I’m looking forward to deploying PowerArchiver 2023 to my users. Can you tell us when the MSI will be available for download and distribution?
Thanks.
Just tried using the Modern (Windows 10) Icon set and seeing a few missing icons in both PowerArchiver Burner and PowerArchiver Encryption screens . They are all there in the Minimalistik icon set and the only difference I can see is the former is blue and the latter grey. In version 22.00.9
powerarc_2023-09-18_17-00-19.png
powerarc_2023-09-18_17-01-05.png
Hi there,
there were some security issues fixed in 7zip:
https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-23-1165/
https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-23-1164/
As it seems, that PowerArchiver and PACL use the 7zip libraries, could you please update them to the latest version?
Hi,
From where I get PAVD2023.EXE? PowerArchiver 2023 tries to open it.
But it seems, it tries to download PAVD2021.EXE.
Thanks
I noticed that the version of ZPAQ used is older than the latest released 7.15 https://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html also there seems to be a newer fork that adds several features https://github.com/fcorbelli/zpaqfranz
It would be useful to implement this latest version (it also maintains the same syntax and behavior as the latest official release if used the -715 flag) and add when opening a zpaq file a choice of the version of the files to show (e.g. as dummy folders represented the various versions present). Since any previous changes are stored with this format, it is possible to extract a snapshot of a certain date/version.
If I open a password-protected zipper file (created with WinRAR but I think that’s irrelevant), open it with PowerArchiver and run “Remove Encryption” on the same file, then reopen it and add a password with “Encrypt Archive,” the resulting archive will be protected with the old ZipCrypto algorithm and not AES as indicated.
(this can be verified, for example, by trying to open the archive files with Windows Explorer, which does not support the AES algorithm)
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.
PA2009 Compression Ratio
-
I am a registered user and I’m using PA2009 Beta 5. I’m just curious about why when compressing some files & folders in PA2009 and compressing the same files & folders in 7-Zip would end up with different size files. I used ultra compression in both and used 7z as the archive type in PA2009.
PA2009 result: 19,256kb
7-Zip result: 16,779kbI still use PA2009 because it stores the relative folder info and 7-Zip does not (at least I couldn’t find that option in 7-Zip). I don’t think that the relative folder info alone would cause that much size difference. I’m not sure what the results would be with previous PA versions.
Any ideas?
BudmanWV
-
Welcome to PowerArchiver forums, Budmanwv!
-
I am a registered user and I’m using PA2009 Beta 5. I’m just curious about why when compressing some files & folders in PA2009 and compressing the same files & folders in 7-Zip would end up with different size files. I used ultra compression in both and used 7z as the archive type in PA2009.
PA2009 result: 19,256kb
7-Zip result: 16,779kbI still use PA2009 because it stores the relative folder info and 7-Zip does not (at least I couldn’t find that option in 7-Zip). I don’t think that the relative folder info alone would cause that much size difference. I’m not sure what the results would be with previous PA versions.
Any ideas?
BudmanWV
there shouldnt be such difference - are you using Optimized? If so, turn it off.
In our testings, I have not seen difference than is bigger than 0.01%.
-
are you by any chance using queue? There was an bug in b5 where queue did not use the ultra settings for 7z.
-
I was not using the Queue. However, I was also not using the “Create Solid Archive” option. Using that option, I did the another comparison and here are the results:
PA2009: 16,796kb
7-Zip: 16,779kbThat is close enough for me. Thanks for the suggestions and help.
Budman
-
there shouldnt be such difference - are you using Optimized? If so, turn it off.
In our testings, I have not seen difference than is bigger than 0.01%.
Hmm…Optimized Compression not so good…not so smart…
-
-
haha, what is not so smart about it?
http://www.powerarchiver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3262
PowerArchiver tries to smartly detect files ```but after such smart compressed files size bigger then common -
[
but after such smart compressed files size bigger then common
and the compressin speed higher then common.](but after such [color]smart[/color] compressed files size bigger then common
and the compressin speed higher then common.) -
@NTFS:
and the compressin speed higher then common.
may be so,
indeed
