Hi everyone, some good news about PowerArchiver… I’ve managed to get in touch with the original developer of PowerArchiver, Ivan Petrovic, and he has confirmed that the product is not dead or abandoned, in fact it is still very much alive! There has been a hiatus over the past months for various reasons, but that we should expect to see stuff coming through in the coming months (hopefully the next 2 months).
I had a large .tar file (a backed up WSL) and I want to delete a few directories and their contents from it using PA2023.
PA just destroys the whole archive as soon as I try to delete a directory, leaving it in a state where PA2023 won’t even open it any more.
I tried several times and also tried compressing it to .tar.xz instead - same result.
This should either actually work, or it should say operation not supported and do nothing.
Hello!
The regular version of PA 2023 is out for over 6 months now, but there is still no sign of the portable release.
(When) will there be one?
Thanks!
Hello!
Is there currently no portable version of PA2023 available?
(When) do you plan to release one?
Thanks!
Win 11 64 bit
I have some archives which have been encrypted, using the encrypt option either in pbs or when interactively creating a zip. When I open these, and look at files, I am asked for passwords, which I know, and then can view items or decrypt the files in the archive (tools>decrypt files).
However, when I use the Actions>Remove Archive Encryption (whether using the same zip or asking to write another), the routine shows progress bar to the end, but then just hangs i.e. “OK” never activates. All process information shows this stalled/hanging.
What can I do to sort this out?
For example:
Download this ZIP file: http://dslstats.me.uk/files/dslstats32W-6.5.zip
Everything in the ZIP file is in a directory “dslstats32W-6.5”.
However when I extract using right click “Extract Here” the name of the directory created is “2W-6.5” !
I am running PA 22.00.09 on Windows 11. I have seen the same happen with some other kinds of archive too.
If I compress a folder to a .pa using right click, Compress to folder.pa and use the new Windows 11 menu then the Options, Configuration, Miscellaneous, Use normal relative path setting is always enabled.
But I like this option disabled so I have to use the old style menu in order to get PA to compress a folder in the way I wish.
Just tried using the Modern (Windows 10) Icon set and seeing a few missing icons in both PowerArchiver Burner and PowerArchiver Encryption screens . They are all there in the Minimalistik icon set and the only difference I can see is the former is blue and the latter grey. In version 22.00.9
powerarc_2023-09-18_17-00-19.png
powerarc_2023-09-18_17-01-05.png
PA 22.00.09
344c6c52-f03f-407b-ad76-8130b31936bb-image.png
PA 22.00.09 shows a nag screen, when I try to open some setting windows. I have already PA 2023 Toolbox and PA shows, that it’s licensed in the info dialog.
a860bd81-3e71-4ce0-9988-74cd4189d43e-image.png
0836bc83-8046-4a91-bc7b-68bd231100a3-image.png
PA 22.00.09
Some labels in the help toolbar are not translated:
b3c1f5c4-b73d-49d8-9ed0-56294840838c-image.png
I’m looking forward to deploying PowerArchiver 2023 to my users. Can you tell us when the MSI will be available for download and distribution?
Thanks.
Hi there,
there were some security issues fixed in 7zip:
https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-23-1165/
https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-23-1164/
As it seems, that PowerArchiver and PACL use the 7zip libraries, could you please update them to the latest version?
Hi,
From where I get PAVD2023.EXE? PowerArchiver 2023 tries to open it.
But it seems, it tries to download PAVD2021.EXE.
Thanks
I noticed that the version of ZPAQ used is older than the latest released 7.15 https://mattmahoney.net/dc/zpaq.html also there seems to be a newer fork that adds several features https://github.com/fcorbelli/zpaqfranz
It would be useful to implement this latest version (it also maintains the same syntax and behavior as the latest official release if used the -715 flag) and add when opening a zpaq file a choice of the version of the files to show (e.g. as dummy folders represented the various versions present). Since any previous changes are stored with this format, it is possible to extract a snapshot of a certain date/version.
