Should Windows 7 show file extensions by default?

Should Windows 7 show file extensions by default?

I know the arguments for hiding the extensions and there are some decent ones but my final opinion on the matter is that if you don't want such extensions then stop using the completely and make the determination of the file type solely by the content. Now since that's not going to happen for good technical reasons and because I've seen countless examples of the hiding of the full name (which includes the extension btw) causing confusion, my thinking is that a new better approach is to show the extensions by default but make visually stand out as being something special and also take this into account when the user tries to rename the file so as to not so easily accidentally edit the extension. Example: Extension could be less saturated in color.  When renaming, perhaps require something like ctrl+end, ctrl+right to move to the extension part of the file name after going to edit it.

File extensions are a power user feature.

Most users:
- Don't know what a "file extension" is
- Would never dream of changing it
- Don't need to be able to see said file extension

The only time a file extension becomes important is in terms of security and in most cases that is an issue for e-mail clients and web browsers and not the OS its self. Just have a check box somewhere that shows file extensions and power users will be happy.

Everyone is heading towards hiding away details of the file system, so I would say 'no.'

Even though it's the first thing I turn on after installing Windows, I'd still say no. I don't think most users would need or want them, and since I'm using the file system less and less, I'm starting to care less each day too.

It's just too useful so I would want file extensions to NEVER be hidden. If you don't know what it is then it's not going to be a big deal to you but for the rest of us it's essential. I turn on file extensions right away when I set up a new OS.

Nothing is gained from hiding them.

I like having them shown, but options are a good thing.  The users that want them shown know how to turn them on, and the users who don't care don't need to see them.

The only time it gets confusing for me without extensions is trying to decide which file is the .vbg and which is the .vbp (VB6) since the icon is the same, and I usually name them the same too.

It should absolutely always show them by default. Being able to hide file extensions is one of the stupidest things ever done in windows, and making it the default een stupider yet.

At the very least, it should be able to handle multi-dotted extensions properly (or have never allowed a file to be named that way in the first place). Since, if I call a file foo.jpg.exe, the user sees foo.jpg even with extensions hidden, which seems safe enough.

They could always be separated into a different Extension property, instead of being in the Name property. That's how I remember Macs doing it before OSX, I haven't played around with them enough recently to know.

The only question is whether NTFS lets you end a file name with '.doc' without setting it as the extension.

I'm beginning to wonder if hiding extensions really matters anymore in the age of the Internet.. since people see extensions all the time in their web browser, so androidi has a point

brian.shapiro said:

They could always be separated into a different Extension property, instead of being in the Name property. That's how I remember Macs doing it before OSX, I haven't played around with them enough recently to know.

The only question is whether NTFS lets you end a file name with '.doc' without setting it as the extension.

I'm beginning to wonder if hiding extensions really matters anymore in the age of the Internet.. since people see extensions all the time in their web browser, so androidi has a point

DCMonkey said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

Mac OS X uses extensions now too. There was a big uproar about it when it first came out.

NTFS has no concept of "extensions", so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Putting the file type in the file system metadata means not being able to easily transfer it to or via other systems that don't support that metadata. That was the rationale for Mac OS X and is similar to the rationale for Windows Search's inability to tag text files and other files that can't store metadata internally.

brian.shapiro said:

DCMonkey said:

*snip*

I wasn't suggesting moving it into the file metadata, just showing it separately from the name. In Explorer Details view for instance, you have a Name column, that could always be split into Name and Extension.

The problem is that if a file doesn't have an extension, and you end the name in the format of an extension, ie .DOC , that will be seen as an extension. So Explorer may not be able to logically separate Name and Extension.

Something like androidi is suggesting might work, or simply making Name and Extension show together but make them editable as separate fields, that is with one label but  two distinct edit boxes

Charles said:

Good question. Perhaps an interesting idea would be for Windows to ask you what type of user you are during installation. If you choose Power User then you get a default configuration that makes sense for your persona.
C

Just a funny side note about the uselessness of using icons and "Type" to identify what a files is (when those are not used to decide what the file actually is/does):

It's possible to make exe such as autorun.exe to have, say, Type text of "File Folder" and embedded icon that looks like a folder. I've heard this is quite popular way to infect Vista. This of course is a separate issue of being able to spoof the type but primarily a direct causation of this information hiding.

Charles said:

Good question. Perhaps an interesting idea would be for Windows to ask you what type of user you are during installation. If you choose Power User then you get a default configuration that makes sense for your persona.
C

The main issue with showing file extensions to normal users by default is when it comes to both comprehending and or changing the name of a file.

Let's say Bob has a file "Doc1.doc" but within it he has written a letter to his mum. So Bob wants to rename the file so he can find it later, so he goes to the file, hits rename and renames it to "Letter to mum."

But when he tries to open his letter to mum he gets a prompt asking him which program he would like to use to open the file. Unable to figure out what to do he hits on "Adobe Reader 8.1" and gets an error telling him "Adobe Reader is unable to open the file 'letter to mum.'"

Upset that he has "lost" his letter to his mum Bob goes ahead and rewrites the entire thing in word and prints it out immediately so he cannot "lose" his letter again.

ManipUni said:

The main issue with showing file extensions to normal users by default is when it comes to both comprehending and or changing the name of a file.

Let's say Bob has a file "Doc1.doc" but within it he has written a letter to his mum. So Bob wants to rename the file so he can find it later, so he goes to the file, hits rename and renames it to "Letter to mum."

But when he tries to open his letter to mum he gets a prompt asking him which program he would like to use to open the file. Unable to figure out what to do he hits on "Adobe Reader 8.1" and gets an error telling him "Adobe Reader is unable to open the file 'letter to mum.'"

Upset that he has "lost" his letter to his mum Bob goes ahead and rewrites the entire thing in word and prints it out immediately so he cannot "lose" his letter again.