How about some calmer analysis?
Sigh. My full install of MS Office 2007 takes up 640 Meg on my drive. That's hardly a phenomenal amount of resource. It's about 0.07% of my applications disk drive, for all my main productivity software.
I've just opened Word, Excel and Powerpoint, and for good measure put a 30,000+ word document into Word. It's using 96M of RAM. Not trivial, but any PC built in the last 7 years ought, for its main work function, have 100M of RAM available. A 512M machine running XP can handle it, easily. In comparison, I've just opened Firefox and opened BBC news, The Register and Anandtech - hardly a huge load - and it's taking 107M. Meaning Firefox with three pages needs more RAM than Word +30K word document, Excel and Powerpoint do simultaneously. And Office is the horribly bloated one?
Even with them both loaded, CPU load is trivial. Maybe 1%. OK, it's a modern machine, but still - even on an old machine it rarely uses much CPU. It's user-driven, after all, not rendering software.
Finally, MS does seem to get an unfair bashing when it releases any new software. Apparently MS is supposed to make everything run on 10 year old hardware - but if you're using a machine that old, why not use older software too? You don't *have* to upgrade. I've never heard anyone complain that the latest version of Adobe Photoshop should run well on their Pentium 2 with 128 Meg of RAM, yet apparently Windows 7, Office 2010 and Visual Studio should all run brilliantly.
There are reasons to bash MS, mostly for their business practices and occasionally for some of their older bits of software, and there's room to discuss whether or not the ribbon is a better interface than nested drop-down menus or not, but this knee-jerk "It's M$ therefore it's rubbish and EVIL and from the dEVIL!!!!111!!!11" reaction just makes it hard to decide whether an opinion is well reasoned and worth reading or just more hater nonsense.
Perhaps El Reg could give us a few examples of machines that it's impossible to run Word 2010 on? If it doesn't work on a 486 with 8M of RAM, that's one thing, if it doesn't work on an Athlon XP or P4 with 1G of RAM that's another, and if it doesn't work on an older Core2 with only 2G of RAM then it's definitely got a problem. But I suspect that would kill their point - a headline "Bloated Office doesn't run on a 486 with 8M and a 40 Meg HD from 1992!" doesn't sound nearly so dramatic. Of course, neither does "Office 2010 has the same resource requirements as the previous version."