hide every file extension in it?

iMac 7,1 and MacBook 5,2, MacOS 10.5.8 and 10.6.2

Posted on Jan 16, 2010 3:57 AM

Best reply

Roger Wilmut1

Level 10

131,158 points

Posted on Jan 16, 2010 4:20 AM

In the Finder, menu Finder>Preferences: click the 'Advanced' tab and uncheck 'Show all file extensions'.

View in context

28 replies

LSRW Author

Level 1

5 points

Jan 27, 2010 9:36 AM in response to LSRW

Hi,

Okay, first off, what are type and creator codes? Are these the method by which OS 9 and earlier open files?

Second, what is UTIs if they are not the same as type and creator codes? Why would you need file extensions if you already have a method to tell the computer what application to open a file with?

Third, I have snow leopard installed on my macbook and I can still open all of my word and excel files, all of which lack file extensions, so what exactly has changed?

Finally, what exactly is wrong with the old method of opening files anyway? It certainly isn't speed - OS 9 opens files and applications a whole lot quicker than OS X does on both of my computers, despite running in sheepshaver and being almost eight years out of date.

Kurt Lang

Level 9

58,302 points

Jan 27, 2010 9:56 AM in response to LSRW

Okay, first off, what are type and creator codes? Are these the method by which OS 9 and earlier open files?

Yes, that is what OS 9 and earlier used to keep track of what type of file something was, and what application was meant to open it by default. This information is part of the resource fork of a Mac file. For example, every file saved from Photoshop gets the Creator code of 8BIM. With that information, the Mac knows any file you double click on the desktop which has that creator code will cause Photoshop to launch (if it's not already running) and open in that application. The Type code signifies to the application what type of file it's supposed to be. An .eps file saved from PS will get the Type code EPSF.

Second, what is UTIs if they are not the same as type and creator codes?

http://developer.apple.com/macosx/uniformtypeidentifiers.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniformTypeIdentifier

Why would you need file extensions if you already have a method to tell the computer what application to open a file with?

They are used in conjunction. If you didn't have the UTI metadata, you'd run into the same problem Windows has. Once the .jpg extension is assigned to an application, then it doesn't matter what program actually created a .jpg, they will all try to open in the same app. The UTI data allows the Mac to know which app created that .jpg so it opens in the correct app, even though you may have multiple apps that can save a JPEG image.

Third, I have snow leopard installed on my macbook and I can still open all of my word and excel files, all of which lack file extensions, so what exactly has changed?

They have Type and Creator codes, which Snow Leopard still understands and will use them if there are no extensions or UTI data. So they still open in the correct application and carry the correct icons assigned to them.

Finally, what exactly is wrong with the old method of opening files anyway?

Wish I could find the article I read explaining why Apple wanted to do away with Type and Creator codes at some point in the future.

OS 9 opens files and applications a whole lot quicker than OS X does on both of my computers...

OS 9 was a very compact system in comparison, so code executes more quickly. It also had a lot of strikes going against it. It was already a hodgepodge of spaghetti code in the attempt to keep it up to date with the myriad of Mac hardware from all the way back to the first Macintosh along with numerous changes to file types and software. The biggest hit against it was that it was pretty much impossible to ever bring that old code to 64 bit. Add in almost no support for OpenType fonts, Unicode, almost no security to speak of, no protected memory ability so any app that crashed brought down the entire system, etc.

V.K.

Level 9

56,174 points

Jan 27, 2010 10:00 AM in response to LSRW

LSRW wrote:
Hi,

Okay, first off, what are type and creator codes?

this is a code that an application can tag a file with (written to that file's metadata) at the creation time. this will tell the system to open this file with that application even if the default application set for this file extension is something else. this is indeed a relic of OS 9 but has been supported up until 10.5

Are these the method by which OS 9 and earlier open files?

Second, what is UTIs if they are not the same as type and creator codes?

