Sure, and Office in the 90s didn't feel any faster than the word processing I was doing on an Apple II+ in middle school. This is because the people buying (and building) software care about other things than processor efficiency. If it's generally fast enough for their normal use, they won't switch to a competitor.
The notion of "wasteful" here is in terms of something like RAM usage or processor instructions. But the correct measure is user time, including the number of user hours of labor needed to buy the device. The original Apple II cost 564 hours of minimum wage labor, and you were up over 1000 hours if you wanted a floppy drive and a decent amount of RAM. Today, a low-end netbook costs 28 hours of minimum wage labor.
Suppose you managed to put on that netbook something with the efficiency of Apple Writer or Office 4.0. Would anything be better? No, because the spare cycles and RAM would go unused. They would be just as wasted. No significant number of user hours would be saved. Or, alternatively, the in-theory cheaper computer they could buy would save them very few working hours.
As long as the user experience is as good, then the hardware notion of "wasteful" is a theoretical, aesthetic value, not a practical one.
