-
From within PA on the extract popup, buttons are hidden, I must resize the window to get access to the OK/Cancel buttons. Tried on the default notebook screen (Macbook M1 Max 14") as well as on my external monitor (4k).Screenshot_2022-05-12_10-02-10.jpg
-
Just uncompressed a RAR file that has a folder within, PA created the folder but the files inside are not being saved into folder because directory separator is a BACKSLASH (Windows style) instead of SLASH (macOS).Screenshot_2022-05-12_09-59-08.jpg
-
Hello,
When clicking on the main ribbon for a new version I get a script error message.
Actual version: 21.00.15 - French version
OS: W10 21H2 19044.1645Best regards
WilfridPS: Keep building such good software
-
Ho già contattato il supporto con il modulo presente qui https://www.powerarchiver.com/it/contact/ da settimane ma non ho ricevuto riscontro e ora che ho aggiornato alla versione 21.00.15 ho notato che il problema persiste.
Quando clicco PDF Encrypt & Sign nel tab Crittografia appare la schemata riportata sotto come se mancassero le funzionalità.I’ve already contacted support with the form here https://www.powerarchiver.com/it/contact/ weeks ago but I haven’t received any feedback and now that I’ve updated to version 21.00.15 I’ve noticed that the problem persists.
When I click on PDF Encrypt & Sign in the Encryption tab the schematic below appears as if the functionality is missing.de9b4a2d-07e7-4323-a5a3-1b91e73dafc0-image.png
-
I have tried to burn a DVD with PowerArchiver 2022 Final, but it didn’t work because PA didn’t found the external DVD-Burner.
I have tried several burners from Sony, LG, Dell.
I have connected the burners with several USB-Ports but unfortunately without any success.
With other burning software, e. g. Nero, all burner worked perfect on each USB-Port.
The same problem occured with PA2018 and it was solved with an update, but I don’t remember the detailed software version.
Could you check the possibility of an bug, please?
Thank you for your support in advance! -
Quando creo un archivio zip con un altro programma ad esempio Winrar se apro il file con Winrar vi sono visualizzati anche le date originali di Accesso e Creazione.
Se ottimizzo quel file zip con la funzione Ottimizza archivio di PowerArchivier (o creo un nuovo archivio) il file risultate non ha più le date originali di Accesso e Creazione.
C’è una opzione per preservare questi dati? (Non l’ho trovata nelle impostazioni del programma e ho già abilitato le opzioni “salva info complete cartella” presente in “Profili di compressione”)
/
When I create a ZIP archive with another program such as Winrar, if I open the file with Winrar, the original Access and Creation dates are also displayed.
If I optimize that zipper file with the Optimize Archive function of PowerArchivier (or create a new archive) the resulting file no longer has the original Access and Creation dates.
Is there an option to preserve this data? (I haven’t found it in the program settings and I have already enabled the “save complete folder info” options in “Compression Profiles”) -
Upgraded from 2021 to 2022. Selecting ‘backup’ no scripts are showed. Only after editing and saving an existing script (explorer) it shows up in the PA backup folder.
So is the ‘backup’ icon to open the Backup screen only for creating ‘new’ ones. This means that you have to open ALL your old pbs files and to save them again… not user friendly.
No way to improve this ? Thank you.b606f084-9d96-461e-b93b-6ba9310a0f6c-image.png
-
PowerArchiver 2022 - Final Version - 21.00.15
Download:
https://powerarchiverdl.cachefly.net/2022/powarc210015.exeInformation about PowerArchiver 2022 - 21.00.15:
https://www.powerarchiver.com/2022/04/05/welcome-to-owerarchiver-2022/Thanks everyone for your assistance!
-
Hi,
I have a 31" 4K screen with 3840x2160 pixel, which PA is able to handle - except of a scaling other than 100%.
Access violation at address 0000000..DF47A4 in module 'powerarc.exe'. Schreiben of address 0000...00330.
When changing scaling for this screen to 125%, starting PA brings the following exception:After closing this message, PA seems to work fine.
PA version 21.00.15 (03/2022) 64bit (tested with Win 10 and after upgrade Win 11)Is there any chance to avoid this access violation or this message?
Thanks and regards,
Karsten -
-
-
-
-
-
Hi,
the new Windows 11 context menu is not localized in PA 21.00.13.
While the classic context menu is localized, when it’s opened on a file on my desktop, it’s English, when it’s opened from a file on my C drive.@Mili Are there updated localization files available?
-
Hi,
I thought, I’ll give it a try and upgrade my PA 2018 Toolbox on my production machine to PA 2021 (20.10.03)
Sending registration codes in your order recovery doesn’t seem to work at the moment (I also checked my junk folder), online activation works Using registry to disable modules (for example HKLM\SOFTWARE\PowerArchiverInt\General\DisableBurning) doesn’t work as expected with modern ui. The module is visible, but I’ll get the trial nag, if I try to open it. It’s almost fine in classic and ribbon mode.7989017c-3cd2-4a99-a1f6-06ce62329dec-image.png
“DisableClouds” and “DisableExplorer” seem not to be respected at all, while the classic UI seems to respect the setting to disable any other unused module:
In settings I won’t be able to access the SmartAI settings and the settings for the internal editor if the FTP module is disabled
89843f23-ad89-45bf-92bc-406b1a11dfc9-image.pngcc40877b-d8d0-404c-b7f8-d5ae0a1ee445-image.png
-
PA Queue does not compress file optimally with same parameters if used in Queue mode.
Being able to save advanced option, and set a default profile and archive type for compression so I can save clicks.
The above two are majorly affecting my efficiency with archiving stuff with PA 20.10.03.
Can someone confirm if they are resolved with the 2022 RC1?
-
I’m running W10 Pro on an HP i-7 machine with now 32gb of RAM. The system drive is an SSD.
In the course of sorting out some inconsistencies in a couple of my .pbs jobs, I’ve been paying close attention to the system CPU resource and power consumption of PA Starter, as shown by the various resource management tools. I’ve also been trying to identify why my system seems rather sluggish despite some extensive tuning for speed etc.
When I have enabled Starter as a start-up programme, to use the PA Queue facility, I see that Starter consistently uses between 10-13% of CPU, with High Power consumption indicated. It runs, consuming this resource, irrespective of what may be happening with PA and any pbs script jobs.
I can understand a need to use a good chunk of CPU when Starter is actually handling PA jobs, but it shouldn’t sit and consume this amount when it really isn’t doing anything but wait for a job to start and for which it is needed.
Perhaps I’ve missed a way of lessening Starter’s impact, but in the meantime I’ve adjusted my set-up to running PA without it.
Suggestions, please.
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.