Many businesses paying extra for software overkill

Most of us are stumbling along, doing the best we can with the technology that˜s been thrust upon is. We˜re using, at most, 5 percent of the potential power provided by our computers, and putting a lot of energy into just keeping up.
One of the problems is what˜s been termed "feature glut." Programs often try to do too much. Instead of making programs that are truly easy to use, software companies stuff them with as many features as possible, which look good when they˜re listed on the box.
Most people won˜t use most features, though. I˜ve always believed that far too many people are using the software market leaders; I really don˜t believe that everyone using Excel needs all of Excel˜s features, that all the people working with Word need a word processor that also works as a desktop publishing program, or that everyone who bought Access really requires a relational-database program. What most people need is a simple program, something that has the most-used features, in a relatively easy-to-use form and at a much lower price.
A few years ago, I did some contract work in NEC˜s telecommunications division. For some reason, we needed to put together a very simple database.
Someone had been struggling along with dBase II, at the time the leading database program. (That program˜s now dead, probably because the programmers didn˜t seem to care how difficult their program was to use — they probably believed the old programmer˜s motto "program power is more important than ease of use.")
The project was given to me, and the first thing I did was throw away dBase II, and get hold of a copy of Microsoft Works. It took me half an hour to create the database we needed, after someone already had wasted several days fooling with a more-complicated program.
I have to put together another database soon, a list of media contacts I˜m going to use for promoting my latest book. I have Access on my computer, but I don˜t think I˜ bother using it. I really don˜t need that level of complexity. No, I˜ be back with Works, creating a simple database that will do just what I need it to do, and no more.
How many people are using Microsoft Word or WordPerfect to create memos or write letters? These programs are really desktop publishing programs; you can insert graphics, create multiple columns, use fancy cross-referencing tools to insert page and figure numbers automatically, and even lay out entire books. But the most common use for these programs is almost certainly to write memos. That˜s 5 percent or less of the programs˜ capabilities, with the other 95 percent or more wasted.
This problem is similar to the "Death of Diana" syndrome. We blame the media for hounding Princess Diana to death, but we bought the papers and watched the shows that employed the paparazzi.
Well, although the software publishers are creating programs that are far too complex for the majority of uses, we continue buying them, encouraging the publishers to continue on their path of feature glut.
I˜m not suggesting that we don˜t need powerful programs — just that most of us don˜t. I need Word for Windows, because I need most of the features that it contains. If all I ever did was write memos and letters, though, I wouldn˜t touch this complicated memory hog. And I certainly wouldn˜t spend more money for a program I didn˜t really need.
Obviously, there are people who need very powerful spreadsheet and database programs, too, but there aren˜t many.
We˜re talking about vast sums of money here; billions of dollars every years spent on software overkill. For instance, one major mail-order company is selling Word for Windows for $310, and Microsoft Works for $35. What an enormous difference in price! And Works is not just a word processor, it also has spreadsheet, database, charting and drawing programs thrown in. The waste is actually much larger if you buy Word, Access, and Excel (Microsoft Office 97 is around $540).
Of course, many of us are using top-of-the-line programs because that˜s what came with the computers we bought. But we had to pay for those programs one way or another. Computer prices are higher than they need to be because they come with programs designed not for real use, but to make the computer sound better in advertising.
Do I expect this to change? No, no time soon anyway. Corporate America will continue blowing billions on software it really doesn˜t need, and the average home user has no way of knowing better. They˜ buy what they˜re told to buy at the store where they get their computer. Still, it seems a real shame to me. I˜ve worked closely with computer users for 16 years now, training them and helping them fix problems, and many of those problems are due to working with complicated software, software that really should be easier to use … and have fewer features.Peter Kent is the author of "Poor Richard˜s Web Site: Geek-Free, Commonsense Advice on Building a Low-Cost Web Site" (www.poorrichard.com/).