-
Re: Explorer.exe Crash on right click
This appears to be happening again with the Power Archiver 2022 shell extensions.
When I have Use Explorer Shell Extensions enabled in Power Archiver Configuration and right-click on c:\Users\username\Start Menu, (hidden Junction file), File Explorer crashes.
I have version 21.00.15 (03/2022) 64-bit installed in Windows 10 Version 21H2 (Build 19044.1826).
-
Powerarchiver 2022
Right-click and select Encrypt on a folder does not work.
Although it says it encrypts, there is no encrypted file in the destination folder. -
The online update feature within the program suggests there is a later version than the ‘.17’ available on the web site. But clicking either download or update just reinstalls version .17.
Either there isn’t an update OR
the “download” and 'update" links should be repaired. -
Hi Dear,
Cannot login and request resend license code for my fd
-
Hi,
When you click on the Buy Now link, you come across four tabs - Home or Work, Enterprise Unlimited, Educational Discount, & Gift Discount.
What is the difference between a licence purchased via Gift Discount and a Home/Work licence?
Also, how can I renew the PowerArchiver Select plan a year after the purchase? Will it remind me automatically?
Best,
-
I’m running PA 21.00.17 64-bit on a 64-bit i7 desktop with W10 Pro, latest version. This 32gb of installed RAM.
As I use the PA pbs system for a number of scheduled archiving operations throughout the day, PA Starter is set to load and run at system startup.
In the course of trying to identify some causes of slowness and bottlenecks in other processes, I notice that PA Starter (PAS) always runs at between 11% and 15% of CPU (see screenshot), usually at about 12-13%. This is by far the highest demanding process on the system, as shown by Task Manager. In Performance Monitor, PAS Average CPU is 8.32, with every other process at less that 1 i.e. in decimal places only.
Task Manager also shows PAS Power Usage as “Very High”, and is the only process shown thus.
I have looked again at the information about PAS at https://wiki.powerarchiver.com/en:help:details:powerarchiver_starter, which was last modified in 2016. The article states a low memory usage for PAS of 784k, which is fair enough, but it is the large CPU overhead which is of concern.
It is of course possible to change the PAS priority, but this has no effect on CPU overhead.
However, is it possible to change PAS, which is required only at intervals to initiate PA scheduled tasks, from consuming so much system resource for every moment of the day?
PA Starter.jpg
-
I’m experiencing very slow extraction speed of multipart RAR files. For the first part the extraction is super fast but when PA reaches the part2.rar the extraction from there on gets super slow. PA needed for a 6,3 GB multipart archive 30 minutes to extract. I tested then with another program and it just took 70 seconds. I had this slow extraction speed with PA for quite a long time and I always thought that is maybe because of a high compression rate that the extraction would take longer. But it seems that only PA gets that slow.
I have lots of multipart archives that are 10+ GB and with PA it would be really time consuming. Is there any solution to this?
-
Hi. The “Move” Action seems to be Not Working when used in the Tool – Batch Archive.
Using the Options – Configuration – Compression Profiles ---- I created a Profile with the Action of Move. Also set were Zip, and Method Deflate.
When I use the Tool - Batch Archive – It appears to me that the Action Move does not Move the compressed files (basically add to zip, and delete the added file from original location on the same disk). Zip file(s) are created and look ok.
Typically I on the Batch Archive process – I have selected options to use a Profile with the Move Action.
File’s Current Folder Group files from same folder into same archive Add subfolders to separate archivesMy PowerArchiver version is 21.00.17 .
Can you reproduce ? – Or do you need additional details or information?
-
Hello,
PowerArchiver Command Line 7 support file greater than 2 Go ?
Thanks
-
i just registered my own copy and i need some help to set it…
if i set the ‘configuration>shell extension>open folder after extracting’ checkbox, after decompress an archive is opened the file manager on that folder but… if somebody is using a different file manager how to open XYplorer or Directory Opus for example and NOT the MS file manager?
consider this as a feature request also if not available within the 2022 version
-
I am looking for a way to stop the UAC elevation prompt when running Powerarchiver. In an old post about PA 2019, someone asked this and got a response to uncheck “all users” at the prompt but I am not seeing where one can do this. It definitely seems like the way to go though as if I click on “More Details” at the prompt I see that it is trying to run “_pautil.exe /paassociate /allusers /my(long binary string)”. Can you let me know? Thanks.
PS I tried renaming _pautil.exe and this worked, but I don’t know what the consequence of doing this may be so I would like to do this properly, thanks.
-
Just a question is Ashampoo zip pro 4 built by Powerrachiver as it is very similar and uses the pae encryption.
-
Hi,
Is it possible to transfer one of my existing PC Licenses to my MacBook? -
Re: Transfer PC License to MacBook iOS
Here is the email…
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 1:20 PM Rich DiBenedetto rmdibened@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Could you assist me with this?
Can I use my current licenses with MacOS?
If not, can I transfer a license to MacOS?Cheers and Have a Great Day,
RichOn Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:35 AM ConeXware, Inc. ordering@conexware.com wrote:
Dear Richard DiBenedetto,Thank you for supporting PowerArchiver! Please find your activation and registration codes below.
*** Online Activation ***
PowerArchiver Select for PowerArchiver Toolbox English - LIFETIME
is valid until - not limited.E-Mail: RMDibened@gmail.com
Activation Code: *** -
There would be many of us with Intel Processors.
and they have their own optimized zlib algorithm, which can result in more efficiency if used combined with their hardware processor.
Reference:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/zlib-compression-whitepaper-copy.pdfCan we get the same Functionality Under Hardware Acceleration Feature?
Zlib is not the only feature that intel has included with their processor, there’s many, which if combined can result in efficient and better compression ratios.
-
-
Greetings, new customer searching for help and/or refund…
-
With PowerArchiver context menu enabled, it is crashing Windows 10 File Explorer when right-clicking on the Default User junction in C:\Users. Had 2021 installed, updated to today’s 2022, still getting same crash. Must have Hidden files and folders set to Show, and Hide protected operating system files cleared in File Explorer Options|View.
Windows 10 Enterprise Version 21H2 (OS Build 19044.1708) (64-bit)
PowerArchiver 2022 Version: 21.00.15 (03/2022) 64-bit
Licensed:
PowerArchiver Toolbox Edition Personal EnglishDisabling PowerArchiver context menu using Autoruns: on the Explorer tab, uncheck PowerArchiver64 under HKLM\Software\Classes\Folders\ShellEx\ContextMenuHandlers and the crash does not happen.
-
Hello,
When clicking on the main ribbon for a new version I get a script error message.
Actual version: 21.00.15 - French version
OS: W10 21H2 19044.1645Best regards
WilfridPS: Keep building such good software
PA 2010 B1: "Open with PowerArchiver" ShellExt
-
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.
-
i think those are two different things, need to check it out
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
:)