UTI's are a more powerful and flexible way of dealing with the issue of deciding what opens what.
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/uniformtypeidentifiers.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniformTypeIdentifier

apple has been pushing UTIs since Tiger. but the thing is that UTIs have to be implemented by application developers. and by and large developers have been reluctant to use them and relied on Creator Codes. but in 10.6 creator codes were nixed. applications can still write them to files metadata but the OS ignores them completely. so the developers have to switch to UTIs in earnest. this hasn't really happened so far on a large scale though.

Why would you need file extensions if you already have a method to tell the computer what application to open a file with?

Third, I have snow leopard installed on my macbook and I can still open all of my word and excel files, all of which lack file extensions, so what exactly has changed?

Finally, what exactly is wrong with the old method of opening files anyway?

it's very limited in what it can do. see the apple link above. It may be too technical though. sorry about that.
also see this link
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/22/insidesnow_leopards_uti_apple_fixes_the_creatorcode.html

LSRW Author

Level 1

5 points

Jan 27, 2010 12:01 PM in response to LSRW

Thank you very much Kurt & V.K.

What I got from that is that a UTI is essentially an updated form of type and creator code - one that is more aware of what it is actually trying to achieve and has the ability to work around minor problems itself without intervention from the user. If this is the case this would suggest that the file extensions that apple have decided they will attach to files using UTIs will be more of a backup option than a required part of the process. Does this mean that I will be able to delete the extensions from files that have a UTI just as I would a file that has a type or creator code?

Kurt Lang

Level 9

58,302 points

Jan 27, 2010 12:15 PM in response to LSRW

Does this mean that I will be able to delete the extensions from files that have...

No, they are linked. The extension and the UTI data give the file it's overall meaning to the OS. Depending on what other metadata the file carries, a couple of things can happen if you remove the extension.

For example, I took a TIFF I created in Photoshop and removed both the extension and Type and Creator codes. Because it still carried its UTI data, the OS still had some sort of idea what the file was, but not much. It's actually a grayscale image, but after removing all but the UTI data (not sure how one would even do that), the OS labeled it a text file in the Get Info dialogue. But double clicking the file opened Illustrator. That being wrong in the first place, it also thought it was a CMYK image and asked me what I wanted to do since it had no embedded profile. It opened correctly in the sense that the image looked right, but everything else about it was wrong.

Then I took a .jpg that came from a PC. Since it came directly from Windows, it already had no Type and Creator codes nor UTI data. Removing the .jpg extension left the OS nothing to work with and immediately assigned it as an "I have no idea what this is" Unix Executable.

I know lots of folks, especially long time Mac users feel extensions are too "Microsoft", but extensions are now an integrated part of the Mac OS. Trying to fight it is fruitless.

LSRW Author

Level 1

5 points

Jan 27, 2010 2:14 PM in response to Kurt Lang

Thank you for the explanation. I suppose that hiding the extensions will have to do then. :L

< Edited by Host >

Kurt Lang

Level 9

58,302 points

Jan 27, 2010 2:32 PM in response to LSRW

Hi LSRW,

Don't know what the hosts edited since I didn't see it. But I meant no type of insult at all by "long time Mac users feel extensions are too "Microsoft"", if that was the issue. I just meant that users tend to associate the need for extensions with DOS and Windows, not the Mac.

A lot of that simply came along for the ride with the BSD distribution of UNIX that OS X is built on top of. Same goes with support for suddenly being able to use PC TrueType .ttf fonts and support for Type 1 PostScript fonts without the need to install ATM Light, as you did in OS 9 and earlier. It was already in there.

LSRW Author

Level 1

5 points

Jan 27, 2010 11:33 PM in response to Kurt Lang

Hi Kurt,

Don't worry, it was nothing against you. It was essentially a long rant about how apple frequently claim that they are better than the competition, but in the long run eventually become the same as them. I am not sure whether this message will reach you before the thought police get hold of it though. I did point out that I have nothing against Microsoft, that I run Microsoft software on my computer, and I am not unaware that Apple probably would not have survived without the cash injection from Microsoft in 1997.

