1. Home
  2. PowerArchiver 2021
  3. Tech Support
  4. PA compatible with Vista x64?


PA compatible with Vista x64?

  • D

    Just checking before I take the plunge :)

    0
  • S

    yes, PowerArchiver supports Windows Vista x64 including 64 bit shell extensions.

    0
  • RJWaring

    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 ;)

    0
  • spwolf
    conexware

    I am not so sure about SP1…

    0 S 1 Reply
  • S

    @spwolf:

    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 ;)

    0
  • spwolf
    conexware

    for less headaches overall, i do reccomend 32bit edition… many hardrive companies still dont have drivers for 64bit OS’s.

    0 S 1 Reply
  • S

    @spwolf:

    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…)?

    0 spwolf 1 Reply
  • D

    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.

    0 spwolf 1 Reply
  • spwolf
    conexware

    @denzilla:

    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 :-).

    0
  • spwolf
    conexware

    @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.

    0 D 1 Reply
  • D

    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

    0
  • Naruto

    PA stil compatible with Vista Sp 1 for x86 & x64. I’ve tested it. Got the Vista SP 1 from μsoft OEM Partner site.

    0 D 1 Reply
  • D

    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.

    0
  • C

    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.

    0 spwolf 1 Reply
  • spwolf
    conexware

    @crunch:

    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.

    0 C 1 Reply
  • C

    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…

    0 spwolf 1 Reply
  • spwolf
    conexware

    @crunch:

    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.

    0
  • C

    @spwolf:

    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?

    0
  • C

    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?

    0 spwolf 1 Reply
  • spwolf
    conexware

    @crunch:

    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.

    0
  • C

    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.

    0 spwolf 1 Reply
  • spwolf
    conexware

    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.

    0
  • C

    Done. Thank you so much…

    http://www.powerarchiver.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13927#post13927

    0
Log in to reply