Name paf is allready an archive name
-
Your new name for a new archive format is allready in use .paf extension
A Packed Animation File made my microsoft
-
it is hard to find 3 letter extension that has not been used already, most important thing is that it has not been used by something very popular
-
if you guys have any other suggestions? Maybe .pa?
-
everything is still in the air :)
-
Maybe, .pax? like most new format file (eg. .docx, xlsx, zipx, etc.)
-
What about PCZ (PowerArchiver/Conexware/Zipper)?
-
i kind of like .pa… it is easy to say too and obviously thats what we call PowerArchiver too :)
-
Why limit one’s self to 3 letters for an extension? How anout .papa or .para?
DrT
-
.powerarchiver? Looks strange though
-
-
How about zsc (zipped super compressed)?
-
Is there a reason why we are limited to three letters?
I mean .powerarchiver is a bit long, but how about 4 letters?
The idea in selecting this is to make the extension pronounceable and viable as a verb in a sentence.
You can .zip a file. You can .rar a a file. See what I mean?
How about:
.PARC (Powerarchiver ARChive)
Mame
-
If the compression is going to be better, then why not a “size” indication - something like .nano or .pico …
Or would that be exaggeration? -
How about pafx instead of paf like zipx, docx and so one. Even if paf is not used by something very popular i understand that it could be annoying with the same extention for those that actually use an application that use the “Packed Animation File” format.
-gan
-
Got it!
.pazip, .parar etc
Job done! -
i like .pa or .powerarchiver.
Problem with .powerarchiver (which is the coolest) is that it might take too much space in file lists…
or?
I really like it :)
-
.pa is used as well by Print Artist by Nova Development, but i don’t know if anyone actually use that program so might not be a problem.
I think .powerarchiver is too long. I always choose to show the extension in Windows. For those that use the default setting and hide extensions for known file formats they won’t see it anyway.
If the options are .pa or .powerarchiver i would prefer .pa even if already used.
-gan
-
How about EPA?
Elite PowerArchiver
-
.paa PowerArchiver Archive?
-
.pow!
want he best archive format? POW IT!
:D
-
Pow!!!
-
best one is .spa
super powerarchiver or special powerarchiver or spwolf powerarchiver
-
I would go with either .pa or .parc.
-
.torrent
.powerarchiver -
if you want to use just three letters then
.pow
meaning power
or
.pff
meaning powerarchiver file format
or
.fpa
meaning format powerachiver
-
.torrent
.power
.powerarchiver
.pa?
-
idea is to use
.paff or .pafa
powerarchiver file formart or powearchiver file archive
-
If i had to pick between those I would go with .PA
.Powerarchiver is just too long imo
Mame
-
I vote for the .pax suggestion made by Wandus.
-
sorry but .pax is in use
PaX is a patch for the Linux kernel
-
why not .spf
meaning spwolf powearxchiver format
-
sorry but .pax is in use
As is nearly everything else that has been suggested. So I don’t see that as a problem myself.
-
.torrent
.power
.pa:-)
-
sorry but .pax is in use
As is nearly everything else that has been suggested. So I don’t see that as a problem myself.
Right - many extensions are used by multiple bits of software.
- .doc - used by Word and WordPerfect
- .bin, .img - used for many different things
- .pdb - used for MSVC’s debugging symbols and Palm software packages
- .dwt - used for AutoCAD and DreamWeaver templates
The key is: will the conflict cause a lot of headaches? I think the only time the registered program for an extension is an issue is so the Explorer can figure out what program will be started when the file is double clicked.
I have a feeling that there won’t be too many PA users who are doing a whole lot with Linux kernel patch files.
-
maybe .guido ??
-
I will vote for guido :)
-
The key is: will the conflict cause a lot of headaches? I think the only time the registered program for an extension is an issue is so the Explorer can figure out what program will be started when the file is double clicked.
