*** Reply to message from Randall R Schulz
And users continue to demand more from the software they use. More functions, more capacity and more speed. Those things cannot be achieved without consuming more computational resources, including faster CPUs, larger disks and more RAM.
This is true, however, tighter and more efficient code *could* also hold down the creaping bloat. There is also the question of why some companies insist on repackaging bloat that people have actually revolted against after having been much put upon by those program "helpers" Clippie, Bob , the dog in Xp's search function.. those , and others in other programs, I'm certain . Might even be some in some Linux programs... irritate the P out of most people, but they reappear in a new form each and every time NEW software comes out. Those aren't demanded by the users they were created by the software company first.
And users continue to demand more from the software they use. More functions, more capacity and more speed.
This other part of the answer, always makes me wonder why a New function has to be added when it might be better to make , posibley by a menu entry and script the function which is already in the program more accessable to the new computer user population? just wondering ( waiting for my 9.2 to arrive <g>) -- j -- nemo me impune lacessit