Navigation

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Search
    • PA 21.00.18 testing via context menu causes extraction of files

      D

      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.

      Tech Support
    • Start PowerArchiver 2023 Starter when my computer starts

      Brian Gregory

      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.

      Tech Support
    • Testing .pa archives

      PA_Fan

      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 errors

      Is 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.

      Tech Support
    • PA 21.00.18 Action / Test behaves oddly for me on .PA files

      Brian Gregory

      PA 21.00.18 running on Windows 7 64 bit.
      I made a big .PA file and thought I’d check it was made correctly with Menu / Actions / Test.
      Discovered:
      a) PA always issues a UAC prompt to do this!
      b) PA always says there are many errors in PA files.

      Tech Support
    • Small UI / Theme bug in 2023

      Z

      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 :)

      Tech Support
    • PowerArchiver and PACL for macOS

      spwolf

      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

      Tech Support
    • Functions in Windows 11 context menu no longer work after last Windows Update

      T

      For some reason, the PowerArchiver functions in the Windows 11 context menu no longer work after the last Windows Update. Only the functions in the classic context menu function as they should.

      I’ve tried uninstalling PowerArchiver and using RevoUninstaller to remove all bits and pieces that were left behind and did a clean install of PowerArchiver, it didn’t fix the issue. Other items in the Windows 11 context menu work.

      Tech Support

    7-zip issues

    Tech Support
    5
    14
    14089
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • C
      Carlospr last edited by

      Hi,

      1. Context menu: Compress to 7-zip + Options…

      The Ultra compression seems that does NOT work, because I can only get best compression using the context menu: Compress to “XXXXXFile.7z”

      1. Compression profiles

      When a 7-zip profile is configured the Ulta Compression is not shown in combo.

      Best regards!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • spwolf
        spwolf conexware last edited by

        Hi,

        thanks for info on profiles. As to compression in shell extensions, in works here - keep in mind that for some files, you wont be able to see the difference between different compression methods…

        thanks,

        C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C
          Carlospr @spwolf last edited by

          Hello again,

          I have a folder with a total of 1.54MB of files and sub-folders (with more files).

          1. Right click the folder and select Compress to “folder.7z” I got a file of 289 KB;

          2. Right click the folder and select Compress to 7-zip + Options… and select Ultra compression I got a file of 434 KB;

          3. Right click the folder and select Compress to 7-zip + Options… and select Maximum compression I got a file of 434 KB too.

          So, from shell (+Options) Ultra and Maximum produce the same file compression.

          I have tested it several times…

          spwolf 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • spwolf
            spwolf conexware @Carlospr last edited by

            do you have compression profiles set, or anything other than default installation? Did you reboot your computer after installation of 9.00?

            thanks,

            C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • C
              Carlospr @spwolf last edited by

              Yes, I re-started it.

              Yes, I had a profile, but I deleted.

              I made another test with same results…

              I have 7-zip installed, but I don’t think this is the problem…

              I will make more tests and I’ll get back here to post…

              Thank you.

              ivan 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • ivan
                ivan conexware @Carlospr last edited by

                The profile problem will be fixed in next release.

                One more information. Compress to file.7z now uses Ultra compression + Solid, so to get same results via +Options feature you must turn on also Solid compression.

                I will do some small change for next version, so Compress to file.7z uses Maximum + Solid instead of Ultra + Solid (since Ultra can cause memory problems).

                C manuangi 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • C
                  Carlospr @ivan last edited by

                  After check “Solid” now it’s working fine.

                  I have tested (just one test!) Maximum+Solid and I got the same result as Ultra+Solid, however Maximum+Solid was faster.

                  Thanks.

                  ivan 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • ivan
                    ivan conexware @Carlospr last edited by

                    Sure, ultra can be better only on very big sets of files (with solid option) or on very big files (without solid option). The difference is in dictionary size and when some dictionary size is enought for some files,then there is no difference in ratio. But maximum is always faster and uses less memory.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • manuangi
                      manuangi @ivan last edited by

                      @ivan:

                      I will do some small change for next version, so Compress to file.7z uses Maximum + Solid instead of Ultra + Solid (since Ultra can cause memory problems).

                      Please don’t!
                      I (and many others I guess) like it as it is…with the ultra option set by default!

                      TBGBe 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • TBGBe
                        TBGBe @manuangi last edited by

                        Then again, on my W98 ancient laptop machine I can’t use Ultra (only 64M ram) :D

                        All the Explorer shell direct (compress to NN) options should really have dedicated configuration options.

                        manuangi spwolf 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • manuangi
                          manuangi @TBGBe last edited by

                          yea, but I guess nowadays all PCs have at least 256MB of RAM…and most of them run WinXP…it’s obvious that devs spend most of their efforts on those kind of system…(I’ve got 2GB of RAM :D )

                          anyway…What do you mean by “All the Explorer shell direct (compress to NN) options should really have dedicated configuration options”?
                          Can’t you create your own profile via Configuration -> CompressionProfiles?

                          TBGBe 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • TBGBe
                            TBGBe @manuangi last edited by

                            Manuangi
                            I … like it as it is…with the ultra option set by default!
                            …
                            create your own profile via Configuration -> CompressionProfiles?

                            :rolleyes: Couldn’t you ? :rolleyes:

                            Seriously, thanks for the reminder.
                            Played with profiles for a few days then completely forgot about them :confused:

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • spwolf
                              spwolf conexware @TBGBe last edited by

                              @TBGBe:

                              Then again, on my W98 ancient laptop machine I can’t use Ultra (only 64M ram) :D

                              All the Explorer shell direct (compress to NN) options should really have dedicated configuration options.

                              problem with that would be inexperienced users changing it and then thinking its PA’s fault. We already have fair share of people asking us how come PA doesnt compress mp3’s or jpg’s…

                              thanks,

                              TBGBe 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • TBGBe
                                TBGBe @spwolf last edited by

                                That’s OK - I can work with profiles (once the BZip2 query is sorted out).

                                P.S.

                                … how come PA doesnt compress … jpg’s …

                                Well, when I checked last, it does (a little bit) - depends on format :D

                                Graphic jpegs (digital camera) - 10 Files Total 12,600,516 bytes
                                -> cab 12,564,597
                                -> bh 12,588,570
                                -> zip 12,589,310
                                -> lzh 12,593,241

                                Whereas rar & ace both increased the total size (real Byte size, ignoring Disk usage).

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • First post
                                  Last post