>>>This is in no way meant to be a reflection on the change in the UT interface, but it brings up a topic about changing something just for the sake of being different. If somethtng is working great, why make a dramatic change to the interface that even experienced user's have to search through to figure out? I constantly see this in new versions of software.
>>>
>>>In my personal software develpment I always attempt to upgrade to new helpful features, but I usually don't make it so different that it requires a lot of thinking on those who have used the software for years. Am I one of the few who think this way, or is the industry moving so fast we feel compelled to make something different just to make it seem more modern or just different - often times at the expense of productivity?
>>>
>>>Just wondering......
>>
>>Well said. Featuritis is nothing new, though. It has been around since the 80s at least.
>>
>>Regarding the UT, this version seems like the opposite of the usual case. You know how there is usually a list of new features? Maybe there should be a list of features removed ;-)
>
>I like that! I think I would call it "cleaner".

Spring cleanup, indeed. I think most of the features removed were added long ago, when they seemed like a good solution to a perceived problem, and were advocated by a vocal set of members. Then, I guess, it was no problem for Michel to count which features weren't used by more than a couple of people a year.

I like it this way - it still looks like UT always did, has all the important features that make it UT, yet the clutter is gone.