-
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.
-
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).
-
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. -
In the latest version of PA, on W11 (latest build/SP) when you try to use the first level context menu - NOTHING HAPPENS (particularly when you do this from Downloads or Documents folders) - however I noticed that it DOES WORK when you use the context menu from the Desktop. Going to the second level context menu does work however.
-
PA 2023 22.00.08
Long time no seeing. So I start up the new year with a first problem : the virtual driver cannot be installed. Reason : it is missing in the Fast Ring PatchBeam Update Service…
Virtual driver PA 2023-01-28 152607.png
It seems a standard problem with new releases :-)
Can I have a link or can it be fixed. Thank you. CU later -
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.
-
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.
-
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 errorsIs 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.
-
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 :)
Closing PA 2010 under Win 7
-
I multi-boot all my PCs.
I have noticed that I takes PA longer to close when pressing the ‘X’ in the upper right of the window under Win 7 (32 bit) than it does under winXP. In one case (Athlon XP 3200, 2Gb) the closing is instantaneous in XP and takes about 6-7 seconds under Win 7. On a much faster system, a difference is still there, albeit in the order of 1-2 seconds.
Win 7 is an officially obtained and installed/activated 32 bit RC (build 7100) version in both cases.
Regards
DrT
-
there is probably something else in play there, some specific setting… you can send us your registry file HKCU\Software\PowerArchiver via mail that you know already, and we will check it out.
It shouldnt have anything to do with Win7 itself, but something specific to that PA installation. We run 10 different Win7 versions ourselves.
-
Check if it is faster with this release:
http://www.powerarchiver.com/test/alpha115/powarc1150rc5.exe -
Check if it is faster with this release:
http://www.powerarchiver.com/test/alpha115/powarc1150rc5.exeDoes not seem to be. I have sent the key that you requested from the slower machine.
I have 4 PCs here in total so can test this on another 2.
Regards
DrT
-
what happens when you reset defaults? same?
-
what happens when you reset defaults? same?
It was installed yesterday, and I have changed the same things that I always change when I install PA…mainly the interface and not much else.
Setting to default values may take a second or two off the time. I also noticed similar delays when clicking buttons on some boxes. For example, clicking ‘ok’ in the main configuration box (options > configuration in modern interface) took a similar delay to close.
This issue is only affecting PA so far in Win 7 i.e. no other programs have this issue.
Regards
DrT
-
so classic interface is faster?
-
so classic interface is faster?
If that was the only difference (you’d have to compare my reg file against default values) then yes. Never use the classic interface at all myself.
I have just checked with Vista and the issue is NOT present. Seems specific to Win7.
Cheers
DrT
-
If that was the only difference (you’d have to compare my reg file against default values) then yes. Never use the classic interface at all myself.
I have just checked with Vista and the issue is NOT present. Seems specific to Win7.
Cheers
DrT
it might be something as weird as drivers for the graphics card. How fast does it close when you hit close in Classic interface?
-
it might be something as weird as drivers for the graphics card. How fast does it close when you hit close in Classic interface?
Which PC do you want me to check…the one with Vista or the Athlon XP? The former is a Centrino Duo laptop.
Both have nVidia graphics chipsets. But how come only PA is affected by this and no other app at all? Don’t forget closing PA with the default values (on the Athlon)was only slightly faster than with the modern interfece…a noticeable delay is still present on closing.
I can also test on the slow starting Celeron which has an Intel integrated chipset.
Cheers
DrT
-
Which PC do you want me to check…the one with Vista or the Athlon XP? The former is a Centrino Duo laptop.
Both have nVidia graphics chipsets. But how come only PA is affected by this and no other app at all? Don’t forget closing PA with the default values (on the Athlon)was only slightly faster than with the modern interfece…a noticeable delay is still present on closing.
I can also test on the slow starting Celeron which has an Intel integrated chipset.
Cheers
DrT
i doubt anything i can think of makes an difference right now, it has to be something very specific.
I was talking about one with Win7 that has the slowdown, that slowdown is not due to Win7 itself, it is combination of something. As I said, we ourselves have 10 computers running Win7 and Win7 has been quite popular with PA 2010 crowd as well.
What happens when you install PA 2009 on that same computer which has slowdown?
-
i doubt anything i can think of makes an difference right now, it has to be something very specific.
I was talking about one with Win7 that has the slowdown, that slowdown is not due to Win7 itself, it is combination of something. As I said, we ourselves have 10 computers running Win7 and Win7 has been quite popular with PA 2010 crowd as well.
What happens when you install PA 2009 on that same computer which has slowdown?
PA 2009 closed faster than 2010, about 3-4 secs.
I was talking about one with Win7 that has the slowdown,<<
The point I am trying to make is that EVERY PC that I try PA 2010 on has the slowdown (both on closing and getting out of dialogue boxes). It is just that the faster the PC, the less noticeable it is. My fastest PC is an Athlon 4800 x2 with 4GB of memory and the slowdown is still there, but hardly noticeable. If all your PCs are relatively modern, you won’t see it either.
Cheers
DrT
-
i am not sure what you mean under slowdown - 12 seconds is an big issue and big bug, under 1 second is normal.
I notice no such slowdown on any of our Win7 computers, if I slow my cpu down so PA takes 7 seconds to start (instead of 2 regular seconds), i can hit X to close PA and there is no noticable slowdown i can see.
Is that slowdown that you notice only on Win7 or all ALL computers you have, all OS’s?
What other software do you have on those computers, do you use same AV on all of them?
-
Same AV on all, Kaspersky 2009 (XP and Vista) or Kaspersky Win 7 beta. The slowdown is only associated with Win7 and affects all my PCs. The faster the CPU the less of a slowdown there is. I mutliboot all my PCs. All my tests have been run on at least 2 OSs on each PC.
SOLVED. I disabled the AV on Win7 - no change. I uninstalled the AV, and NO delay anywhere anymore. As PA is the only program to be affected by this, perhaps a chat with the chaps at Kaspersky may be in order.
Cheers
DrT
-
ah, there you go… good one. I knew it had to be something specific.
What really sucks is that I quite often notice that disabling AV’s doesnt really disable them :).
-
now what version of Kaspersky is that?
-
(exact)
and also, if you could complain as an customer, that would be even better (we will also complain).
-
now what version of Kaspersky is that?
8.0.0.1081 beta for win7, downloadable from within win7.
Cheers
DrT
-
(exact)
and also, if you could complain as an customer, that would be even better (we will also complain).
Will do that now.
Cheers
DrT
-
-
It looks like the problem might have been solved in the next build, viz 8.0.0.1082
Cheers
DrT
-
It looks like the problem might have been solved in the next build, viz 8.0.0.1082
Cheers
DrT
awesome, you definetly got to the bottom of that one! Couldnt believe it had 10 seconds delay :)
