• Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login
    Updates
    D

    Any updates going to happen for the bugs reported?

    Tech Support
    Bug extracting from ZIP etc using Extract here with PA 22.00.09
    Brian GregoryB

    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.

    Tech Support
    PA2023: Portable version missing?
    A

    Hello!
    Is there currently no portable version of PA2023 available?
    (When) do you plan to release one?
    Thanks!

    Tech Support
    Windows 11 bug in PA 22.00.09
    Brian GregoryB

    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.

    Tech Support
    Missing Icons
    LuxorL

    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

    Tech Support
    [BUG] PA2023 still shows red beta icon set in context menu
    BigMikeB

    PA 22.00.09
    344c6c52-f03f-407b-ad76-8130b31936bb-image.png

    Tech Support
    [BUG] License not recognized
    BigMikeB

    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

    Tech Support
    Some strings are not translated in PA2023
    BigMikeB

    PA 22.00.09

    Some labels in the help toolbar are not translated:
    b3c1f5c4-b73d-49d8-9ed0-56294840838c-image.png

    Tech Support
    MSI release?
    J

    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.

    Tech Support
    Security vulnerabilities in 7zip / Update for PowerArchiver and PACL libraries?
    BigMikeB

    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?

    Tech Support
    Virtual Drive
    E

    Hi,

    From where I get PAVD2023.EXE? PowerArchiver 2023 tries to open it.
    But it seems, it tries to download PAVD2021.EXE.

    Thanks

    Tech Support
    Better ZPAQ support
    W

    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.

    Tech Support
    Bug with "Encrypt Archive" action
    W

    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)

    Tech Support
    PA 21.00.18 Action / Test behaves oddly for me on .PA files
    Brian GregoryB

    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.

    Tech Support

    PA 2010 B1: "Open with PowerArchiver" ShellExt

    Tech Support
    2
    14
    7678
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • A
      ardax
      last edited by

      In the PowerArchiver Shell Extension options, I have “Open with PowerArchiver” set to show up on the submenu. This works fine for regular archives. For SFX archives, the open shows up on Explorer’s menu, rather than the submenu. I don’t think this is correct.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • spwolfS
        spwolf conexware
        last edited by

        i think those are two different things, need to check it out

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • A
          ardax
          last edited by

          That’s probably the case, since the “Open with PowerArchiver” on Explorer’s context menu that shows up for SFX archives is a current feature, but the configurable context menu entry is a new feature.

          Personally, I think that the SFX detection should follow the user’s specification for the new “Open with PowerArchiver” entry. If it’s placed in the submenu, put it there. If it’s hidden, don’t show it at all, SFX or not.

          What surprises me is that the menu entry I specifically placed on the submenu isn’t showing up at all for an SFX when detection is turned on. The other extraction options show up correctly though.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • spwolfS
            spwolf conexware
            last edited by

            it is 2 different features.
            1. is for archives
            2. is for sfx’s.

            it treats both differently. Due to slowdown for checking certain sfx types, those options are separate.

            Since exe’s are not frequently used (compared to rest of filetypes), it shows in main menu.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • A
              ardax
              last edited by

              What I’m proposing is that they should be combined into a single feature:

              1. Is the file an archive? This can be determined either by extension (zip, cab, 7z, etc.). If the “check exes for SFX” option is checked, then that can also be done.

              2. If the file is an archive, then show the decompression options, otherwise show the compression options. Honor the user’s configuration for the “Open with PowerArchiver” setting, no matter what kind of archive it is or how that determination came about.

              My point is that you’re surfacing a new option for the user to configure, and I think it necessitates a break from previous convention in order to properly honor it. I mean, I put it in the submenu for a reason. You’re giving me the option, and that’s where I want it to go. I think it’s inconsistent to ignore the user’s configuration simply because that’s the code that’s already there.

              I understand why the “check exes for sfxs” checkbox exists, since it’s much more expensive to have to open the file, read in a bit of it, and check for various signatures than it is to simply look at the filename.

              Of course, I know that what I’m asking for is easier said than done. At least, I think it is. :) I’m not sure what the current design for the shell extension is or how it determines which set of menu settings to show, just advocating for a change to improve the program by making the its behavior more consistent.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • spwolfS
                spwolf conexware
                last edited by

                they have to be separate options, but we maybe could combine position for both.

                but what happens then if you dont have open with PA selected for archives, but you do for .exe’s? Stays at default position?

                for some users, checking sfx’s is PA’s breaking feature as if you do it with large files over the network, it might take over 10 minutes and your explorer will freeze. Thats why option is there.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • A
                  ardax
                  last edited by

                  The option reads “Check for self-extracting ZIP, ARJ, ACE, BH, LHA, and RAR files”, not “Show ‘Open with PowerArchiver’ option for self-extracting…” :p

                  What I think it should do is control whether or not PA checks .exe files for sfxs in order to display the correct menu. Since the “Open with PA” menu option is now configurable, that option should be respected.

                  At the same time, I can understand why you should show the “Open with PA” entry somewhere when checking sfxs since there’s otherwise no easy way for the user to open the sfx within PA, but if the user places it in the submenu, that should be respected too.

                  Perhaps you could use this heuristic when the user hides “Open with PA” and checks the sfx box: If all the user’s selected options are in the submenu, place “Open with PA” there, else place in the current default location.

