This is an old post, preserved for reference.
The products and services mentioned within are no longer available.
My entry for the 'What Dave doesn't like about modern life' round on Room 101 would be Unnecessary Complexity. By that I mean that things seem to become more complex all the time, just because they can. The example I usually give is word processors. I remember writing my university dissertation on a BBC Micro, using Wordwise. That was fine, it did the job, all that was needed really.
The final step is Office 365 on Windows 8, and I've seen a lot of people stare at that very confused, because they have somehow managed to overcomplicate it even more by trying to make it simple.
I came across another example yesterday, when talking about approaches to averaging. When you have a limited resolution reading, you can improve it by taking a number of them and averaging the readings. I used this approach for the temperature sensor on the LCD Clocks.
A little less efficient is the way I do it in C code for the LCD clock is to create an array of 100 bytes, each reading, set an array entry, increment the index, if it's at the end, move it back to the start. Then go through the whole array, adding the values to a floating point number and dividing by the number of readings. Less efficient, but it achieves the same thing.
In a desktop application, I need to do a similar thing to average readings on a chart, but here I'm writing in C#, and using the .net framework linq library. I create a linked list of readings, each time I add a reading, I go through the list removing any entries over a particular age. Then use the built in averaging of the linked list to get the average. This is a lot less efficient in terms of memory and processing.
I think that is why I like working with vintage computers and amplifiers and things like that because the beauty in simplicity is thrown into sharper focus against the complexity of their modern equivalents. Older amplifiers had several transistors, modern ones have several thousand. The BBC's 6502 had 3510 transistors, where as the i5 in here has about 2 billion.