-
-
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).
-
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 :)
-
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
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