To all the people who think that an editor (like vi or emacs) and a command line is a sufficient as a development environment: If that works for you, great. For complex tasks, where actual coding is a small part of the workflow (most of the work is in design, review, discussion, testing, communication with other humans), and for compiled languages in large projects (where the code-compile-test cycle is by nature very long), it can work pretty well. For more more agile development styles, I have my doubts whether you can reach your best productivity that way, but that's between you and your manager. For many types of tasks (like interactive data analysis, development in non-compiled languages, tasks that involve graphics such as image or video processing and data analysis that involves graps), the old-fashioned workflow with emacs or vi is nearly always very inefficient.
What do you mean by "look like it is from the 90's"? The color scheme? Visual design? Underlying technology? You need to be much more specific. Admittedly, much has changed in visual design in the last 20 years. Font strokes have become much narrower (enabled by higher resolution displays), we are using shades of grey instead of of black and white and much more colorizing (enabled by much higher contrast displays than the CRTs we used in the 90s), and we do lots of things like subtle shading and rounding to give visual cues. Some people wonder whether this is actually progress or not. Certain aspects of modern visual design are clearly not progress; for example the trend towards using shades of grey with light font strokes creates serious accessibility problems for people with bad eyesight; instead of using the power that modern hardware has given us to help make things more visible (in particular to partially disabled coders), we're using them to either look pretty, or communicate other intent.
Why is it bloatware? I don't see it as needing terribly much in terms of resources, compared to other graphical development environments. And in today's environment (where the critical resource in short supply is human brains and human time, not CPU or memory), trading off more usage of computers for creating human efficiency is nearly always a great move.
But what gets me really upset is: There are way too many people (idiots?) who automatically hate everything Microsoft does, and who throw terms like "bloatware" around for no good reason. Just because it is Microsoft doesn't mean it is bad, nor does it mean that is inefficient.