Is there a way to hide ALL file extensions?

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

Reply

Answer 1

Best reply

Roger Wilmut1

Level 10

131,146 points

Jan 16, 2010 4:20 AM in response to LSRW

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

Reply

Answer 2

LSRW Author

Level 1

5 points

Jan 16, 2010 6:51 AM in response to Roger Wilmut1

Hi Roger,

I already have this unchecked, but I can still see file extensions on some things. Should these now be hidden? If so, what am I doing wrong exactly? I don't remember this option hiding ALL of the file extensions on my previous OS X computer either - could it be some application that I have installed or some kind of hidden preference somewhere?

Thank you very much,
LSRW.

Reply

Answer 3

V.K.

Level 9

56,174 points

Jan 16, 2010 7:43 AM in response to LSRW

there is no extra setting anywhere for this. you've found the only one there is. I don't know why it works this way but you can not force leopard to automatically hide all extensions on all files. it's always been like this.
the only thing you can do if you REALLY want to is to use applescript or automator to set the extensions to hidden on all files in, say, your home directory. this would be an equivalent of checking the box to hide the extension for each individual file.

Reply

Answer 4

Jan 16, 2010 10:43 AM in response to LSRW

There is no way to hide all extensions. Some extensions cannot be hidden even on a case-by-case basis. This is a security feature, since some hidden extensions could disguise the true nature of a file. Try naming a file "picture.jpg.app". You will not be allowed to hide either extension. It would be an obvious security risk if you could.

However, most applications allow you to hide the extension on a file at the time you save it, and in my experience, most default with the Hide Extension option checked. OmniGraffle does, and I don't see why OG Pro would be different.

Reply

Answer 5

macnoel

Level 4

2,624 points

Jan 16, 2010 11:23 AM in response to LSRW

LSRW,
You may already know this but as a general caution: files with hidden file extensions are sometimes stored on servers (common business practice). In some cases: doing so results in the file metadata being stripped from each file, rendering them useless.

I saw this on another thread here just yesterday. Business employees were uploading files with hidden extensions to their file storage server. When the files were retrieved, they were unable to open or read any of them. It was proved that the metadata had actually disappeared and had not just remained hidden somehow.

Reply

Answer 6

V.K.

Level 9

56,174 points

Jan 16, 2010 12:13 PM in response to macnoel

this makes no sense to me. hiding an extension is just a finder thing. it simply adds an extended attribute to a file (stored in its resource fork) which tells finder not to show the extension.
this would not add or substract from a server ability to handle resource forks. if a server can't handle resource forks adding this extended attribute won't make the matters any worse than they already were.

Reply

Answer 7

macnoel

Level 4

2,624 points

Jan 17, 2010 12:35 AM in response to V.K.

Hi V.K.,
It makes no sense: on that we agree.

Have a look for yourself:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2299387&tstart=0

I have no stake in defending the explanation given, by the way. Perhaps it's in error. I was just passing on that info because, as of yesterday, I'd seen nothing indicating it was incorrect.

Reply

Answer 8

Kurt Lang

Level 9

57,924 points

Jan 17, 2010 7:28 AM in response to macnoel

Hi macnoel,

My guess in the thread you link to is that the users are talking about older files from OS 9 and earlier. Those (for the most part) will indeed have no file extensions. But as long as the resource fork Type and Creator codes are intact, OS X will still know what to do with them.

Getting back to the main question though, OS X doesn't have a way to hide all extensions with a simple setting. You can show all, but not hide all.

Reply

Answer 9

V.K.

Level 9

56,174 points

Jan 17, 2010 8:30 AM in response to macnoel

the OP in that thread is talking about files with no extensions. the OP in this thread is talking about files with extensions that he simply wants to be hidden from finder. this is quite a different matter.

Reply

Answer 10

macnoel

Level 4

2,624 points

Jan 17, 2010 1:56 PM in response to Kurt Lang

Sincerely:
Thanks, Kurt, for clarifying that matter.

Reply

Answer 11

macnoel

Level 4

2,624 points

Jan 17, 2010 1:58 PM in response to V.K.

V.K.,
Thank you as well, V.K. As you can see, I was thinking there might be an unforeseen hazard in hiding extensions. I'm glad to see that, in this case, I was wrong.

Best regards.

Reply

Answer 12

LSRW Author

Level 1

5 points

Jan 25, 2010 12:15 PM in response to LSRW

Hi All,

I have found this tutorial that partially solves the problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NhRFxJCAQw

It is a quick way to hide the extensions of all files that have them in a given folder and the folders inside it, using automator. It does not hide the extensions of any file you add to the folder subsequently, and you can not apply it to a volume or a home folder. It is more of a labour-saving tool than an actual solution, but it is vastly better than having to get info for every single file.

As the author of the tutorial notes in his video, this is an option that apple could fix by just adding one more check-box to the finder preferences window. Or better still they could have just left things the way they were before and not introduced them in the first place... does anyone even know what they are for anyway? (Apart from to annoy you with a random bit of text at the end of a filename that you didn't place there.)

Reply

Answer 13

Kurt Lang

Level 9

57,924 points

Jan 25, 2010 2:13 PM in response to LSRW

does anyone even know what they are for anyway?

They are there in order to play nice with Windows. Extensions are the only way Windows has of telling one file type from another. So instead of sending a Windows user a TIFF called named Robin, you send them Robin.tif. Without the extension, Windows would have no clue what to do with the file.

The Mac OS is also slowly working its way away from the old Type and Creator codes. At some point in the future, it's likely the Mac OS will also rely on extensions only. In order to keep files with the same extension straight, so an Illustrator .eps doesn't open in Photoshop, or visa versa, OS X files also carry the new Uniform Type Identifiers metadata.

Reply

Answer 14

V.K.

Level 9

56,174 points

Jan 25, 2010 3:09 PM in response to Kurt Lang

OS X still relies on file extensions too and to a really undue degree. and this has only gotten worse in snow leopard which stopped using creator codes. it seems this was supposed to push developers to really start using UTIs. but so far this hasn't happened and as a result snow leopard relies on file extensions even more than leopard did (as there is often nothing else to rely on). there is something very wrong about this...

Reply

Answer 15

Kurt Lang

Level 9

57,924 points

Jan 25, 2010 4:51 PM in response to V.K.

OS X still relies on file extensions too and to a really undue degree.

Yes, if there are no Type and Creator codes in the resource fork, it then has to rely on the extension. Without either, OS X reverts to its version of "generic unknown" and displays it as a Unix executable.

as a result snow leopard relies on file extensions even more than leopard did (as there is often nothing else to rely on). there is something very wrong about this...

I read a couple of years ago that Apple was going to move away from Type and Creator codes, though I don't remember why. Something to do with old encoding or something. Being also a longtime DOS and Windows user from way back, file extensions seem completely normal to me.

Reply