Interface Grouchiness

Grumpymutt's most recent post, which is somewhat critical of the fancy new "immediate" desktop interfaces that pseudoanonymity drew our attention to, resonated with some of my own skepticism about these interfaces.

It seems that programmers want to make these kinds of interfaces for two related reasons: 1) to make them more "realistic" so that they will be 2) easier/more natural to use. But it doesn't seem obvious to me why interfaces that are more "realistic" or more "immediate" (as Bolter and Grusin would describe them) to the user are necessarily better than other interfaces. After all, don't we create and use technology in order to improve upon our current reality? Doesn't it limit the possibilities of technology if we consider the best varieties to be those that best replicate our experiences in our current world?

I realize that it's important for people to be able to use new technologies, but it seems (from my relatively computer-ignorant perspective) that tech wizards could create even more really cool things that didn't necessarily resemble "real life" if they weren't preoccupied with trying to imitate "reality." I think a good example of an awesome technology that doesn't really resemble any non-technological process is We Feel Fine.