-
For some reason, the PowerArchiver functions in the Windows 11 context menu no longer work after the last Windows Update. Only the functions in the classic context menu function as they should.
I’ve tried uninstalling PowerArchiver and using RevoUninstaller to remove all bits and pieces that were left behind and did a clean install of PowerArchiver, it didn’t fix the issue. Other items in the Windows 11 context menu work.
-
Re: Explorer.exe Crash on right click
This appears to be happening again with the Power Archiver 2022 shell extensions.
When I have Use Explorer Shell Extensions enabled in Power Archiver Configuration and right-click on c:\Users\username\Start Menu, (hidden Junction file), File Explorer crashes.
I have version 21.00.15 (03/2022) 64-bit installed in Windows 10 Version 21H2 (Build 19044.1826).
-
PA 21.00.18 running on Windows 7 64 bit.
I made a big .PA file and thought I’d check it was made correctly with Menu / Actions / Test.
Discovered:
a) PA always issues a UAC prompt to do this!
b) PA always says there are many errors in PA files. -
In the latest version of PA, on W11 (latest build/SP) when you try to use the first level context menu - NOTHING HAPPENS (particularly when you do this from Downloads or Documents folders) - however I noticed that it DOES WORK when you use the context menu from the Desktop. Going to the second level context menu does work however.
-
PA 2023 22.00.08
Long time no seeing. So I start up the new year with a first problem : the virtual driver cannot be installed. Reason : it is missing in the Fast Ring PatchBeam Update Service…
Virtual driver PA 2023-01-28 152607.png
It seems a standard problem with new releases :-)
Can I have a link or can it be fixed. Thank you. CU later -
When the function for testing archives is invoked via the shell context menu (PowerArchiver > Test) then all the files in the archive get extracted to the current folder.
The test dialog reports as many errors as there are files in the archive but it fails to give any hint as to which files are supposed to be erroneous or what the nature of the problem might be. Comparing the extracted files to the originals shows no differences at all.
The .7z in question was produced with maximised compression settings in 7zip (taking forever but resulting in smaller archives than .7z produced by PowerArchiver with maximised settings). Therefore I wanted to see whether PowerArchiver can at least test .7z that it produced itself. Hence I had PowerArchiver convert a .pa with the same contents to .7z. There weren’t any errors reported but the resulting .7z contained fewer than half of the files contained in the .pa (137 of 366), so I scratched that test.
Performance is abysmal when testing via the context menu (e.g. almost 2 minutes for testing a .7z that 7zip tests in 4 seconds), but that is most likely due to the fact that the extracted files are written to disk. Testing the same .7z in the PowerArchiver GUI takes only 8 seconds but causes the mysterious appearance of a UAC dialog, as reported elsewhere.
The testing function is vital because PowerArchiver has a history of producing archives that it cannot unpack without errors or that do not conform to the respective file format standards (e.g. ZIP) so that other programs report them as erroneous.
The point of creating archives is that the files in them will most likely have to be extracted at some point. If the extraction cannot be guaranteed to produce correct results then the whole program is absolutely pointless. Actually, worse than pointless - it causes data loss and hence damage.
-
In PowerArchiver 2023 22.00.06 configuration, the option labelled “Start PowerArchiver 2023 Starter when my computer starts” seems to be redundant.
I am only allowed to change this option when PA Starter is disabled, and then it seems to be ignored.
When I enable PA Starter this option is forced to the enabled state.
I think it’d be good to remove “Start PowerArchiver 2023 Starter when my computer starts” completely. I’ve always found it confusing having both options.
Added later: However i don’t particularly want to use queue but I do like having the PAStarter icon in my tray area.
-
W10 Pro 22H2 - 64 -bit
PA 22.00.06 (PA 2023)
It has been the case with previous versions of PowerArchiver, but I had hoped that the latest might behave differently. Not so, I’m afraid.
I have, for various obscure reasons, created a few .pa archives, mainly in the hope that they will save me some more space. From time to time, I use the “Test” option to check that important archives are OK and uncorrupted.
With every .pa archive I’ve tested, the process runs through OK but then reports that there are errors. This is always the number of files in the archive e.g. if 11 files, then 11 errors reported.
In the .pa, I can:-
preview the files (usually PDF) extract some or all files and look at or use them convert the .pa to a .zip or .zipx archive, which then works fine and tests without errorsIs it the case that the Test routine isn’t designed for .pa archives, or is there another reason? Although the .pa seems to function properly, despite the test reporting errors, I would like to be sure that every .pa is OK and not “broken”.
Some of the .pas are quite old and produced with earlier PA versions (they are truly “archives”). If I extract all the files in the old .pa, create a new, fresh .pa and add back the files to that, then test the new, no errors (at least in the .pa I’ve tried this on) are reported. This would suggest a mismatch between old .pas and newer versions of PA itself.
-
Clipboard02.jpg
See the, supposedly, blank space where the green box is? It’s like that in Modern Light theme too. I can toggle it, but it’s missing text or shouldn’t be there I guess?
Thanks :)
PA compatible with Vista x64?
-
Just checking before I take the plunge :)
-
yes, PowerArchiver supports Windows Vista x64 including 64 bit shell extensions.