I do not contest that OS X is now a better operating system than the classic MacOS was, but I can't help feeling that it is no better than the classic OS would have been if they had straightened it out and polished it up a bit, given it a pretty aqua interface, and integrated a few more of the NeXT technologies. I heard that they even succeeded in implementing protected memory for the classic MacOS, but by that time OS X was already well under way and they did not see the need to put time and resources into another version of the classic OS with OS X just around the corner. How true this is I don't know.

Message was edited by: LSRW

Kurt Lang

Level 9

58,302 points

Jan 28, 2010 7:56 AM in response to LSRW

Hi LSRW,

What I know about the switch to OS X's underpinnings and OS 9 comes mostly from articles in Macworld and Mac|Life (formerly Mac Addict) magazines. Essentially, it was far too much work to try and bring OS 9's code forward. It had already been ported from Motorola's x86 line of processors to PowerPC. Trying to rewrite what was already a mess of rewritten code for Intel CPUs, much less to 64 bit, wasn't worth the effort. Apple had secretly been working on an Intel version of OS X since 10.0, which they announced with the release of the first Intel based Macs. So you knew then that the decision to permanently abandon OS 9's code had been made long ago.

Now for my opinions and thoughts on the subject.

The computer industry had completed the knock down, drag out fight for dominance. Gone was Wang, the DEC Rainbow and other DOS-like, but incompatible systems. What was left was, of importance to the majority of users, was Microsoft DOS with its myriad of clones and the Mac. UNIX was out there in the scientific community, Sun Systems, NeXT, the BeOS and IBM's OS/2. All of these latter examples had there place in niche markets, but were too late to the party to supplant Apple, which had more than anything else taken virtually complete control of desktop publishing, or Microsoft and its business oriented software.

The point being that I believe all but Apple used a file system based on extensions to define a file's identity. If Apple were the dominant OS, it would be up to everybody else to follow their file system as Apple would have no incentive to change. Being the other way around, it was a smart move on Apple's part not to ignore the fact that they were the odd man out. Not just adding support, but embracing the system used by pretty much everyone else prevents the Mac OS from becoming a pretty, but slowly obscure and obsolete system. It also helps draw in users who otherwise might have not considered a Mac before, knowing that it will recognize files they bring over from Windows, Linux, etc.

The closer we get to a ubiquitous computer experience, the better it is for the user. Then a person only has to decide which OS they feel better suits their way of using a computer when making a purchasing decision, not if it will understand the files they need to access.

LSRW Author

Level 1

5 points

Feb 1, 2010 9:34 AM in response to Kurt Lang

Hi Kurt,

I suppose I agree that the use of file extensions has helped to keep the MacOS 'up to date' on the compatibility front, although I don't recall ever having trouble reading windows files on my OS 9 mac. The only real trouble I ever had was opening the newer docx, pptx, xlsx etc files from the later versions of office, and weird pixelation, discoloration, and artifacts in quicktime and windows media files. I never found it particularly troublesome to simply add a file extension onto a file I wanted to email to one of my windows-using friends. A lot of the time I would be forwarding files anyway, so most of them would have extensions already.

I have heard it said on more than one occasion that Apple had 'secretly' created a version of OS X for the Intel platform, but I believe that this is in fact a distortion of the truth. I can't remember whether my father was involved in testing the early versions of OS X, or whether he knew someone who was, perhaps I will ask him next time I see him, but somehow he managed to get hold of one of the very early 'preview' copies of OS X. He had to borrow an old PC from where he works to run it as it wouldn't run on his mac - OS X was written on the intel platform and then translated into PowerPC code afterward (I don't know why - possibly because of the processors that Next's operating system ran on?). And I am not sure just how hard it would have been to change the classic MacOS to run on intel processors: "Star Trek: This was a bold effort, run jointly with Novell, to port Mac OS to run on x86 processors. A team consisting of engineers from both *Apple and Novell actually succeeded in creating a very reasonable prototype in an incredibly short amount of time.* The project was cancelled, however, for various reasons: Apple had already committed to the PowerPC, some people thought it would disrupt Apple's existing business model, vendor feedback was not encouraging, etc."

