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.
This appears to be happening again with the Power Archiver 2022 shell extensions.
When I have Use Explorer Shell Extensions enabled in Power Archiver Configuration and right-click on c:\Users\username\Start Menu, (hidden Junction file), File Explorer crashes.
I have version 21.00.15 (03/2022) 64-bit installed in Windows 10 Version 21H2 (Build 19044.1826).
In the latest version of PA, on W11 (latest build/SP) when you try to use the first level context menu - NOTHING HAPPENS (particularly when you do this from Downloads or Documents folders) - however I noticed that it DOES WORK when you use the context menu from the Desktop. Going to the second level context menu does work however.
PA 2023 22.00.08
Long time no seeing. So I start up the new year with a first problem : the virtual driver cannot be installed. Reason : it is missing in the Fast Ring PatchBeam Update Service…
Virtual driver PA 2023-01-28 152607.png
It seems a standard problem with new releases :-)
Can I have a link or can it be fixed. Thank you. CU later
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.
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.
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.
TAR Archive Support Still Has Problems
I downloaded a TAR archive today and I immediately noticed some problems with the way PA handled it. First off, PowerArchiver seemed to be quite sluggish (used a high amount of CPU and RAM), this I could live with if it could handle the archive properly. However, the file listing showed me instantly that it was unable to properly be handled. Many of the filenames were cut off and there were @LongLink files listed. I decided to attempt to have PA extract the archive anyways. First I was given an error that said “Invalid argument to date encode.”, so I clicked Ok and was then asked if I wanted to overwrite the Read-Only @LongLink file. No matter my response to that, I only get 2 of the smaller files extracted from the archive. The archive is not corrupt as I have copied it to my linux machine and it extracted just fine with “tar -xf filename.tar”. I wouldn’t mind sharing this archive for testing purposes but it is about 120MB. Any help would be appreciated.
TBGBe last edited by
Well, without the tar it is a bit difficult to identify the problem (I haven’t experienced this - but thatprobably means little).
Could you perhaps provide a (complete) listing of the contents if not the tar itself (curious about the reference to @LongLink )?
I was able to reproduce it - it seems that the issue is with filenames+path over 255 characters (Windows limit), which should not be the issue even if there is an Windows limitation there.
We will have to report it engine developers, since it is definetly an engine issue.
Thanks for finding it.
Actually, the archive name itself was about 50 characters and contained filenames that were 50-60 characters each that were all in a directory which had a name of about 50 characters. Even if these were all added up I don’t think any of the files got near to the 255 limit.
Unfortunately, it appears as though I allowed my carelessness to get the best of me and I am no longer in possession of this archive (neither is my recycling bin).
At least one problem was found and should be fixed. :)
TBGBe last edited by
Not sure if this is the same problem (or the same solution), but it appears that there is a filename length restriction for TAR format.
name = 94 chars (98 with ext) OK
name = 95 chars (99 with ext) fails - TAR is not created.
Note: No Path is being stored. Other compression fromats work OK with name = 95 chars (99 with ext).
(checked in 9.00.34 test - same) - see attachment.
We have recorded it and will check it for 9.1.
I came across another archive with a very similar issue described in the first post, now that I have it I decided to take a screenshot of it to hopefully help with debugging (in case its not already been fully identified).
Feel free to ignore the what type of content is actually in the archive. :)
The issue has already been fully identified - we have addressed this problem for 9.1
Ok, sorry for the redundancy, thanks for fixing the problem, looking forward to 9.1. :)