All View controls disabled when in Transform dialogue... WHY?

Question

Transform Each.  A reasonably useful, if minimalistic dialog box disables ALL view controls.
Including Zoom and Pan. 
And of course the really useful stuff, like hide Bounding Boxes and Frames/Edges and Guides... they also don't work. 
Why such a monochromatic and linear way of working in 2013?
Has Adobe spent NON of its record profits on hiring more programmers?
Are their any scripts that get around this heinous oversight, left over from what... 1995?

Answer 1

Again: The users here cannot tell you why. Illustrator is a very old and archaic program that has not kept up with the times. But you already know that.
Or is there another explanation?
There are other speculations. Mine is simply that the user base continues to tolerate it. In the end, that's why. If you need further explanation, read on:
Adobe created PostScript in the 80s. Adobe has dominated the graphics industry ever since. So people buy Illustrator because it carries the Adobe brand. None of this has changed.
It becomes a self-fullfilling cycle. Newcomers buy Illustrator early-on assuming it is the "safe bet" because it carries the Adobe brand. As a result, most Illustrator users have very little experience with any other mainstream 2D Bezier drawing programs, if any at all. Longtime Illustrator-only users become increasingly vested in its archaic and cumbersome interface and fearful of having to apply that kind of learning effort to any other program. They--in self-protective turn--advise newcomers that it is the "professional" choice; the "safe bet."
So the cycle repeats.
Illustrator-only users assume Illustrator's feature set to be "state of the art" for its software category. Adobe's marketing, of course, sustains this myth.
And a comedy of absurdity ensues. Literal decades pass before Illustrator users realize that "page 2" is not only possible but valuable in a drawing program. The year 2013 (and who knows how many more) comes and goes without Illustrator ever acquiring the most basic functionality of a proper set of basic live geometric shape tools. You are just discovering this. But it is nothing new. It's the way it's always been.
Adobe continues to market the same archaic functional underpinnings with occasional window-dressing changes of the UI skin. Functionality long taken for granted in other Bezier drawing programs is only occasionally added and even then in a half-baked fashion being hamstrung by devoted adherance to an outdated interface foundation which Adobe dares not change lest risk alienating existing users.
The interface becomes increasingly scattered, cluttered, redundant, inconsistent and old-fashioned despite its ever-changing stylistic facade. The resulting complicated confusion is perceived by newcomers as "powerful" and "full featured" thinking that must be why it's so unintuitve. They come here to ask "how" and to become vested in the highly esoteric learning curve.
And the cycle repeats.
Other vendors try to capture/maintain market share by emulating the most prevalent interface schema in hopes of easing the "transition" to their products. They concentrate more on replicating the same old Illustrator functionality than on innovation, even when their interface foundations are superior. Illustrator's interface scheme becomes the defacto standard and the whole software segment stagnates in an endless cycle of "me, too" offerings.
Illustrator's domination thereby effectively holds the entire segment in decades-old lethargy. Users become adicted to the same old mediocrity.
Meanwhile, other graphics softwares in growth segments march on. The users of 3D modeling, for example, enjoy a plethora of different interface schemes, each competing to deliver both superior functionality and a superior user experience. The user base assumes a stance of versatility and adaptability and is less dogmatically defensive of a paticular software. Obtaining and maintaining working proficiency in multiple programs is considered the norm. And the category advances, becoming more powerful even while becoming more affordable (growth).
Energetic beginners devote their efforts to energetic developments: mobile apps and platforms, scripting, data-driven solutions, gaming. Open source innovates in terms of business model, if not in terms of software functionality, and delivers powerful apps at near zero price.
And everyone yawns at the 2D drawing segment and "yesterday's news" appears increasingly archaic as its stagnation continues. And it sadly continues to fail to achieve its yet-to-be-realized potential.
Eventually self-fullfilling cycles are broken. Eventually. The latest disturbance to this particular cycle comes from Adobe itself: It's self-defensive, self-perpetuating rent-only license scheme.
It is yet to be seen if this also becomes a trend with other software vendors, or if it breaks Adobe's stranglehold on the market. If tolerated by the user base, it certainly becomes more revenue-generating for the vendor (at least for a time) and self-perpetuating as customers willingly become entrapped by vendor-specific dependency. That lets the vendor deliver less value at same (or even less) cost, while maintaining same (or even higher) price. It's every software vendor's dream.
It's every monopolist's dream. It's every socialist's dream. And it works (for a time) if only enough customers are successully are suckered into it. But eventually, even Berlin Walls and long-distance phone call pricing schemes come down. The cost and pain of the self-protective, self-perpetuating cycle's end is directly proportional to how long its damage is allowed to continue. It's best to nip such cycles in the bud. But history proves that doesn't always happen.
So there's your reason "why": It's what the customers buy, driven by what they buy into.
JET