Personally I think that the reason for Apple abandoning the old system was more to do with Steve Jobs' personal preference for the software that his company had written, rather than anything else. Yes, the older MacOS seems very outdated now, but lets not forget that it is more than ten years old now. From the perspective of a kid who at the time used his computer to surf the internet, word process, and play games, when it first came out OS X was not particularly beneficial to me. Of course I thought it was really cool because it looked so colorful and shiny, but when my dad installed it on my (not that old at the time) G3 mac, it was only a week or so before I got him to reinstall OS 9 again because it was so slow. This message may be considered blasphemy though, so I wouldn't be surprised if we get another <edited by moderator>.

Kurt Lang

Level 9

58,302 points

Feb 1, 2010 9:56 AM in response to LSRW

although I don't recall ever having trouble reading windows files on my OS 9 mac.

Because the apps themselves already understood Windows extensions since programs like Photoshop, Office, Quark and whatever were written for both platforms by their respective companies. There was no reason not to include the code needed to recognize Windows extensions in the Mac versions. In fact, it would have been pretty stupid to leave it out.

The only real trouble I ever had was opening the newer docx, pptx, xlsx etc files from the later versions of office...

That was no different for Windows users with versions of Office older than 2007. The file format completely changed in Office 2007 Windows/Office 2008 Mac.

OS X was written on the intel platform and then translated into PowerPC code afterward...

Most likely. Not really because of Job's NeXT OS though. It was due to the BSD version of UNIX OS X was built on top of. That was already Intel code. Come to think of it then, that actually made extra work for Apple to create a PPC ported version of OS X since there were no Intel Macs at the time. It's too bad then Apple stuck with PPC CPUs as long as they did. They could have gone straight to Intel based Macs and into OS X all at once. I suppose though they had to have a transitional period for users, otherwise everyone would have been forced to buy all new hardware in order to use OS X. That never would have flown at the consumer end.

when it first came out OS X was not particularly beneficial to me.

Me either. I didn't switch until Panther. And then only because the Adobe apps which came out at that time (CS2 ?) required OS X to run. Support for OS 9 was completely dropped. I didn't mind though. By then, OS X had gone through its growing pains and was very usable and stable at 10.3.

so I wouldn't be surprised if we get another <edited by moderator>.

Edit? 😉

LSRW Author

Level 1

5 points

Mar 2, 2010 1:06 PM in response to Kurt Lang

Hi Kurt,

Sorry for not replying, I'm not trying to be rude, I have just had a thousand and one other things to do.

"Because the apps themselves already understood Windows extensions"

Okay, I had not realized that OS 9 could interpret file extensions. Actually, before this post I didn't realize that OS 9 had anything to tell it what kind of file is what - just assumed that it tried to open files with various different applications until it came across something that understood them, to be honest.

"no different for Windows users with versions of Office older than 2007"

Yes, I had realized this, but I didn't have office 2008 on my old computer, I had Office 98, lol.

"It's too bad then Apple stuck with PPC CPUs as long as they did"

Maybe, although the historical superiority of the PowerPC is a piece of apple propaganda that I am inclined to believe, purely for the reason that my dad says that it was true - up until a few years ago and some new technology that they developed or something. I know that my dad's G5 PowerMac is definitely faster than either my iMac or my MacBook, but then it was **** of a lot more expensive.

P.S. - How do you do those fancy quote things?

Kurt Lang

Level 9

58,302 points

Mar 4, 2010 12:28 PM in response to LSRW

Okay, I had not realized that OS 9 could interpret file extensions.

Not really the OS. When you installed an app like Photoshop in OS 9, it would add the associations for both the Type and Creator codes and common file extensions it can handle to itself. Without those associations, OS 9 wouldn't have known a TIFF from a horse.

How do you do those fancy quote things?

Just put a > as the very first character of a paragraph. Until the forum software hits a line break, the text will be quoted.

Is there a way to hide ALL file extensions?