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
there were some security issues fixed in 7zip:
As it seems, that PowerArchiver and PACL use the 7zip libraries, could you please update them to the latest version?
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.
If I open a password-protected zipper file (created with WinRAR but I think that’s irrelevant), open it with PowerArchiver and run “Remove Encryption” on the same file, then reopen it and add a password with “Encrypt Archive,” the resulting archive will be protected with the old ZipCrypto algorithm and not AES as indicated.
(this can be verified, for example, by trying to open the archive files with Windows Explorer, which does not support the AES algorithm)
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.
a) PA always issues a UAC prompt to do this!
b) PA always says there are many errors in PA files.
2 ZIP-related problems
Create a split ZIP archive (that is, a spanned ZIP archive). Open this archive in PA. Check the compression ratio. It’s always zero, which is incorrect! I compressed a 3.5 GB folder, and the resultant size of the archive was about 2.4 GB. The compression is 31.43%, not 0! This is a bug.
I compressed Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic (which was the folder I used in point 1 above). It contains almost 15,000 files. Of that, 10,000 are small wav files (voice over effects/dialogue). When using ZIP format, the progress bars are very misleading .
It seems that the overall progress is dependant on the number of files that are being compressed, not the size of the files!
The largest file is about 900 MB. When compressing this file, the overall progress does not even go up by 1%. However, when it comes to the folder with the 10,000 files, the overall progress bar just shoots up like crazy! It was 99% completed - I thought it was all over! However, 5 more large files had to be compressed. Now that’s misleading!
CAB and 7-ZIP work according to file size, so the overall progress bar increased rapidly while compressing the large files, which is correct.
Get what I’m trying to say, Ivan and Spwolf?
What do other PA users think?
I have noticed this before and agree that it’s misleading showing progress based on the number of files. Progress should be calculated on file size for all archive types, where possible. I would be happy though if just ZIP was changed since this is the format I mostly use.
Thanks for the reply, Deipotent!
Doesn’t anyone else feel the same way?
I am not sure about 1., will have to check out how is this calculated.
As to the 2., unfortunatly that is how our zip engine works. We have made repeated requests for this feature to work based on amount data processed but nothing yet and I would not expect anything to change soon either.