4. 32bit Shell Extensions for Vista 64bit Needed

    Recent Topics


32bit Shell Extensions for Vista 64bit Needed

  • C

    Creating wishlist topic per spwolf’s request.

    Reference: http://www.powerarchiver.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13921#post13921

    0
  • C

    It’s been almost a week, could I get a confirmation / eta for this please.

    Thanks.

    0
  • conexware

    we never comment on wishes, until it is time to implement them or they were implemented…

    future major release.

    0
    C
     1 Reply
  • C

    Please advise whether this will be fixed in PA 2009. Thank you.

    0 1 Reply
  • conexware

    @crunch:

    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.

    0
  • conexware

    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!

    0
    M
     1 Reply
  • M

    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.

    0
    C
     1 Reply
  • C

    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).

    0 1 Reply
  • conexware

    @crunch:

    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…

    0
    C
     1 Reply
  • C

    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…

    0 1 Reply
  • conexware

    @crunch:

    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…

    0
    C
     1 Reply
  • C

    Okay…

    0
    C
     1 Reply
  • C

    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 ;)).

    0
    M
     1 Reply
  • M

    @crunch:

    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).

    0
  • conexware

    Its party time 😃

    0
Log in to reply