I went from digital compact camera to my first DSLR. I would claim that there are some fundamental differences in how they work and how they interface with the user
The concept is exactly the same, even if the buttons/layout differ. It's a camera, it takes photos, you understand what it does.
Using Photoshop to you seems to be the same as using a 35mm film camera without knowing anything at all about photography/cameras and getting annoyed it cannot produce something tangible in a couple of hours.
Do you have any references that "they realised it didn't work very well"? In what way does this refute my point?
The fact they changed it so drastically, despite an enormous user base than was very, very used to the old paradigm tells you they knew the old way wasn't working. MS were quite open about why it needed to change. You basically said that Word was able to dominate by very easy to use and if that was indeed the case they wouldn't have changed it. I hated Word myself as it was so faffy and fiddly.
Even programs for experts may benefit from user-friendliness.
And they may well be user friendly to experts, who usually have very different requirements to non-experts like yourself.
I have never used that application. I think it is great that Adobe has _some_ competition, though.
iPhoto is not competition for Photoshop. Very, very different end users in mind.
I believe that it is this balancing act that gets in the way of embracing the platform.
I work on a Mac and on PCs and Creative Suite seems pretty native on each, no less so than single platform programmes I'd say. Macs and PC are not really that different when it comes to basics of how things work and have become more similar over time by copying each other.
I have never met a person who use the "smart TV" functionality.
And I can't think of anyone I know who watches 3D tv as it happens, I wouldn't be so daft as to claim nobody uses it though.
Heres a secret: sometimes manufacturers miss their market, and spend R&D money on something that noone wants.Feature-creep often affects the general usability, speed and security of a product.
Not a secret that manufacturers get it wrong at times, but what people usually mean by feature creep/bloat is the very selfish "they are adding things I don't want".
"Audiophile" gear is usually for simple minds that believe in homeopathy and the like.
Or people with good hearing and who appreciate music. I can tell the difference between bad/decent/good kit as can many people I know and none of us believe in homeopathy, most of us being scientists. Those who dismiss that such differences are basically poor of hearing and cannot accept others are more capable in that area. That doesn't mean I necessarily believe £500 a metre cable is worth it over £10 a metre cable. But it quite surprising what a big difference decent cables can make over crappy cheap ones - not with digital signals I should point out.
Did you read the thread title? "What are you wishing for in LR5 ?" Perhaps you thought that it read "What are you wishing for in LR5/CS7 ?
Your English comprehension is as poor as your computer skills. I stated that part of what you were asking for was already there in CS6/LR4 and indeed has been since the beginning IIRC. Yes you have to open files into PS to do those tasks, but that is because they are PS fuctions and not LR abilities. There are different tools [bitmap Vs parametric editing] which excel in different areas. But they work very well together. As I can for example, open up multiple images into layers in PS and the work subsequently done in PS then seamlessly appears in the LR library.