"Find a Window": Still, there is no way to maintain the spatial consistency of a window. And Alt+Tab/`/Hovering on dock icon etc simply add another layer of complexity.
There's inherent complexity and accidental complexity. You want to minimize the latter, and streamline the former. Not being able to access a window because it's obscured by other windows is inherent complexity -- you obscured the window on purpose.
Your argument is that the best means of identifying a window is based on its "spatial consistency," but that ignores that you can, for good or bad, put a window entirely over the top of another one, maintaining a "z-index." In other words, there is no "spatial consistency" in two dimensions. Sure, says Windows Aero, so just stack them isometrically. Which is nice, and works, but it doesn't cover the case of minimized windows (or hidden windows, or alternate desktops, or anything else that can't be described "spatially"). Basically, Windows ignores some of the inherent complexity, requiring that you change the state of some windows prior to making them drop targets. Which is fine. But not the way I prefer to use my desktop.
Your complaint is that OSx takes the inherently complex task of identifying a window and gave you several orthogonal techniques to manage it (none of which is complex in its own right). Want to see your non-minimized or hidden windows tiled? Use one of the Expose methods (for an application, for a space or across all spaces). Want to target an application, including minimized or hidden windows? Hover the dock icon. Want to target a specific window in the context of the application? Use cmd-tab/`.
"Timestamp": Talking about 80/20 rules.
So let me ask you -- you store photos from 2004 on a disk. When you copy them from the disk, what should the create date be -- date of creation (2004), or date of the copy operation (2010)?
Why is downloading special? You're preserving dates on a copy. That's not 80/20.
"Copy/Cut/Paste": I guess normal users won't think about the "copy of the content" or "copy of the reference" (same for Cut). We only want to move a file from a place to another..., and in an unbroken workflow.
What's unbroken -- changing the meaning of the operation (cut sometimes means "place the full contents in memory and remove them" and sometimes means "grey the file and then when I say paste, copy it and delete it) or considering two completely different operations as .. gasp .. two completely different operations?
By the way, I'm really disgusted by the spring-loaded folder feature, because blah blah I suck at mousing.
CMD-Z. God.
Reminding me about "The Emperor's New Clothes" - only the smart ones can see it; those who don't see it are hopelessly stupid.
Except that the "new" functionality here has been in place for ten years or longer. The "smart ones" are making expectations based on their experiences with a foreign system they abandoned specifically because it wasn't "smart."
TL;DR: please stop acting like you're a systems engineer when you're barely competent to use the system in the first place.