TBGBe last edited by
With the information displayed when using the File/Properties menu, could you also include information regarding compression options used?
a) type (e.g. Zip 4.5 or Zip)
b) compression options used (e.g. 7zip - solid / not solid)
yeah this would be great !!
especially showing if an archive is solid or not.
manuangi last edited by
I completely second the request!
We can have more detailed info for most of archive formats, so this will be one of the things for 9.1 most likely…
Another option I would like to see:
- ability to mark each entry in archive properties and copy them to the clipboard
here another suggestion:
- also display the uncompressed size of the archive in the archive properties
jowood last edited by
Why not making an extension for the file properties dialog as the most archivers have?
deipotent last edited by
I’m not impressed with you closing my other thread spwolf! My thread did not relate to feature requests for Archive Properties, it was more a bug report because PA was not displaying some Archive Properties, even though all the required information was present for PA to determine the relevant info.
Anyway, I suppose I’ll just have to copy all my previous posts over to this thread (or waste my time creating a new thread which will probably be deleted anyway!)
Archive Properties always shown as “Unknown”
It might just be me, but on the Archive Properties dialog, the following information is always “Unknown”:
Ver. to extract
Ver. made by
I have tested it with several ZIP archives which I know have been compressed using standard Zip compression (ie. not Zip64), and were created solely on Windows. Why is this information not shown ?
Can you fix this please ?!
Yes, but when I checked the central directories of the test archives I created, every file entry had the following info:
version made by operating system (00): MS-DOS, OS/2, NT FAT
version made by zip software (20): 2.0
operat. system version needed to extract (00): MS-DOS, OS/2, NT FAT
unzip software version needed to extract (20): 2.0
Therefore the information is present, but PA is not using it when displaying the Properties dialog. Why bother having these entries on the Properties dialog if they are always “Unknown”
This is a bug in PA, and NOT a feature request as spwolf indicated by deleting my original thread.
Please can you fix this anomaly (I won’t call it a bug because you’ll probably close this thread too!)
Sorry if I sound a bit argumentative, but I don’t appreciate it when a valid thread is closed when the developers have had no input to the thread to ask any questions. You simply assumed the problem was a feature request, without “thinking outside of the box”.
Anyway, I’m sure I’ve expressed my feelings. If I’m wrong, I’ll have no problem apologising to you, but from my testing this would not appear to be the case. I have been involoved with beta-testing of various Windows software, so if you want another beta-tester for PA, PM me.
So as not to leave this post on a bad note……
I am sorry if I sounded harsh, but you should have read my post, and previous posts on the subject.
Problem is that full info can not be shown for all formats, only for some. Hence when full info is available “Unknown” is shown. It is not an bug, rather properties box needs to be redesigned to better show available info, which is what this wishlist is for.
Sorry for moving/closing threads, but we have to do that to keep everything tidy to certain extent… Anything that can keep number of active threads will make it easier for us to check bugs, wishlist items when we start working on new version.
Dont worry, we want you to report every single issue you ever see in PowerArchiver, no matter how big or small but at the same time we have to keep forums easy to read. We have a good saying - if you dont report it, we probably wont fix it! (meaning we wont find it of ofcourse
p.s. maybe I should explain it better - for displaying “advanced” ZIP info, property box is not sufficient, and proper info can not be shown there because it is not correct info for ZIP format. Thats why ZIP info such as ver to extract and OS is not and should not be listed there.
Due to comptability with older zip utilities, proper info is not always written into zip header when it comes to these and they also might be specific to single file, as files in archives can have different zip format characteristics. So you can not show ver to extract as 4.5 if some of the files in the archive can be extracted by 2.0 and others with 4.5. And obviously, you are not using MS-DOS to extract the file, are you?
deipotent last edited by
I’m not offended in any way. I’;m more dismayed that you still haven’t understood my post.
I understand that the Archive properties of files I refer to require that all the files in the archive be compressed with the same OS, and/or format.
As explained in my previous posts, I have explicitly created test archives, verifying that every file has been compressed with the same OS and algorithm (I did this by loading the test archives into WinZip, and painstakinkngly looking through the Advanced Archive Properties dialog).
Therefore, from my end (and at least one other perspective) a bug does exist. Every file in my test ZIP archives has been compressed with the same OS and same algorithm. The relevant information is therefore constant throughout archive. Because of this, enough information is available to PA to display these three required fields, but yet it doesn’t!
I don’t want to get argumentative (even though I like to destroy a person every once in a while :D), because I like PA, but the fact that you are so quick to dismiss my concerns only tends to indicate that this is a known problem with PA, and that you might be having trouble fixing it. Instead you’d rather dismiss the problem.
I’m disappointed because you don’t even seem to want to discuss the problem I’m experiencing. I mean, you haven’t even asked me a meaningful question to try and solve the problem. You keep on suggesting I’m asking for a new feature, which I’m not. This feature is already (supposedly) present, but it’s not currently working correctly!
I can only assume you’re having a bad day spwolf and are having an off day with your customer care skills. If you choose to dismiss this post again, I can only assume your previously good customer care record does not matter to you any more. Maybe you’ve been bought out by Norton, or someone!
PA used to be one of my favourite apps, but within a few hours it’s repuation has been severely damaged by spwolfs narrow mindedness. You could certainly learn something from the support offered by MetaProducts. The support for Offline Explorer Pro is out-of-this-world.
Anyway, this will be my last post on the matter if I don’t get any reasonable support. Howver, for all you other PA users out there, there is definitely a problem with PA when reporting ZIP archive properties. (Even if the PA staff don’t want to admit it!!!)
PS. I expect this post to be deleted due to the fact that it’s exposing the truth about some members of PA support!
only part I dont understand here is if you are actually joking or did you not read my post?
PowerArchiver is not supposed to show that info for ZIP archives, because it would not be correct and would only serve to confuse users.
This is due to the limited design of Properties box, and it has to be improved so more information can be shown.
1. For instance - in your example for:
Host OS: MS-DOS, OS/2, NT FAT
What happens if user has Win98? Does that mean it cant extract the info?
2. Another example:
Ver to extract: 4.5
What happens if user has encrypted one file out of 100 in the archive. Rest of the files are not encrypted and can be read by any kind of ZIP utility, without support for 4.5 standard.
Is the user supposed to check Archive properties and decide that he cant send a file to a coworker because he doesnt have PowerArchiver?
Once again, design of the box is not sufficient to show proper information about zip archives, without the chance of showing bad information.
p.s. I am exposed!
TBGBe last edited by
Improved properties for PA 2007.
Claude Renaud last edited by