You should be able to see what firewall rules were created to deal with the issue in your firewall config.

Just following up... I experience a small pang of delight every. single. time. I open a downloaded zip file in File Explorer (something I do as part of my job many times a day) and it already has the right columns at the right sizes. So few gifts keep on giving. If I could buy you a case of beer I would, Keith. I hope you have the happiest of holidays!

To be clear, you need not add anything else. I had to remove the NotSpecified tweak. The change you suggested has been holding. New .zip files now open just as wanted. Thanks again! I've marked yours as the correct answer.

OK, I got it. I had another tweak in the registry that was incompatible; once removed your instructions worked! The tweak was to set all folders to General Items by Setting FolderType to NotSpecified in [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Classes\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\Bags\AllFolders\Sh‌​ell]

Hm, first attempt at adding a comment was somehow lost... Trying again... I went through your instructions carefully. No matter how I edit my view for .zip I'm just never seeing any bag created under a bag number with the key {80213e82-bcfd-4c4f-8817-bb27601267a9}. Just {5C4F28B5-F869-4E84-8E60-F11DB97C5CC7}, which appears to be just the regular folder customization GUID.

I have heard others over time claim they do not like "fake RAID" setups, but I've used RAID, both software (as above), RST, and other solutions that involved hardware controllers, and frankly none have been problematic from a reliability perspective. So far my only limitation has been this lack of combinable features that I have described above. I don't think a lot of folks have experience in this area, though. Since posting the above, I have heard of a separately licensable solution from Intel for this specific hardware I have that may give me what I need here.

I agree with the above commenter; anecdotal evidence of data loss because of who-knows-what (possibly disk failure) isn't really evidence that NTFS isn't being power loss resilient. Anyone who lived through the era when FAT was the norm (and had to incessantly try to recover disk data) knows that NTFS is quite robust by comparison. That being said, ReFS is supposed to be even better. I've been running ReFS for years on a backup drive.

Did you ever get to the bottom of this issue? I have just begun to see it on a Windows 8.1 system as well. I see 8 of the warnings a minute and 43 seconds into my nightly Windows System Image backup.