-
Fully compatible! but you don’t need to take our word for it you can try the product for free 1st then take the financial plunge if you are happy with it ;)
-
I am not so sure about SP1…
-
I am not so sure about SP1…
Ok, Vista SP 1 has not been released yet (RTM is avaiable to MSDN Subsribers only)… We have some time to test it ;)
-
for less headaches overall, i do reccomend 32bit edition… many hardrive companies still dont have drivers for 64bit OS’s.
-
for less headaches overall, i do reccomend 32bit edition… many hardrive companies still dont have drivers for 64bit OS’s.
but if you have more then 3 gb RAM installed, using 64 bit OS is the only way to use it. If your CPU supports x64 features, why not to use them? Also why not to use extra security features avaiable only in Vista x64 (Patch Guard, signed-only driver installation…)?
-
I purchased a PA lic long ago. Just wanted to make sure it was going to work with Vista 64-bit before I bothered to install it. BTW, I have access to a slipstream ISO of SP1 so it will be SP1 thats installed.
-
I purchased a PA lic long ago. Just wanted to make sure it was going to work with Vista 64-bit before I bothered to install it. BTW, I have access to a slipstream ISO of SP1 so it will be SP1 thats installed.
as I said, dont do it, yet :-).
-
@NTFS:
but if you have more then 3 gb RAM installed, using 64 bit OS is the only way to use it. If your CPU supports x64 features, why not to use them? Also why not to use extra security features avaiable only in Vista x64 (Patch Guard, signed-only driver installation…)?
i understand that… but many hardware components will not work with 64bit Vista because of the nature of cut-throat hardware business. Most companies, even large ones, simply take designs from Taiwanese companies who then dont ever bother with releasing 64bit drivers.
-
Not sure if I can resist. All my hardware is supported with x64 drivers and I don’t use any of the programs on MS’s list of problem applications :D
-
PA stil compatible with Vista Sp 1 for x86 & x64. I’ve tested it. Got the Vista SP 1 from μsoft OEM Partner site.
-
Just finished installing everything tonight and PA seems too be fine. Running a slipstreamed ISO (direct from MS) of Vista Business SP1 64-bit. Was a bit suprised that it installed into the x86 program files Dir though.
-
It’ll do that for programs that aren’t native 64-bit for backwards compatibility. I have found one problem on Vista Ultimate x64 SP1: shell extensions don’t show up when right-clicking associated files in Total Commander. They do when right-clicking associated files in Windows Explorer though.
-
It’ll do that for programs that aren’t native 64-bit for backwards compatibility. I have found one problem on Vista Ultimate x64 SP1: shell extensions don’t show up when right-clicking associated files in Total Commander. They do when right-clicking associated files in Windows Explorer though.
thats because shell extensions are actually 64bit… probably why it doesnt work in TC.
-
Ok, so I would need to be using a 64-bit version of TC for the shell extensions to show up there is what you’re saying right…
-
Ok, so I would need to be using a 64-bit version of TC for the shell extensions to show up there is what you’re saying right…
i would guess so - you need to ask at TC forums/support.
-
thats because shell extensions are actually 64bit… probably why it doesnt work in TC.
spwolf, did you mean PA’s shell extensions are 64bit, or just shell extensions in general when running on 64bit OS?
Is PA 32bit or 64bit?
Since TC is 32bit, I need to install 32bit version of PA for its shell extensions to show up in TC. Is it possible to install 32bit PA on a 64bit Vista, or is the installer detecting 64bit OS and installing a 64bit version of PA?
-
It seems that on 64bit Windows, 32bit applications can install 32bit or 64bit shell extensions (or both). These shell extensions are then accessible by programs running within the same architecture as the shell extension.
It seems that on 64bit Vista, PA installs 64bit shell extensions. Can you have it install the 32bit shell extensions as well?
-
It seems that on 64bit Windows, 32bit applications can install 32bit or 64bit shell extensions (or both). These shell extensions are then accessible by programs running within the same architecture as the shell extension.
It seems that on 64bit Vista, PA installs 64bit shell extensions. Can you have it install the 32bit shell extensions as well?
I am pretty sure that you can only have 64bit shell extensions, since they are loaded by system itself and not by PowerArchiver.
If you installed 32bit extensions, they would not work in Windows. Otherwise we would not go through all the trouble of writing 64bit extensions.
-
The work accomplished in writing the 64bit extensions is not wasted, it helped to add compatibility for 64bit programs on 64bit Windows. Windows Explorer falls under this category (although apparently there is a 32bit as well as a 64bit version of that program on 64bit Windows that run from different directories). However, there are also 32bit programs running on 64bit Windows and compatibility for those programs is currently broken. Here we’re talking about most of the Windows Explorer shell replacements.
Please read the part about Avast antivirus installing 32bit and 64bit extensions here http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=14948&highlight=64bit+shell+extension+windows
…and then read the part about WinRAR’s steps towards full compatibility here http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=9153&highlight=64bit+shell+extension+windows
Note that the WinRAR thread was made in 2005, WinRAR has fixed this problem at this point (not making a comparison, just showing that it is possible to have full compatibility with 32bit/64bit apps on 64bit Windows).
Thanks for your time.
-
I know… i would have preffered for explorer shell replacements to do it properly, instead of us doing the work, for them.
can you please create an wishlist for that in wishlist forums? thanks a lot.
-
Done. Thank you so much…
http://www.powerarchiver.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13927#post13927