I have a feeling that there won’t be too many PA users who are doing a whole lot with Linux kernel patch files.
I actually agree, but it won’t hurt trying to avoid such a conflict. It’s not that important what the extension will be even if it would be nice if not too long. It’s more important to avoid headaches like you said, but if finding an extension that’s never been used that’s even better of course.
Unless the new format have much better compression ratio than 7z without being a lot slower i cannot really see the benefit of just another format. 7z is pretty common, the compression is great and extraction supported by most applications. So really no reason to use a new format unless it’s much better i think. For me it would also be important that other apps can extract these archives as well and not only PA.
I actually wonder….do we really need a new format? Should ConeXware spend their time on other tasks like fixing bugs faster, adding requested features and enhance the current features instead? Just a thought…
-gan
-
@gan:
I actually agree, but it won’t hurt trying to avoid such a conflict. It’s not that important what the extension will be even if it would be nice if not too long. It’s more important to avoid headaches like you said, but if finding an extension that’s never been used that’s even better of course.
Unless the new format have much better compression ratio than 7z without being a lot slower i cannot really see the benefit of just another format. 7z is pretty common, the compression is great and extraction supported by most applications. So really no reason to use a new format unless it’s much better i think. For me it would also be important that other apps can extract these archives as well and not only PA.
I actually wonder….do we really need a new format? Should ConeXware spend their time on other tasks like fixing bugs faster, adding requested features and enhance the current features instead? Just a thought…
-gan
if you have bugs, wishes, etc, there are forums for that and post away!
powerarchiver is compression utility… do you need compression format that can compress 30% better than anything else on the market, be truly multicore optimized and be first major format to finally use the power of multicore processors?
i think we do :-)
-
if you have bugs, wishes, etc, there are forums for that and post away!
I already did, but still waiting:) But that’s actually beside my point here.
powerarchiver is compression utility… do you need compression format that can compress 30% better than anything else on the market, be truly multicore optimized and be first major format to finally use the power of multicore processors?
i think we do :-)I agree and that’s what i said as well. It has to be pretty much better (compression, speed and so on) and hopefully in time supported by most other compression software. If not 7z, rar, tar-gzip and zip will work just fine.
If you promise 30% better compression ratio and still fast during compression/extraction then i look forward to the new format:)
-gan
-
@gan:
I already did, but still waiting:) But that’s actually beside my point here.
I agree and that’s what i said as well. It has to be pretty much better (compression, speed and so on) and hopefully in time supported by most other compression software. If not 7z, rar, tar-gzip and zip will work just fine.
If you promise 30% better compression ratio and still fast during compression/extraction then i look forward to the new format:)
-gan
keep in mind that we have separate engineers working on GUI and current formats, vs completely new format :-). So nothing in main PA, be it our zip support, gui, bug fixes, new ideas, are suffering because of new format.
thing with current formats is that most popular one was done 14 years ago…
… and none were done after multicore processors became popular… so without getting into technicalities, i think it is enough to say that there is no popular format out there that users multicore processors for extraction… not zip, zipx, rar, ace, 7zip, stuffit, tar, etc…
And it is impossible to do it without building format with that in mind, so those formats will never be able to do that.
-
what we want is a format that can be used by as many operating systems as possible one that wont fade into the background but will keep developing.
I would like to see one with data recovery and great compression rate. I really wnat a format that can handle several formats like txt, wave, doc etc formats and decide what routine is bestto use on each format. That will slow it down a bit. I want one that has powerfull password protection. Basically i want all features of every existing archive format put into one. so we have one format sounds strange but i want a bit of everything in one format.
-
one benefit of having special format for jpeg, mp3, etc, is that you can make them faster than if you compressed it with WinRar but at the same time, instead of getting 0.1% compression, you get 15%-30%…
thats pretty great thing with special codecs.
-
of course, if you have smart engineers that can do that :-)
-
how about pff meaning powersarchiver file format
pff thats what i vote for