I’m trying to backup the complete contents of a directory using:
pacomp64 -parcz T:\BACKUP.PA C:\STUFF
The contents of subdirectories of C:\STUFF isn’t getting backed up!
The sub directories are just stored as empty directories!
How do I achieve this ; show me a command line example !
Hello @Mili,
thanks for your help in getting my PowerArchiver CommandLine license (Re: License Code Not Working / Missing) and sorry for my late reply. I do check my spam folder regularly and couldn’t find a mail from support. Also, there was no mail in my backups or any mention of it in my email logs.
I have a question regarding my licenses in the hope you are able to help me:
While my account lists “PowerArchiver Select - lifetime free upgrades and support for PowerArchiver Toolbox English - Count 2”, this does not apply for PACL, which was included with my purchase. My account shows only PowerArchiver Select - 12 months of upgrades and support for PowerArchiver Command Line - Single User License.
Since PACL was included with PowerArchiver Toolbox, shouldn’t PACL also come with a lifetime license for 2 PCs?
Thanks for your help in advance.
Version:
PACL 9.00 Beta 2
What’s New since version PACL 7:
Updated to PowerArchiver 2017 engine Fully unicode interface RAR v5 (v4) support PAE2 supportLatest format support and all the various engine updates done in PA 2017.
Full support for .PA format with many different options and switches.
Download:
http://dl.powerarchiver.com/2017/PACL900-170429.EXE
Due to the support of new PA format and all the changes needed for that support, we decided to move up version number to PACL 9. This is purely cosmetical - companies who purchased PACL8, have PACL9 now added to their orders. Users who have free upgrades for PACL8, now have PACL9 added as free upgrade (Business users with active select (pro/tbx), all personal users (pro/tbx).
Since we are finalizing PA 2017, we can also now spend a lot more time on PACL9.
Please check your bugs, and check .PA support as well.
Thank you! @Alpha-Testers
PA Team
ConeXware, Inc.
My OS: Windows XP Home Edition, SP3
The version number and date of the program: PowerArchiver Command Line v9.00b [Feb 23 2019]
The program not extracts one self-extracting file.
How to reproduce the problem
Download the SFX file by link: install.exe
Copy the “install.exe” file into the same location as the program is located.
Go to the DOS prompt. Make your PACL location the default drive.
If it is on the E drive enter the command E: and press enter. Replace “E:” with the appropriate drive letter.
Enter command cd e:<path name> to go to the location where the program resides.
Enter command:
As a result, the “install” directory will not be created and no
files will be extracted.
The “install.exe” file may be damaged but if you use a program such as 7-Zip or PeaZip to extract the files, the extraction process is successful. I want the PACL to also unpack such a file.
This problem is very critical for me. I often come across this. I do not want to resort to using other compression program.
… Michael
Hi,
there’s a problem with PAComp and file names with a leading ".\ ".
That’s nowadays a problem, since PowerShell auto complete will complete a file test.zip in the current directory to .\test.zip.
0_1524826660985_pacomp.png
The first command reports “All OK”, but test.7z is not created.
The second command reports an error, but the error message isn’t helpful at all. VSS doesn’t help anything if a program fails to write to a file. It’s for reading locked files… And the problematic file isn’t mentioned at all. By the way, there’s a typo, it should be “open”, not “opet”.
Only the third command (without ".\ ") works as expected.
The problem exists in the x86 and x64 version, it doesn’t matter if the archive already exists (updating) or not (creating a new archive).
would be nice to have czip support
Version:
PACL 8.00 Beta 1
Whats New:
Updated to PowerArchiver 2016 engine Fully unicode interface RAR v5 (v4) support PAE2 support Latest format support such as improved ZIPX, ISO, etc, etc, etc.Download:
http://dl.powerarchiver.com/2016/pacl800b1.exe
Please test it against your existing scripts and let us know. There will be some features added in future release as well as more testing.
This is first release, please test. Thank you!
I am Having Appcrash mid problem in my Pc.
Hi,
I’ve made changes to fix some problems with PAConv.bat:
1. Replaced the “” by () in the first two lines, so that it’ll work with command line arguments in quotation marks
2. Replaced deltree with rmdir, since deltree is unknown at least in Windows XP and later
3. Also replaced the del command, which left an empty $PATEMP$ directory with rmdir
4. Changed $PATEMP$ to “%TEMP%$PATEMP$.%time::=%”, so that no write privileges are needed in the current directory as the users Temp directory is used and that more operations will work simultaneous, as long as they are not started at the very same time.
5. Changed %n to “%~n” to allow parameters with spaces and quotation marks
What's the difference between the evaluation and the registered version of PACL 6.01?
-
Hi!
In the page for PACL it says the following thing about the evaluation version.Without a registration key, PACL will display a notice before each command.
Maybe I’m doing something wrong here, but I can’t see any difference between the registered and the evaluation version of PACL 6.01. I don’t get any notice before each command in the evaluation version, but maybe I have missed something here.
I’m using Windows XP with SP3
Kind Regards
Micke -
I can’t remember for sure, but I think it is the wording of the output “header” - just states “registered” or “evaluation”.
P.S. why have you not input the reg code?
-
P.S. why have you not input the reg code?
I have entered the reg code and registered the application. I just noticed that I couldn’t see any difference when I used the registered version compared to the evaluation version.
Kind Regards
Micke -
only difference is in header, it says unregistered/registered.
-
only difference is in header, it says unregistered/registered.
Thanks, that explains why I didn’t see any difference between the evaluation version and the registered version. The reason for starting this thread was because I thought something was wrong when I couldn’t see any difference between the two versions. Now when I have the answer I have some opinion about it. You don’t have to agree with me, but I still want to share them with you.
Personally I would have expected some limitations in the evaluation version of PACL that still allowed the user to evaluate the program to see if it works as expected and will fill the need the user have for such a program.
Example of limitation could be a small message after running each command like This is day 1 of your 30 days evaluation, press ENTER to continue
For a user like me that uses batch or scripts in combination with PACL this would be a limitation, but I would still be able to evaluate the program even with this annoying message. After registry the program, the message would disappear.
The advantage for the user with this is that the user will get a feeling of getting something for the money the program costs.
One of the critical question is: Why should a user buy the program for $7.95 instead of continue using the evaluation version
One answer could be a personal satisfaction of supporting developing of good software, but I reality the user gets no extra functionality at all by registry the program. The functionality is the same and the message is the same after each command except for in the registered version it says Registered to: Name and the evaluation version says Shareware version.
I think that coneXware will loose potential buyers of this software because of having too generous functionality in the evaluation version of PACL. If you disagree with me about this, ask yourself how many people would have bought PowerArchiver if the nag screen wasn’t visible in the unregistered version of the program. Some people would have bought the program, but I don’t think it would have been as many as there’s today.
The nag screen have a purpose of encourage people to buy the program I don’t see any reason for having a corresponding message in PACL with a pause after each command that the user would have to press the ENTER button to continue.
This message is already far to long :) but I have one more thing to say. I’m very satisfied with PACL and the more I use it, the more I like it. If the current small difference in the evaluation and the registered version is working as expected, it’s ok for me. I will continue use the program and also looking forward future versions of it.
Kind Regards
Micke
