Windows 2000 eats RAM. What will Longhorn do?

Over at Feedster blog they are bemoaning the fact that "Frontpage from Office 2000, running under Windows 2000, was using 280 MEGABYTES of memory".

So here I am running literally two generations behind on Microsoft software -- Windows 2000 instead of Windows XP and Office 2000 instead of Office XP.  And even so I still have troubles with memory.  Do I really think that if I upgrade to Longhorn that there will be more memory available?  Will Longhorn be faster and more efficient?  I think not.  Software never gets smaller and more efficient.  N E V E R !  I've never seen this in my 17 years of experience (well maybe once or twice -- but never in a Microsoft product).

There must be an unwritten law of computing that leverages Moore's Law to ensure that, "Any new generation OS or application suite will consume 200% more computing resources than you have on hand."

I am sure various *nix fans will dispute this. As for Microsoft perhaps we need Robert Scoble to address this on his blog. He has after all been hired by Microsoft as a Longhorn evangelist. Load him up in your RSS reader - boy, Robert can blog!

Update: 22 July. I've been Scobleized™ - Robert Scoble responds on his blog here. Short answer - "Anyway, it's too early to predict. See ya in 2005." His long answer is worth reading. Wow - fastest response I've ever got from Microsoft. And I am a Mac user :-)