i guess we will have to make linux version when PAF is out…
I thought I’d revive somebody else’s thread :)
I already heard from Drazen that we’re not quite ready with a Linux PACL yet, but it probably bears repeating that there’s interest in that, still; Now that .pa is ‘in the wild’, so to speak, timetables are narrowing for compatibility with other OS’s.
There are various other problems executing the programs:
paclreg.exe reports it’s version 8.0
pacomp.exe is x64 and can’t be executed on a x86 OS
pacrypt.exe reports it’s version 8.0
paencode.exe reports it’s version 8.0
pafix.exe reports it’s version 8.0
paspan.exe reports it’s version 8.0
paclreg.exe registers only the “old” files, so the …32.exe and …64.exe show the shareware notice.
I’ve downloaded this file:
OK, it looks like you used the text from manual.txt as the basis of the wiki. Initially, I’d like to see a short explanation of each command and it’s capabilities\requirements at the top of the wiki so it’s the first thing you see in the wiki - sort of an expanded whatsnew.txt for each command - with links to the syntax of each command. Is there a reason why PAEXT is first. I’d have thought you compress then uncompress so PACOMP followed by PAEXT maybe?
(These are just my thoughts so anyone else please sound-off).
I just started using PA and wanted to say this program is awesome. I have been using winrar for years and this seems to be a much better program all around. I have been able to get much quicker archiving than winrar could ever produce. Thanks for such a great program!
Made som more tests with PACL 7.00 [May 11 2012] and noticed one small thing.
When running PACOMP without any parameters, no remainder pop up to tell the user that the program is unregistred. However if I run the PACOMP with parameters and a file to create the remainder will pop up.
This is inconsistant behaviour as
all have the pop up remainder to register the program when running it without any parameters.
It’s really not a big issue, just noticed that PACOMP don’t behave the same as the other program when running unregistred without any parameters.
only difference is in header, it says unregistered/registered.
Thanks, that explains why I didn’t see any difference between the evaluation version and the registered version. The reason for starting this thread was because I thought something was wrong when I couldn’t see any difference between the two versions. Now when I have the answer I have some opinion about it. You don’t have to agree with me, but I still want to share them with you.
Personally I would have expected some limitations in the evaluation version of PACL that still allowed the user to evaluate the program to see if it works as expected and will fill the need the user have for such a program.
Example of limitation could be a small message after running each command like This is day 1 of your 30 days evaluation, press ENTER to continue
For a user like me that uses batch or scripts in combination with PACL this would be a limitation, but I would still be able to evaluate the program even with this annoying message. After registry the program, the message would disappear.
The advantage for the user with this is that the user will get a feeling of getting something for the money the program costs.
One of the critical question is: Why should a user buy the program for $7.95 instead of continue using the evaluation version
One answer could be a personal satisfaction of supporting developing of good software, but I reality the user gets no extra functionality at all by registry the program. The functionality is the same and the message is the same after each command except for in the registered version it says Registered to: Name and the evaluation version says Shareware version.
I think that coneXware will loose potential buyers of this software because of having too generous functionality in the evaluation version of PACL. If you disagree with me about this, ask yourself how many people would have bought PowerArchiver if the nag screen wasn’t visible in the unregistered version of the program. Some people would have bought the program, but I don’t think it would have been as many as there’s today.
The nag screen have a purpose of encourage people to buy the program I don’t see any reason for having a corresponding message in PACL with a pause after each command that the user would have to press the ENTER button to continue.
This message is already far to long :) but I have one more thing to say. I’m very satisfied with PACL and the more I use it, the more I like it. If the current small difference in the evaluation and the registered version is working as expected, it’s ok for me. I will continue use the program and also looking forward future versions of it.