It's hardly surprising 10X is "white elephant" considering it's precisely the UWP stuff, Cortana, and "mobilised" crap that adds most of the bloat to post W7 Windows in the first place (all image sizes are 64-bit):-
W7 SP1 ISO size (Win32/64 API only) = 3.1GB
W10 20H2 ISO size (Win32/64 API + UWP apps) = 5.7GB
W10X ISO Size (UWP apps only) = 5.11GB
^ Literally all the Win32/64 API "core Windows" stuff removed from W10 to make W10X takes up only 600MB, ie, the "slim, lightweight, modern mobile" UWP way of doing things is 3-4x the size of the main core Win32/64 API. "Windows XP Tablet Edition" all over again, except that actually ran proper Windows applications & games whilst 10X is just an extension of an already failed attempt to take on Android after leaving it 5 years too late to matter...
Edit: In fact W10 Enterprise LTSC 1809 is over 1GB smaller (4.03GB) than the "slimmed down for mobile" 10X that's missing the main Win API...
I am not a fan of inefficient code or bloatware - but this size comparison does not support what you are saying. The reason why the size got larger was because it could easily do this and maintain or better the same user efficiency (latency/speed) because memory price was decreasing and its speed was increasing much faster than the size of windows was growing. Hardware at the same price was outpacing software.
I know that a lots of people will ***** on MS and Windows 10 but I think that W10 is THE best one MS released. I really like the overall approach of updating it instead of releasing a new OS every 3 years like it was in the past. Sure there will be a bug or two but they always fix it and most of the people will never even notice it.
Not only the best MS but the best OS period for CISC's. Well maybe VaxVMS was better, but only for RISC's. For CISC machines definitely Window10. MS forays into RISC machine OS have always failed, including WindowsPhone. Just like Google's effort for CISC's (Chrome) failed. Apple only make it work by continuing to "not compete" with Windows10 on CISC's - producing a CISC OS that has not and will not support the most complex applications available for CISC's. They argue that these complex applications should always be run on powerful RISC's (with the appropriate non-Apple OS). Apple therefore gets away with a relatively minor modification of CISC code to produce their OS for the much less powerful RISC's like smartphones and tablets.