I blame the wedding registry
The Registry hive has always been a main point of contention since Win95 in August of 1995.
I acquired 15 copies of that wonderous boxed product
for the LAB I worked at, in that mid-October 1995 ,
and I recall that I asked myself the same thing within our IT context,
but found that installing 8 and 16bit programs in a mix also caused additional bloat.
Win98Special Edition was the first OS with noticible
quickened pace of bloat because that OS featured mixtures of drivers and automatic patching,
but would come to maddening slow downs with driver faults and errors.
As I have aged in these 17+ years, I too have "bloat". And I too, wonder, how did that happen?
In my case, I suspect a smarties addiction during my ENVOY100 sessions at 9600 baud
(a forerunner of Canadian Government electronic mail before PostOfficeProtocol).
I used to be faster with "the Ladies" (yes, I had an afro in the eighties, but those pictures were burned)
but Girlfriend 1.3 upgraded into Wife 2.0 and so forth, and then mini-me version 0.5,
and now I am so slow, I get lost travelling around in a circle listening to University Student 4.5
speak of her latest dot-net creation.
Curiously, you see the same effect to a lesser extent today, and for the same reasons;
mainly due to the default path length incrementing during application installations,
and regular security patches creating hive keys in the registry
that cause the processing to search incrementally longer execution paths.
The quality of drivers for hardware interfaces has not improved,
but our tolerance for incredibly bad assembly code has changed,
with our appetite for throw-away uneconomical-to-repair Technology.
There is a cascade effect to this bloat, so that the execution interval "wanders"
at an exponential rate over time.
In all seriousness, there is no single factor, and the issue is of compound growth
in the management layer of Windows due to multiple causes.
Was this reply helpful? (2) (1)