For example:
Download this ZIP file: http://dslstats.me.uk/files/dslstats32W-6.5.zip
Everything in the ZIP file is in a directory “dslstats32W-6.5”.
However when I extract using right click “Extract Here” the name of the directory created is “2W-6.5” !
I am running PA 22.00.09 on Windows 11. I have seen the same happen with some other kinds of archive too.
Hello!
Is there currently no portable version of PA2023 available?
(When) do you plan to release one?
Thanks!
If I compress a folder to a .pa using right click, Compress to folder.pa and use the new Windows 11 menu then the Options, Configuration, Miscellaneous, Use normal relative path setting is always enabled.
But I like this option disabled so I have to use the old style menu in order to get PA to compress a folder in the way I wish.
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
PA 22.00.09
344c6c52-f03f-407b-ad76-8130b31936bb-image.png
PA 22.00.09 shows a nag screen, when I try to open some setting windows. I have already PA 2023 Toolbox and PA shows, that it’s licensed in the info dialog.
a860bd81-3e71-4ce0-9988-74cd4189d43e-image.png
0836bc83-8046-4a91-bc7b-68bd231100a3-image.png
PA 22.00.09
Some labels in the help toolbar are not translated:
b3c1f5c4-b73d-49d8-9ed0-56294840838c-image.png
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.
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.
How can they compress this strong?
-
as an example, download this file:
http://www.colorpilot.com/chm2pdfstore/Chm2PdfPilot.exethen extract it where you like.
then compress it to ANY archive type PowerArchiver offers the opportunity to, at the strongest ratio.the compressed file will always be bigger than the original exe.
how can that be? I might think they’re using an even stronger compression tool!
what do you think? -
Can you tried 7-ZIP format and Ultra compression with Solid option?
-
Can you tried 7-ZIP format and Ultra compression with Solid option?
yes, I did…that’s why I posted…
the exe file you download is 1.881KB, if you decompress it then 7-zip it (with the options you said…which, anyway, are my standard), you get a 2.068KB-big archive…
:confused:
-
[old image removed] (to save space)
-
btw…compressing to a CAB does slightly better…but always 2.037KB vs 1.881KB only
-
@NTFS:
I can confirm this!
See attached image…
confirmed…as your image lets see, the exe is an SFX 7-Zip archive…
they used 7-Zip…so, how come we can’t compress as strongly using 7Z within PA?
-
Confirmed here as well. They must have tweaked the compression options for 7-zip.
-
Confirmed here as well. They must have tweaked the compression options for 7-zip.
Yes, you can use “stronger” 7zip compression which uses larger dictionary, however in most of the cases it will not lower the compression. PowerArchiver uses 32 MB dictionary with Ultra settings which will take up 400 MB of your RAM, 7zip allows the use of up to 192 MB of memory, taking up to 1.9 GB of RAM…
I personally tested it with quite few things and never noticed anything but small difference with larger dictionaries than 32 MB…
-
I personally tested it with quite few things and never noticed anything but small difference with larger dictionaries than 32 MB…
This must be one of those cases where the dictionary size does make a difference. That’s why I put the request for more 7-Zip options in the wishlist. :)
-
Yes, you can use “stronger” 7zip compression which uses larger dictionary, however in most of the cases it will not lower the compression. PowerArchiver uses 32 MB dictionary with Ultra settings which will take up 400 MB of your RAM, 7zip allows the use of up to 192 MB of memory, taking up to 1.9 GB of RAM…
I personally tested it with quite few things and never noticed anything but small difference with larger dictionaries than 32 MB…
I think you should let your users decide about the amount of memory to set the dictionary to…as noticed, some times that does make a differencd in files final size.
I’ve got a testing pc with 4GB of RAM…so I might very well have 1.9GB of those taken for compressing… ;)
-
I think you should let your users decide about the amount of memory to set the dictionary to…as noticed, some times that does make a differencd in files final size.
I’ve got a testing pc with 4GB of RAM…so I might very well have 1.9GB of those taken for compressing… ;)
I don’t have “4GB of RAM” but I agree with you anyway. ;)
Thanks!
-
Good, then everyone is agreeable. :)
