-
The online update feature within the program suggests there is a later version than the ‘.17’ available on the web site. But clicking either download or update just reinstalls version .17.
Either there isn’t an update OR
the “download” and 'update" links should be repaired. -
Hi Dear,
Cannot login and request resend license code for my fd
-
Hi,
When you click on the Buy Now link, you come across four tabs - Home or Work, Enterprise Unlimited, Educational Discount, & Gift Discount.
What is the difference between a licence purchased via Gift Discount and a Home/Work licence?
Also, how can I renew the PowerArchiver Select plan a year after the purchase? Will it remind me automatically?
Best,
-
I’m running PA 21.00.17 64-bit on a 64-bit i7 desktop with W10 Pro, latest version. This 32gb of installed RAM.
As I use the PA pbs system for a number of scheduled archiving operations throughout the day, PA Starter is set to load and run at system startup.
In the course of trying to identify some causes of slowness and bottlenecks in other processes, I notice that PA Starter (PAS) always runs at between 11% and 15% of CPU (see screenshot), usually at about 12-13%. This is by far the highest demanding process on the system, as shown by Task Manager. In Performance Monitor, PAS Average CPU is 8.32, with every other process at less that 1 i.e. in decimal places only.
Task Manager also shows PAS Power Usage as “Very High”, and is the only process shown thus.
I have looked again at the information about PAS at https://wiki.powerarchiver.com/en:help:details:powerarchiver_starter, which was last modified in 2016. The article states a low memory usage for PAS of 784k, which is fair enough, but it is the large CPU overhead which is of concern.
It is of course possible to change the PAS priority, but this has no effect on CPU overhead.
However, is it possible to change PAS, which is required only at intervals to initiate PA scheduled tasks, from consuming so much system resource for every moment of the day?
PA Starter.jpg
-
I’m experiencing very slow extraction speed of multipart RAR files. For the first part the extraction is super fast but when PA reaches the part2.rar the extraction from there on gets super slow. PA needed for a 6,3 GB multipart archive 30 minutes to extract. I tested then with another program and it just took 70 seconds. I had this slow extraction speed with PA for quite a long time and I always thought that is maybe because of a high compression rate that the extraction would take longer. But it seems that only PA gets that slow.
I have lots of multipart archives that are 10+ GB and with PA it would be really time consuming. Is there any solution to this?
-
Hi. The “Move” Action seems to be Not Working when used in the Tool – Batch Archive.
Using the Options – Configuration – Compression Profiles ---- I created a Profile with the Action of Move. Also set were Zip, and Method Deflate.
When I use the Tool - Batch Archive – It appears to me that the Action Move does not Move the compressed files (basically add to zip, and delete the added file from original location on the same disk). Zip file(s) are created and look ok.
Typically I on the Batch Archive process – I have selected options to use a Profile with the Move Action.
File’s Current Folder Group files from same folder into same archive Add subfolders to separate archivesMy PowerArchiver version is 21.00.17 .
Can you reproduce ? – Or do you need additional details or information?
-
Hello,
PowerArchiver Command Line 7 support file greater than 2 Go ?
Thanks
-
i just registered my own copy and i need some help to set it…
if i set the ‘configuration>shell extension>open folder after extracting’ checkbox, after decompress an archive is opened the file manager on that folder but… if somebody is using a different file manager how to open XYplorer or Directory Opus for example and NOT the MS file manager?
consider this as a feature request also if not available within the 2022 version
-
I am looking for a way to stop the UAC elevation prompt when running Powerarchiver. In an old post about PA 2019, someone asked this and got a response to uncheck “all users” at the prompt but I am not seeing where one can do this. It definitely seems like the way to go though as if I click on “More Details” at the prompt I see that it is trying to run “_pautil.exe /paassociate /allusers /my(long binary string)”. Can you let me know? Thanks.
PS I tried renaming _pautil.exe and this worked, but I don’t know what the consequence of doing this may be so I would like to do this properly, thanks.
-
Just a question is Ashampoo zip pro 4 built by Powerrachiver as it is very similar and uses the pae encryption.
-
Hi,
Is it possible to transfer one of my existing PC Licenses to my MacBook? -
Re: Transfer PC License to MacBook iOS
Here is the email…
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 1:20 PM Rich DiBenedetto rmdibened@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
Could you assist me with this?
Can I use my current licenses with MacOS?
If not, can I transfer a license to MacOS?Cheers and Have a Great Day,
RichOn Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 6:35 AM ConeXware, Inc. ordering@conexware.com wrote:
Dear Richard DiBenedetto,Thank you for supporting PowerArchiver! Please find your activation and registration codes below.
*** Online Activation ***
PowerArchiver Select for PowerArchiver Toolbox English - LIFETIME
is valid until - not limited.E-Mail: RMDibened@gmail.com
Activation Code: *** -
There would be many of us with Intel Processors.
and they have their own optimized zlib algorithm, which can result in more efficiency if used combined with their hardware processor.
Reference:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/zlib-compression-whitepaper-copy.pdfCan we get the same Functionality Under Hardware Acceleration Feature?
Zlib is not the only feature that intel has included with their processor, there’s many, which if combined can result in efficient and better compression ratios.
-
a686fe8c-93a1-4830-9d01-0b9a4edd9449-image.png
Right buttons are not visible
-
Greetings, new customer searching for help and/or refund…
-
With PowerArchiver context menu enabled, it is crashing Windows 10 File Explorer when right-clicking on the Default User junction in C:\Users. Had 2021 installed, updated to today’s 2022, still getting same crash. Must have Hidden files and folders set to Show, and Hide protected operating system files cleared in File Explorer Options|View.
Windows 10 Enterprise Version 21H2 (OS Build 19044.1708) (64-bit)
PowerArchiver 2022 Version: 21.00.15 (03/2022) 64-bit
Licensed:
PowerArchiver Toolbox Edition Personal EnglishDisabling PowerArchiver context menu using Autoruns: on the Explorer tab, uncheck PowerArchiver64 under HKLM\Software\Classes\Folders\ShellEx\ContextMenuHandlers and the crash does not happen.
-
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
-
when clciking on powerarchiver update from within powerarchiver we get a windows for the update but it nows sayes script errors. I think it could be due to windows update in windows 10 can you look into it. By pressing cancel it seems to be ok. It seems that the page being displayed as erros on it.
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.
