Quote:
Originally Posted by wulffra
Personally, I think it makes sense to be compared/reviewed for a couple of reasons, like:
|
review from toms hardware was reviewing different compression formats... so it makes no sense for PA to be reviewed there when it uses same engine as 7zip for 7zip, and it is about the same as WinZip with zip.
I dont think they care that our 7zip engine can pick different codecs, or that our unrar is 10% faster or that our zip can pick different engines and it has very good multithreaded performance. They are comparing formats basically, not different utilities. Plus they are doing bad job of it but thats something else.
If PA had its own unique format, then thats different. And I showed you PA getting reviewed, unfortunately software industry has a lot less media behind it these days than before, so there are a lot less magazines than before. We often give review copies for magazines, especially in Europe, so reviews show up... you can also buy PA on dvd's in some countries. But in general, mags sell less, they review less... there are only few software sites that review software, rest are all some kind of affiliate schemes. Softpedia reviews software regularly for instance, rest of them far less.
as to some other software thats not getting enough sales, feel sorry for the guys... they probably moved on. We have plenty of customers and our sales are doing good. Last month was our best selling month in past 4 years.
Of course, if you like PA, please spread the word. We are far less known than WinZip or WinRar, but I believe we get a lot bigger percentege of people actually buying software than them because if you try PA, you will most likely love it :-). We also get a lot of business customers, large companies that purchase PowerArchiver for their complete organizations due to our security features (fips certification and such).
So spread the word, get involved in wishlist forums, and tell us what you think of our own format once we release it this year :-).