Oh I know why it has grown, but you're not going to appreciate the answer...
I'll give you an example, why is it that Windows 2000 SP0 uses less memory and has a smaller footprint than Windows 2000 SP4? Sure SP4 adds some needed features over SP0 but really, WHY does it take up much more memory than 2000 SP0? Windows XP SP0 VS SP3, same problem..
I'm currently using WinXP SP3, it has a memory footprint of 128mb. SP0 had roughly the same footprint.
As for hard disk space, Yep, it takes up more space, it also has more stuff (IE drivers, security center, ect).
Windows NT SP0 vs SP6a, same problem.. Yes you could attempt to argue that it's "features" that are being added that are creating the bloat such as the security center in Windows XP.. But if you disable ALL OF THAT, you still wind up with a much larger footprint....why is that?
Because you are full of crap and don't know what you are talking about? As I said, currently running XP SP3, same footprint as SP0.
Hmmm... I know why! It's because of all the damn security patches... They're patches! Meaning instead of actually addressing the fundamentals of how things are done in order to make it more secure, they just add band-aids, LOT OF THEM, and those band-aids are what is sucking up so much memory.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHA LOL.
This here, for all to see is a perfect example for you, fleabag, of why you should shut the hell up. Programming, in general, is nothing more then applying a series of patches. The final product is nothing more then the culmination of those patches into a final product. Patchs, in the computer world, aren't like bandaids, they can change EVERYTHING about the system. They aren't just masking the problem, they are, in fact, fixing it (and potentially introducing new problems, but that is beside the point).
This is part of the reason why when a bug is discovered, a patch is released for all the operating systems that are affected with little difference between how the patches are constructed.. So when a successor OS is released, (yes that includes vista "from the ground up my ass!") it includes ALL of the security patches that are still applicable to the core of the OS, and then some.
Somewhat true, all OS's are built upon their predecessors. You want to hear something scary? Your new i7 920 probably has schematics that hail all the way back to the 8088. Isn't that terrible! Dang lazy processor designers, no wonder processors have been getting slower and slower... Oh wait!
For windows, Generally, the SP releases are not only fixing security issues, but adding new drivers and features ect. This, more then anything is the reason that OS's grow in size over the years.
THAT, is why Windows takes up so much memory, because all that's all it is...PATCHES! Don't believe me? Try to compare XP SP0 RTM with that of SP0 but with all the patches you can possibly install and you'll see the memory footprint of the kernel increase along with the baseline OS.
Again, ALL software is nothing more then a series of patches. Nobody just sits down and writes one huge chunk of software without ever going back and fixing bugs or adding features (That is what a patch is, fixing a bug or adding a feature).
You're not getting it.... I said, the PC requirements for GTA III-San Andreas INCREASED, SUBSTANTIALLY yet those were all released for the Playstation 2. I can assure you, San Andreas for the PC does NOT look better than Vice City for the PC OR PS2 which DOES look better than GTA III for the PC OR PS2. The graphics on the PC version of this game look like you're playing the PS2 version, except somehow SA requires a much faster computer (which means it runs slower) than GTA III which was released 4 years prior. This is what I'm talking about when it comes to BULLSHIT. With that said, not all game publishers are like this... Just look at Half Life 2! That game can run on a computer made in 1999 and it was released in 2004! Can't say that about FPSs released in 2004!
Somebody isn't getting it.
RESOLUTION! 320x240 is a whole heck of a lot smaller then 1280x1024. With smaller resolutions comes smaller textures, less detailed models, ect. And you CAN'T tell the difference. That's because only the higher resolution displays are able to show the differences, It is a trick older then dirt.
You ever see what happens to HL2 when you set it up to be able to run on a computer from 1999? It LOOKS like HL1, seriously. Valve was partially crazy in doing that, they had to spend a fair amount of man hours recreating textures and models just so it could run on the same computers that HL1 was predominantly played on. You don't get HL2 max settings on a 1999 computer. Period.
See the difference? That is effectively what they do to make GTA III look about the same as its PC counter part. You just can't see the difference because it is a lower resolution.