Navigation

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Search
    • PA 21.00.18 testing via context menu causes extraction of files

      D

      When the function for testing archives is invoked via the shell context menu (PowerArchiver > Test) then all the files in the archive get extracted to the current folder.

      The test dialog reports as many errors as there are files in the archive but it fails to give any hint as to which files are supposed to be erroneous or what the nature of the problem might be. Comparing the extracted files to the originals shows no differences at all.

      The .7z in question was produced with maximised compression settings in 7zip (taking forever but resulting in smaller archives than .7z produced by PowerArchiver with maximised settings). Therefore I wanted to see whether PowerArchiver can at least test .7z that it produced itself. Hence I had PowerArchiver convert a .pa with the same contents to .7z. There weren’t any errors reported but the resulting .7z contained fewer than half of the files contained in the .pa (137 of 366), so I scratched that test.

      Performance is abysmal when testing via the context menu (e.g. almost 2 minutes for testing a .7z that 7zip tests in 4 seconds), but that is most likely due to the fact that the extracted files are written to disk. Testing the same .7z in the PowerArchiver GUI takes only 8 seconds but causes the mysterious appearance of a UAC dialog, as reported elsewhere.

      The testing function is vital because PowerArchiver has a history of producing archives that it cannot unpack without errors or that do not conform to the respective file format standards (e.g. ZIP) so that other programs report them as erroneous.

      The point of creating archives is that the files in them will most likely have to be extracted at some point. If the extraction cannot be guaranteed to produce correct results then the whole program is absolutely pointless. Actually, worse than pointless - it causes data loss and hence damage.

      Tech Support
    • Start PowerArchiver 2023 Starter when my computer starts

      Brian Gregory

      In PowerArchiver 2023 22.00.06 configuration, the option labelled “Start PowerArchiver 2023 Starter when my computer starts” seems to be redundant.

      I am only allowed to change this option when PA Starter is disabled, and then it seems to be ignored.

      When I enable PA Starter this option is forced to the enabled state.

      I think it’d be good to remove “Start PowerArchiver 2023 Starter when my computer starts” completely. I’ve always found it confusing having both options.

      Added later: However i don’t particularly want to use queue but I do like having the PAStarter icon in my tray area.

      Tech Support
    • Testing .pa archives

      PA_Fan

      W10 Pro 22H2 - 64 -bit

      PA 22.00.06 (PA 2023)

      It has been the case with previous versions of PowerArchiver, but I had hoped that the latest might behave differently. Not so, I’m afraid.

      I have, for various obscure reasons, created a few .pa archives, mainly in the hope that they will save me some more space. From time to time, I use the “Test” option to check that important archives are OK and uncorrupted.

      With every .pa archive I’ve tested, the process runs through OK but then reports that there are errors. This is always the number of files in the archive e.g. if 11 files, then 11 errors reported.

      In the .pa, I can:-

      preview the files (usually PDF) extract some or all files and look at or use them convert the .pa to a .zip or .zipx archive, which then works fine and tests without errors

      Is it the case that the Test routine isn’t designed for .pa archives, or is there another reason? Although the .pa seems to function properly, despite the test reporting errors, I would like to be sure that every .pa is OK and not “broken”.

      Some of the .pas are quite old and produced with earlier PA versions (they are truly “archives”). If I extract all the files in the old .pa, create a new, fresh .pa and add back the files to that, then test the new, no errors (at least in the .pa I’ve tried this on) are reported. This would suggest a mismatch between old .pas and newer versions of PA itself.

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

      Brian Gregory

      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
    • Small UI / Theme bug in 2023

      Z

      Clipboard02.jpg

      See the, supposedly, blank space where the green box is? It’s like that in Modern Light theme too. I can toggle it, but it’s missing text or shouldn’t be there I guess?

      Thanks :)

      Tech Support
    • PowerArchiver and PACL for macOS

      spwolf

      Dear @Alpha-Testers and all of our users,

      time has come for testing of PowerArchiver and PACL for macOS.
      Please let us know here if you have Mac and can test latest builds.

      Features implemented:
      PowerArchiver 2020 - tabbing, opening, extracting, adding, testing, favorite folders, support for multiple languages, opening via Finder, explorer mode, installer.
      PACL 10 - support for most formats and features in Windows version.

      Upcoming: Tools such as archive converter, batch zip, multi-extract.

      To start testing, please sign up here in this thread, and we will send you latest build.

      thank you!

      Ashampoo_Snap_Wednesday, November 20, 2019_12h54m56s_008_.png Ashampoo_Snap_Wednesday, November 20, 2019_12h55m05s_009_.png Ashampoo_Snap_Wednesday, November 20, 2019_12h55m14s_010_.png Ashampoo_Snap_Wednesday, November 20, 2019_12h55m30s_011_.png Ashampoo_Snap_Wednesday, November 20, 2019_12h55m39s_012_.png Ashampoo_Snap_Wednesday, November 20, 2019_12h55m49s_013_.png Ashampoo_Snap_Wednesday, November 20, 2019_12h56m00s_014_.png Ashampoo_Snap_Wednesday, November 20, 2019_12h54m43s_007_.png

      76e97ab9-8d75-4175-9ce8-446500031f38-image.png

      Tech Support
    • Functions in Windows 11 context menu no longer work after last Windows Update

      T

      For some reason, the PowerArchiver functions in the Windows 11 context menu no longer work after the last Windows Update. Only the functions in the classic context menu function as they should.

      I’ve tried uninstalling PowerArchiver and using RevoUninstaller to remove all bits and pieces that were left behind and did a clean install of PowerArchiver, it didn’t fix the issue. Other items in the Windows 11 context menu work.

      Tech Support

    PA 2010 B1: "Open with PowerArchiver" ShellExt

    Tech Support
    2
    14
    7630
    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
      • spwolf
        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
          • spwolf
            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
              • spwolf
                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.

                  spwolf 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • spwolf
                    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.

                      spwolf 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • spwolf
                        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.

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

                                :)

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