-
It would be nice to be able to at least extract Zstandard archives.
-
I prefer to use light themes, and when, for example, I have set up my main archive screen to be Classic Toolbar with Blizzard Blue, files in the archive are highlighted (no checkboxes, full row select) with white text on grey background. They are easy to see .
However, in the Add screens, the files and folders are black type upon a pale blue background, which is not so readily visible, especially when highlighting separate files in lists with Ctrl/Click for addition. It would be ideal if the backgrounds to files in these screens could be set to mimic the highlighting of those in the main archive window.
I have tried experimenting with different themes and settings for skins, toolbars and so forth, but, unless I’ve missed something, none seem to give me the effect I want.
-
Re: Windows 11 Context menu support
It would really make me happy if you put .BH in the Windows 11 context menu. I know it’s in the “More Options” section, but this would make it more convenient. Don’t know why the option to add it to the menu isn’t there in the first place. P-L-E-A-S-E ??? :) Thanks You!
-
Any chance of including this format in a future release?
https://github.com/FS-make-simple/paq9a
Exceptional compression levels.
Thanks.
-
Now that the Windows Store is making support for non-UWP apps mainstream, including those with their own update delivery process, it would be nice to see PowerArchiver in the Windows Store going forwards - at least as a channel for the product to be available.
-
Tell us what features you want from new format…
-
In Windows 11 a new explorer context menu is introduced.
The “old” context menu may still be accessed through an additional mouse click, to reach the PowerArchiver context menu functions, but this isn’t comfortable at all.Could you add PowerArchiver items to the first level (and ideally disable the Windows native ZIP entry)
-
I’m surprised that OneDrive for Business isn’t supported. I can’t link my company’s OneDrive account, but a personal (free) account works fine.
-
Hi,
I’d like to propose an improvement for password protected archives.
Actual behavior is:
If I open an archive, which is password protected and make a typo in the password dialog, I’ll get the message, that the password was wrong and I end up with an empty window. I need to reopen the archive to be able to enter the password again.Improved behavior:
Tell me, that the password was wrong and give me the chance to enter the correct password to decrypt the archive. -
Hello!
I know I have been asking for this feature some time ago, but as nothing has changed let me ask again:
The ZIPX-format offers an algorithm, that compresses JPEG-files by about 20-30%. Please add compression (packing) support for this in ZIPX-archives to Powerarchiver. Extraction of JPEGs packed into ZIPX by this algorithm is already supported by Powerarchiver for a long time, so it should not be difficult? Or is it a licensing problem?
Thanks! -
Hi,
I’d like to suggest, that the correct archive type is (always) selected, when adding files by drag & drop to an archive.
This is already happening if the archive has the correct extension. For example, if I’m adding files to test.zip, zip will be selected. If I’m adding files to test.7z, 7z will be selected as format in “Add dialog”.
But this won’t be working, if the archive has not the “right” extension.
So XPI files (Firefox addons) for example are ZIP files. PowerArchiver opens them without any problems, but if I try to add file by drag & drop, PowerArchiver won’t auto select “ZIP”, but use the last selected archive format, while PowerArchiver already knows, that I’m trying to add files to a ZIP. -
I love this, only there is one problem. The UAC elevation feature does not extend to Mount Image option in the add-on software PA provided. It is most annoying whenever I am on highest UAC settings and I mount an ISO, every time I open and create a virtual drive UAC appears. I also do not want to completely disable UAC.
Is adding UAC elevation for mount image feature possible?
-
The now defunct Bulkzip had Nanozip (nz) as an option this would be great to have for compatibility with my .nz files, so I don’t have to install Bulkzip separately.
32bit Shell Extensions for Vista 64bit Needed
-
Creating wishlist topic per spwolf’s request.
Reference: http://www.powerarchiver.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13921#post13921
-
It’s been almost a week, could I get a confirmation / eta for this please.
Thanks.
-
we never comment on wishes, until it is time to implement them or they were implemented…
future major release.
-
Please advise whether this will be fixed in PA 2009. Thank you.
-
Please advise whether this will be fixed in PA 2009. Thank you.
we will implement the feature eventually, but i can not promise you when… and i could not find any threads on tc website on how to do it from original article, that might speed things up.
-
both threads you specify on original post, dont have any info except that it doesnt work…
I certainly could not find info on how to make it work or how other programs made it work? I might be blind and it is late here too…
thanks!
-
I don’t run a 64-bit OS, so I’m not really sure if this will work, but if you can install both 32-bit and 64-bit PA side-by-side on the machine you should get both 32 and 64-bit shell extensions.
I do know this worked for an acquaintance that wanted 32 and 64-bit extensions for 7Zip.
-
http://www.mythicsoft.com/kb/KnowledgebaseArticle10020.aspx
I would try option 2, however the path should be dynamic and not hard-coded (needs to point to actual install path).
-
http://www.mythicsoft.com/kb/KnowledgebaseArticle10020.aspx
I would try option 2, however the path should be dynamic and not hard-coded (needs to point to actual install path).
it really has nothing to do with what we need to do :-).
Is there an app that does it from install? So we can see how they are doing it.
But if I am thinking right, we would have to install two distinctivly different shell extensions which I am not sure that will work properly right now - in fact, i am sure it wont.
I will put it on the wishlist for 11.5…
-
Men, I’m seeing some truly fantastic features being implemented in PA 2009. And it kills me because these features are right up my alley and I’d be able to offer some really good feedback & suggestions, as I have in the past. But without 32-bit extensions working for 64-bit Vista the program is dead in the water for me. This situation is making me quite blue…
-
Men, I’m seeing some truly fantastic features being implemented in PA 2009. And it kills me because these features are right up my alley and I’d be able to offer some really good feedback & suggestions, as I have in the past. But without 32-bit extensions working for 64-bit Vista the program is dead in the water for me. This situation is making me quite blue…
it is not simple - it will take a lot of our time, since way we access shell extensions right now would have to be changed due to 2 extensions installed at the same time…. so thats why no way we could have done it for 11.00…
-
Okay…
-
Is there any way the method for choosing which extension is installed/used can be user-configurable? At the moment I believe the installer is making a default decision based upon which version of OS is detected (since there aren’t separate downloads for 32-bit / 64-bit).
This would at least offer a choice for people that need PA to work with 32-bit apps running on 64-bit Windows and wouldn’t require changing the system for accessing shell extensions to allow 2 concurrent shell extensions, one for each architecture…
Another idea is splitting up the versions, one for 32-bit and one for 64-bit. True, having one installer for both versions is cooler…but this isn’t working 100% yet. If there were separate installers it might be possible to install them to separate directories and ‘hack’ compatibility for both architectures temporarily, no?
It doesn’t have to be pretty for now - we understand it will take fundamental changes for it to be done the right way - but please at least offer a temporary workaround. This is a blocking situation (there, I didn’t call it a bug ;)).
-
Another idea is splitting up the versions, one for 32-bit and one for 64-bit. True, having one installer for both versions is cooler…but this isn’t working 100% yet. If there were separate installers it might be possible to install them to separate directories and ‘hack’ compatibility for both architectures temporarily, no?
I’m finding that I need this support too (running 64-bit XP Pro and wanting to use a 3rd party filemanager that’s 32-bit only).
I’m near certain that if you made a 32-bit-only installer available that I could get this to work well enough by having 32 and 64 bit PAs installed side-by-side. This workaround works for other shell extenders (TortoiseSVN for example).
-
Its party time :D