Can you include .3MF to the list of re-compressible formats? Its structure is similar to MS Office 2007 documents and Open Document Format. It is a ZIP Deflate archive with XML data and some JPG, and/or PNG pictures inside. Otherwise, if I try to compress .3MF it bearly makes it smaller unless I recompress .3MF to the Store setting then it makes it a lot smaller.
Wish they all would move to 7zip ZSTD in the first place so that the optimized file size with FileOptimizer would be 50% of the ZIP Deflate version. And there would be no extra compression needed :)
I noticed that the option to add the optimize archive function to the context menu is missing on Windows 10.
Opening each archive with the interface in order to click it becomes tedious with many files.
Same for others functions like Remove Archive Encryption
Current Folder in Extract dialog
-
It would be helpful if there would be a way to go directly to the current directory of the compressed file.
Often enough a compressed file is already where it has to be uncompressed. But one needs to check the file first to see if it has directory/path names in it, and if not, one may want to create a New Folder first. So the Extract Here shell extension can’t always be used.
If the Extract dialog would have an additional button or an extra line in the Extract to: pull down to go to the compressed file’s current directory, one can easily take it from there instead of needing to click several drives and folders to get there.
I hope this hasn’t been requested before. I looked through the wishlist and couldn’t immediately find it.
Kind regards
Patrick
-
I might have a good idea for it, thanks…
As usual, you could use extract to filename/ as an easy solution to the problem -
Yes and no.
What you propose would indeed always work, but:
- if the archive already contained a folder (with that name or an other), you’d have two folders;
- if the archive doesn’t containe a folder, one is limited to the name of the archive as the name for the folder and one may need to rename the folder later on.
In each case, it would be a two step process, wouldn’t it?
Thank you for taking it into consideration.
Patrick
-
Yes and no.
What you propose would indeed always work, but:
- if the archive already contained a folder (with that name or an other), you’d have two folders;
- if the archive doesn’t containe a folder, one is limited to the name of the archive as the name for the folder and one may need to rename the folder later on.
In each case, it would be a two step process, wouldn’t it?
Thank you for taking it into consideration.
Patrick
good points! I surely second your request!
-
I support this s´wish ;)