                  I thought of a related, but separate feature: Let the user choose which classes of drive to check for sfxs on. For example, in TortoiseHg, the user has the option of checking for working directory changes on hard disks only. I’m not sure what the various classes are, but I’m guessing the main classes are fixed disks, removable disks, and network disks.

                  spwolfS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • spwolfS
                    spwolf conexware @ardax
                    last edited by

                    @ardax:

                    Perhaps you could use this heuristic when the user hides “Open with PA” and checks the sfx box: If all the user’s selected options are in the submenu, place “Open with PA” there, else place in the current default location.

                    that was my suggestion as well… Miliiiii (heh).

                    btw. we have to be careful with how many new options we add, as we add new features, number of options grow and as everyone knows, we already have hundreds of options, so we try to keep adding new ones at minimum.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • A
                      ardax
                      last edited by

                      I’m not sure if this is a step forward or back :p : In Beta 2 I see that there’s a new option in the Shell Extensions section to check for SFX CAB files, and that it’s linked to the identically named checkbox in the Miscellaneous section. (Both point to the same action? I <3 Actions.)

                      Is there any particular reason that SFX CABs are treated separately from other SFX types? Why isn’t there a single option for all SFX files?

                      Finally, is there any chance of having the possibility of restricting SFX checking to hard disks only? It’s terribly useful to me most of the time, but I’m finding that the delays it can cause in Explorer over WiFi or WANs are really painful. (Especially if it’s, say, the download package for Win XP SP3 you right-clicked on.)

                      Another idea would be to have the shell extension cancel the SFX check after some short delay (say 1 second). That way Explorer doesn’t look like it’s hung while trying to parse a (sometimes very large) .exe file, but keeping the option available to those who would want it.

                      spwolfS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • spwolfS
                        spwolf conexware @ardax
                        last edited by

                        @ardax:

                        I’m not sure if this is a step forward or back :p : In Beta 2 I see that there’s a new option in the Shell Extensions section to check for SFX CAB files, and that it’s linked to the identically named checkbox in the Miscellaneous section. (Both point to the same action? I <3 Actions.)

                        Is there any particular reason that SFX CABs are treated separately from other SFX types? Why isn’t there a single option for all SFX files?

                        Finally, is there any chance of having the possibility of restricting SFX checking to hard disks only? It’s terribly useful to me most of the time, but I’m finding that the delays it can cause in Explorer over WiFi or WANs are really painful. (Especially if it’s, say, the download package for Win XP SP3 you right-clicked on.)

                        Another idea would be to have the shell extension cancel the SFX check after some short delay (say 1 second). That way Explorer doesn’t look like it’s hung while trying to parse a (sometimes very large) .exe file, but keeping the option available to those who would want it.

                        well I explained above why it is treated differently…

                        i have one question - are you using 64bit windows?

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • A
                          ardax
                          last edited by

                          Aren’t all SFXes, regardless of compression method, .exe files? If so, then it feels like a case of exposing an implementation detail to the user.

                          I own multiple PCs that PowerArchiver is installed on. My primary OS is 32-bit XP, but my other systems also have 32-bit Vista Home Premium, and 64-bit Vista Business. I was running 64-bit Windows 7 (build 7000) for a while, but not anymore.

                          spwolfS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • spwolfS
                            spwolf conexware @ardax
                            last edited by

                            @ardax:

                            Aren’t all SFXes, regardless of compression method, .exe files? If so, then it feels like a case of exposing an implementation detail to the user.

                            I own multiple PCs that PowerArchiver is installed on. My primary OS is 32-bit XP, but my other systems also have 32-bit Vista Home Premium, and 64-bit Vista Business. I was running 64-bit Windows 7 (build 7000) for a while, but not anymore.

                            all archives, are archives, so… that doesnt matter. CAB SFX’s are different from other SFX’s, hence it is separate option. As you have discovered, with CAB SFX’s, PA needs to search to the end of CAB file, unlike other archives. This makes it slow in some circumstances, so why exactly would you want to disable all of SFX’s instead cabs?

                            A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • A
                              ardax @spwolf
                              last edited by

                              @spwolf:

                              As you have discovered, with CAB SFX’s, PA needs to search to the end of CAB file, unlike other archives. This makes it slow in some circumstances, so why exactly would you want to disable all of SFX’s instead cabs?

                              My point is that I don’t think that most users care about how an SFX is implemented, so why expose those details (or internal side effects of dealing with them) to the user? Both options could be collapsed into a single checkbox for all types of SFX archives.

                              If you have users that requested this split, or if you’ve decided that having multiple options for the different SFX types is more beneficial than having a single option for all types, that’s fine. I’m just bringing it up to raise awareness of the possibility of removing an item from your configuration dialog. Software revisions making things simpler isn’t something that happens very often IME. :)

                              I also believe that being able to restrict SFX checking (of all types) to local hard drives is far more useful than having 2 subtly different checkboxes for SFX checking, but that’s a different feature. (And I know that “software features” isn’t a zero-sum game; it’s not as if one must be removed to make room for the other.)

                              Aside: I’m surprised that seeking to the end of a file would be so slow that it imparts a significant performance penalty compared to reading and parsing the data.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • spwolfS
                                spwolf conexware
                                last edited by

                                :)

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • First post
                                  Last post