I, too, went to Windows  8.1 recently. At first I thought it was a case of,
"You can't get there from here" and almost wiped it. Then I discovered that
the administrative menu system is almost exactly like Windows 7 except that
it is buried so deep you are likely to give up before finding it. I've grow=
n
to love Windows 8.1 as long as I ignore the Metro apps. It seems to be much
faster than any previous version of Windows.

I also used to use the various versions of xcopy (external file copy) for
much of my backup activity. Having discovered robocopy (robust file copy) I
will never go back. It has far more options and is easier to use. It works
with DOS paths and UNC conventions. As far as I know it runs on all 32 and
64 bit versions of Windows. Check it out here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc733145.aspx

Allen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf
Of
> RussellMc
> Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2014 9:25 PM
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT]:: W8
>=20
> >
> >
> > * > Been fiddling with a Dell Venue 8 Pro (64 GB) / W8.1*
>=20
> *> for about 6 weeks now. I'm starting to think I like it.*
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Installing Classic Desktop and Double Commander from Sourceforge
willgive
> > you a measure of comfort.I have yet to find the popular substitute for
7zip
> > or Windows defender though...*
>=20
>=20
> I added a Win 8 PC to my stable late last year. (7.x, XP misc, ... )
> I found WIN8 seemed to make it not only hard but essentially impossible t=
o
> do some regular tasks.
> I soon sought out 'Classic shell' [ http://www.classicshell.net/ ] based
on
> others' recommendations and it seems to work well enough - ie essentially
> inisibly.
>=20
> My greatest 'loss' with WIN8 is that it is a 64 bit version and declares
> itself incapable of running older "unsupported 16 bit applications".
> I still use enough of these that this is a significant loss.
>=20
> I run an older than latest version of XXCOPY (31 Jan 2001 file date,
> version 2.44.4) as it serves my need better than alternatives. This
program
> has worked superbly in almost all cases up until now.
> It runs in WIN8 but functions slightly differently than heretofore in som=
e
> cases. This may be a WIN8 compatibility issue or is possibly due to
Classic
> Shell or ... - uncertainty about the cause of any obscure problem is one
of
> the prices you pay for installing something that overlays the O/S in some
> manner*.  Experts may know how likely this is to cause problems in any
> given case. Lesser beings must wonder or spend time seeking out opinions
> and fixes which may or may not be relevant. [XXCOPY stalls when attemptin=
g
> to copy files with illegally long files names between a SATA connected
> drive and an external USB connected drive, both of which use the assigned
> system path names. It recovers to dark blackness (aka DOS box pretence) o=
n
> escape with no complaint and the OS allows the offending files to be move=
d
> away. However, using "SUBST" to rename the destination "subdirectory" as
eg
> Y: allows operation to proceed uninterrupted. It even appears to correctl=
y
> copy the offending files with unaltered contents or sizes or filenames.
> Using the arcane and ancient "FC /B ...." returns a claim of integrity fo=
r
> copied files. It may be that other combinations of source and destination
> work OK or differently or not at all or octarine - I'll find out when I
> need to know. Hopefully.)
>=20
> Over time I've found it useful enough to assign (strictly  "SUBST") paths
> to logical drive names rapidly and easily that I've made simple batch
files
> (urk!) to assign  X: Y: and Z: as desired.
> These are name WAZON, WAYON and, of course, WAXON**.
> I did have a WAXOFF but found it unnecessary, simply incorporating a
WAXOFF
> command within WAXON prior to assigning Y: to some new path. This did, of
> course, slightly decrease the humour of such operations.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>               Russell
>=20
> * Age of program is not the point if it worked OK in a prior OS version -
> the change of OS or ??? is..
>=20
> ** Honest ...
>=20
>     @echo off
>     cls
>     subst x: /D
>     subst x: .
>=20
> You get a harmless error on first invocation in a new command interpreter
> due to lack of X:
> It didn't seem worth bothering about and provides warning that this is th=
e
> first invocation on this occasion.
>=20
> Very useful for photo processing operations where eg a project can
> consistently refer to X: based files
> I have no doubt at all that there are better or vastly better ways of
doing
> this using real OS features.
> I'm possibly happy to learn them if the say >=3D 1 year cost benefit retu=
rn
> is positive and in most cases delighted t do so if the 1 day cbr is.
> Otherwise ... .
>=20
>     R
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.