When a user complains about the program using excess resources while being verifying node, the devs and some others often strikeback with a sense of entitlement "You should help out. If you don't like it, leave. Come back when the tech is better."
The tech IS better guys. There are thin clients and ewallets that resolve this but you deride them and continue to work on a vision of software nobody wants. It's rather limiting for Bitcoin as a whole. Can you imagine how many people have dumped Bitcoin because Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind continues to be a slow, overburdened pain in the ass?
It's very clear: This desktop-based vision for Bitcoin is one of Autism and general lack of ingenuity.
You're right that the client is slow, I run on an old linux netbook and it is very slow to open and process blocks for me, but I don't actually see a technical suggestion from you on how it should be improved.
Your suggestion that the software developers should do with their time as you wish is actually entitlement on your part not anyone elses. If you like other clients so much why don't you just use them, or at least say which ones you like and why (please include the end user benefit and what the underlying technical difference is that makes it better).
I don't really see how an end user can run a non-verifying node as it would seem to open them to attacks such as double spend. If you have a solution to that for non-verifying users I'd like to hear it.