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.
7-Zip better than PA 2011?
-
Hi, I just conducted a benchmark comparison test pitting 7-Zip 9.20 vs PA 2011 and I have noticed that archives created by 7-Zip are relatively small compared to the same archives created by PA 2011 with the same settings for both of them.
I used VLC Media Player (81.2 MB) as a test sample and here are the settings shown in the screenshots:
And here are the results:
7-Zip – 16.6 MB
PA 2011 – 17.4 MBAlthough the difference between the output file size is minor, it becomes more apparent when compressing 1 GB or more.
Could the lack of advanced options (Dictionary and Word size) in PA 2011 played a role in this discrepancy? And is there a way to get PA 2011 to match the output file size of its 7-Zip counterpart?
-
we both use different settings but overall difference should be literally in bytes or kb’s at max.
thanks for the report, we will be checking it out
-
there is possibility of 7z using some extra settings in later versions for stronger compression in ultra mode… max and others are the same… we will be checking it out.
-
we both use different settings but overall difference should be literally in bytes or kb’s at max.
thanks for the report, we will be checking it out
Well, there is another thing you might want to check into. I ran a benchmark test again, this time with five duplicates of a previously mentioned test sample totaling 406 MB (5 x 81.2 MB) and I changed the compression level from Ultra to Normal for both archivers. Note that when I set it to normal in 7-Zip, the dictionary and word size were automatically changed to 16 MB and 32, respectively. Here are the results.
7-Zip – 26.0 MB (00:01:23)
PA 2011 – 26.0 MB (00:01:59)
Both of the output file size are the same despite the miniscule differences in bytes (see screenshots above). However, the time it took to compress them are strikingly obvious: 7-Zip was 36 seconds faster than PA 2011. Heck, I even changed the dictionary and word size back to the original (the default settings for Ultra) with the normal settings intact and it was still 7 seconds faster and resulted in slightly better compression ratios, 24.7 MB to be accurate.
All things said, I’m not sure why you used a different settings than the one used in 7-Zip, but I feel your choice of settings is in need of some kind of adjustment since it’s not quite up to par with 7-Zip’s settings.
I’m only bringing this up so you can improve the 7-Zip engine.
-
Well, there is another thing you might want to check into. I ran a benchmark test again, this time with five duplicates of a previously mentioned test sample totaling 406 MB (5 x 81.2 MB) and I changed the compression level from Ultra to Normal for both archivers. Note that when I set it to normal in 7-Zip, the dictionary and word size were automatically changed to 16 MB and 32, respectively. Here are the results.
7-Zip – 26.0 MB (00:01:23)
PA 2011 – 26.0 MB (00:01:59)Both of the output file size are the same despite the miniscule differences in bytes (see screenshots above). However, the time it took to compress them are strikingly obvious: 7-Zip was 36 seconds faster than PA 2011. Heck, I even changed the dictionary and word size back to the original (the default settings for Ultra) with the normal settings intact and it was still 7 seconds faster and resulted in slightly better compression ratios, 24.7 MB to be accurate.
All things said, I’m not sure why you used a different settings than the one used in 7-Zip, but I feel your choice of settings is in need of some kind of adjustment since it’s not quite up to par with 7-Zip’s settings.
I’m only bringing this up so you can improve the 7-Zip engine.
try with lzma and see what happens there.
-
one idea realted to this isto note that the 7zip engine is newer than the one in pa
Did you use the beta 7zip version by the way?
-
one idea realted to this isto note that the 7zip engine is newer than the one in pa
Did you use the beta 7zip version by the way?
I must admit i love the 7zip format it is my preferred compression technique.
But i dont use their application as i prefer PowerArchiver. Is the Beta 7zip any good? better compression by much? when can PA Adapt it?
-
the only option possible is to have 7zip as a plugin sing the 7zip engine so that when a beta version of 7zip comes out you can choose to use that engine to ensure the best possible and uptodate 7zip experience
-
@Sir:
I must admit i love the 7zip format it is my preferred compression technique.
But i dont use their application as i prefer PowerArchiver. Is the Beta 7zip any good? better compression by much? when can PA Adapt it?
compression should be exactly the same (or within 1%)… if it isnt, then it is an bug :-)
-
try with lzma and see what happens there.
Like lzma2, I got the same results with lzma under normal setting. The same is true for PA 2011 except the compression time was quite different.
7-Zip – 26.0 MB (00:01:23)
PA 2011 – 26.0 MB (00:01:29)Both archivers yielded the same size for both files, but PA 2011 took less time to compress it (30 seconds faster) though it trails 7 seconds behind 7-Zip. It seems to me that PA 2011 handles lzma better than lzma2 which should not be the case considering that there’s no real difference between lzma and lzma2 in terms of compression ratio, compression/decompression speed, or RAM usage. The only big difference in lzma2 is when taking advantage of the extra CPU threads. In fact, I just realized that PA 2011 with lzma2 enabled do not even utilize the full extent of my Core i7-860 processor. 7-Zip, on other hand, has no problems maxing out my quad-core setup (8 CPU threads) which finish in 36 seconds albeit at the expense of few extra MBs.
one idea realted to this isto note that the 7zip engine is newer than the one in pa
Did you use the beta 7zip version by the way?
No, I’m using the latest stable version (9.20) and unless stated otherwise, I assume PA 2011 is using this version as well.
-
It’s worth mentioning that the ZIPX format does make full use of my quad-core setup, thanks to “Multicore compression” option. I wondered why this option doesn’t exist for 7z format?
-
It’s worth mentioning that the ZIPX format does make full use of my quad-core setup, thanks to “Multicore compression” option. I wondered why this option doesn’t exist for 7z format?
it is due to the different engines - our engine for zip/zipx is our own and multicore optimized. For LZMA/LZMA2 we use 7zip engine.
What is happening right now with your issues is:
a. We didnt optimize Ultra settings in same way as 7zip - this should be simple fix in next release.
b. Devs turned off multicore in lzma2 since it would crash PA due to some issue with 7zip dll. We need to figure this one out.thanks for all the help.
