History Pallette opposite way to Photoshop!?

Question

Any particular reason why the History Pallette works the opposite way to Photoshop? i.e. most recent on top as opposed to PS's adding to bottom. If LR was made by another company, fair enough but why do things differently for no good reason, when there is a simple and very long established implementation, in an application quite likely to be used alongside LR. When dealing with sedimentary rocks I expect the oldest to be on the bottom, but as PS has long had newest added to bottom of history pallette, that way is clear and simple and would be nicely consistent for LR to do the same. I have no problem with LR doing things differently as it is a different beast to PS, but when some aspects are common to several apps, then they should be done consistently, not arbitrarily.
LR seems full of silly little annoyances like that, having the scroll bar on the left of left panel instead of on the right, like in every other programme I've ever used. Again different from say Bridge which has panel placed similarly in other respects and again there's no real benefit to the change, it is simply confusing.
Using Cntrl+' on Windows version instead of the normal Cntrl+k for preferences! Why use a long used preferences shortcut for keywords in LR? What not use Cntrl+W for keyWords? It's not as if it appears to be used for anything else. I have no problem using different shortcuts in different apps or if using a Mac instead of a PC, but when Adobe programmes have different shortcuts for exactly the same action and are not platform consistent it is maddening. Not to mention it makes a mockery of using a single companies products for workflow productivity. Now I feel with recent Adobe software I have to remember, this app does this like a Mac, this one like a PC and this one is just different for no reason whatsoever.
Another infuriating anoyance is how LR behaves differently to any other programme when you alt/tab in final full screen mode, as LR then always jumps to the back of the list. It doesn't even behave consistently within its own framework. I often Alt/tab back and fore between two programmes when working and LR's stupid behaviour in full screen mode is remarkably annoying and frustrating as I now end up with the wrong programme when I switch back and fore between programmes. The workaround is to not use full screen mode, which makes its existence a bit pointless.
Workarounds is a word almost synonymous with LR in my thesauraus! A lot less workarounds than there used to be admittedly, I never dared use LR for work until 1.3 arrived as it was so unusable/slow with regard to clunky workarounds [and performance issues]. Now it finally seems like a real programme and not a flaky beta. But still in need of serious polish.
Using LR + other Adobe Apps feels a bit like driving around the US, when every State decides arbitrarily as to which side of the road they drive, has completely different signages some in Km, some in miles, but with no indication as to whether imperial or metric is being used.

Answer 1

Instead of pathetic, patronising and ignorant smart arse comments, which is sadly what one now expects here, Please explain what the benefit there is of doing history the opposite way to PS. I can think of one weak reason, but it's not good enough to warrant being any different to PS.
I don't mind things being different if there is a good reason for it and can learn new paradigms no problem. Heck I even swapped to a left handed mouse, as it makes more ergonomic sense, if you have a graphics tablet on the right of keyboard. Plus you can use both together with practice, best of both worlds. But if I had several mice that I used and some had right clicks and some had left clicks. Even though they were all made by say Logitech, then that would be really dumb/confusing. LR, with regard to system wide and other Adobe programme's behaviour, is like using a left handed mouse with a right click button. Being different just for the sake of it and also lacking coherence with other Adobe apps is a counter productive move for productivity and a barrier to the learning process. It's also a bit daft, esp. as Adobe like to market their products as being worth buying en masse, due to the fact they supposedly work well together. Though it's interesting that LR was conspicuously absent from CS3.
Besides, if LR's way of doing History is indeed so much better, not that anyone even bothered to explain why that may be the case [too busy trying and failing to be clever], why not change PS's to match LR? There were other more radical changes to the interface in CS3, so altering History order wouldn't be a big deal, or would it?
As for Jeff's comments. I've only been using LR forums since it was on Adobe Labs, so only a couple of years now. So no less time than anyone else I'd say. Not that that is of that much relevance really as this is not the only source of LR info and this is a user to user forum, where Adobe give very little away about what/how/why they do things here.
And being free of the shackles of how things work also seems to mean making brand new mistakes. LR has had major design screw ups as it evolved, not recognising differing file extensions and ignoring existing folder structures were two particularly dumb 'innovations' that spring to mind, both now thankfully remedied. LR still ignoring media other than still images and even then, not even all the files that PS produces, is a major workflow impediment to a working photographer's workflow. I still cannot use LR a a proper DAM App for that reason, as it simply ignores lots of my images.
As for programmes copying LR. LR's look + feel reminded me of editing packages that predated LR by quite a few years. A dark interface is hardly that innovative and non destructive editing of RAW files is not unique either. This is not to say the LR team hasn't built on other prior ideas very well and then added some of their own to the mix.
I am aware LR is a version 1, And only with 1.3 did I consider it finally out of beta, too many bugs + performance issues up too 1.2, so plenty of room for improvement yet. And behaving consistently with Adobe programmes [where they do not differ functionwise]+ more importantly behaving consistently with systemwide standards, would be a major productivity boost.