What doesn't "less is more" apply to software "improvements"?

Question

From a purely philosophical perspective (please, try it) ... wouldn't you think if an "improvement" to software you use is unveiled, the software would require LESS from you to function, rather than MORE (be it RAM, hard drive space, a newer operating system, enabled scripts like Javascript, etc)??

To just use Yahoo as an example, the new Yahoo Mail beta isn't compatible with an older OS like Windows 98. The ~existing~ (pre-beta) Yahoo Mail REQUIRES you to have a security vulnerability like Javasript enabled in order for Yahoo Mail to function.

These new demands on the user and his/her system just seems counterintuitive with the concept of "improvement".

Please note, the opening line should read "Why doesn't ...." not "What doesn't ...."

And furthermore, I had to wait a while to even make this edit (over broadband at a non-peak timeslot no less), because with all the "improvements" to Yahoo Answers, more crap had to load into my browser before a single YA page is completely rendered. Ah, I love progress!

As an aside, would it not be safer and more cross-platform compatible to make "dynamic" web pages using server-side programming (eg, PHP) instead of client-side programming (eg, Javascript) and just phase out client-side altogether?

Answer 1

I would have to agree with some of the earlier posters and add a few thoughts.

Although software requires more to work, it also does more. Unfortunately, we are slaves to Moore's law (the power of computers doubles every 6 months). Developers rely on this axiom as they create software. It's somewhat depressing to think of that your operating system and whatever application you were running could be crammed into 256KB of RAM. Now windows can barely run on a computer with 1000 times the memory capacity (256MB of RAM).

However to be fair, you couldn't run a web browser, word processor, email, and solitaire at the same time on DOS.

Answer 2

Part of the reason is that software engineers aren't required to work with small amounts of RAM, as they were in the past. They just assume the lates OS, and the minimally configured system now assumes a generous amount of RAM, processing speed and thelike.

I'd just love to see some of the current engineers design a graphical interface like GEOS, that works well with 64K of RAM and still has enough space left to actually run an application, like a word processor or spreadsheet.

Part of the problem is that software is designed to handle anything that comes at it, and makes available any option that might be selected by a user. Web pages, generated on the fly contain a great deal of useless tags and undisplayed content, making them much slower than necessary to load. I also think that the microsoft only features on web pages are used far too often. Pages ought to look the same on whatever browser is used, but this too, is the exception. Taking a class on web design, the schools web site, for the course, was usable only on IE, while our pages had to be compatible with all standard browsers.

Also, many web designers don't use tools to measure the load time for their pages. People with dial-up are suffering due to poor page design.

I agree with you. Developers should strive for better compatibility with legacy systems, as well as supporting newer ones. It's a bit more work, but not an impossible task. Even if older systems don't have all of the features as the new ones, they should still be able to function.

Answer 3

No one wants just an average program. They want the biggest best program. If they have to upgrade hardware or operating system fine. Also the fact that a month after you buy a new sytem its outdated doesn't help.