> In general, the more bits you have, the more it goes wrong

In some cases more bits implies more functionality. Functionality
that might be excess to requirements. For example a friend's
flash nattty toaster broke down a while ago and I offered to see
if it could be easily repaired. It could, by by-passing the burnt-out
control electronics

Now it's a toaster again, but simply an element, just like the good
old days. It toasts just as well as it did but now the user has to do
their part

Functionality and the resulting complexity has two sides - it pushes
manufacturers to be creative and innovative, but it also boggles and
confuses consumers. Cellphones for example - "I just want a phone
that you can make phone calls on", or cars that you can tinker with
on a Saturday without needing a computer science diploma

So what's the answer ? Build with minimum number of components
to do the job ? Accept that complexity has a down-side ?

It's not a simple subject if you're going to figure customer's epectations
into the equation

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist