Of course, but so what? That's true of every version of every operating system that has ever been built. And it's sure not a useful testing platform. To give this thing, or any other OS, a proper test you have to clutter it up with a whole mess of junk, preferably without ever cleaning up the registry or uninstalling anything. The more crap you can stick on your test system the more realistic and useful the test will be.
So how do you determine if a new OS preview has garbage code, or if the in-place upgrade glitched (and there is actually nothing wrong with the OS code)?
Personally I'm only interested in the "main" programs that I use on a daily basis.
If some software that I never install doesn't work, why should I care?
These days anyone can run a VM (if required) for old software.
Anecdotally (from help forum posts) the less code installed on a system, the better it runs.
I suspect my PC would be considered to be "a piece of junk" by a lot of people on these forums.
Yet, compared to an original IBM PC, my PC has:
- ~1000x faster CPU
- ~8000x more RAM
- ~6500000x more storage
Despite those stats, I doubt that I could run a 1000 copies of DOS (I'd be surprised if I could run 100 copies).
People often claim that there is no such thing as "Registry Clag" and yet a fresh install almost always seems to run better than an install that is a few years old.
If it doesn't run better, the problem is usually caused by an unsuccessful reinstall (i.e. some glitch occurred during the install).
The cure is a successful clean reinstall.