>>>>So, we think of it as a good thing, we have the right amount of features with acceptable performance that will only be getting better.
>>>
>>>Mike,
>>>
>>>It sounds like you're not saying that it's necessarily a good thing that it runs slow, but rather that it's not a bad thing; an acceptable trade-off for what it will be able to do in the future. Why waste time coding for small advantages in speed now - possibly giving up some features - when the speed will likely take care of itself in a year or two with new technology? I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense.
>>>
>>>Renoir
>>
>>As I said : "I can understand that slow may not necessarily be a bad thing, but it can never be a good thing."
>>
>>There's a world of difference between saying that the application running slow is a good thing and saying the the application running slow is not a bad thing.
>
>I think that was my point.
>
>R

I know, it just seemed Mike may have missed that sentence in my reply.

Having been involved for close to 20 years in producing customer specifications for systems, I believe that the correct use of language is very important, it might seem somewhat pedantic to Mike, but if there is, at some point, disagreement with the client then such wording can very important.