[eviks]

The biggest cause for this problem isn't lack of docs, but poor OS design. Like, why would you let apps change anything without restrictions to begin with? Of course, then you have to have some dumb hidden folder wasting space to restore the changes, and this "waste space for no good reason because we can't architect properly" is still a common issue

[jasomill]

You're not wrong, but largely as a result of dubious architectural decisions made in the name of backwards compatibility and minimal hardware requirements, Microsoft sold 40 million copies of Windows 95 in its first year, compared to 300,000 copies of Windows NT 3.1.

Consider:

Windows 95 ran the vast majority of MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 applications with minimal performance loss, supported MS-DOS and Windows 3.x drivers for hardware that lacked 32-bit driver support, and ran acceptably on a 386 with as little as 4 MB RAM.

The properly architected Windows NT 3.1, released two years before Windows 95, had limited MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 application support, required NT-specific drivers for all hardware, and required 12 MB RAM to boot, 16 MB to do anything useful, and you really wanted a 486 for decent performance.

[eviks]

Now try a 3rd comment that actually connects to the design deficiency described in the article instead of a generic grievance about rearchitectrue that included a gazillion of changes

[gzread]

I agree. Why should the person who bought a computer be allowed to own it? Phone ecosystems got this the right way - the company that made the device owns it, and the person who bought it does not!

[eviks]

Don't speak in empty slogans, connect it to the article/comment!

Some app does some thing, then the OS reverts it! Where is "you" and "own" in this process? Do you own the "C:\Windows\SYSBCKUP" folder? Do you own the undo process?

Would your "ownership" rights increase if instead the OS didn't waste any space, but simply blocked downgrades of system components without user warning/intervention? Or had an even better process?