The Russian cosmonauts wore the TNK V-1, or "Penguin suit", which used elastic bands that would force the knees to bend up to the chest unless the wearer exerted force.

Let's not forget latency. On modern 3D architectures, there can be several frames between when the game engine processes user input and when the result appears on the screen. Typically the CPU is filling out a display list for frame 3 while the GPU is rendering frame 2, and the display is showing frame 1. And this is over any additional latency in input processing. At 60 fps, 3 frames is under 50 ms, while 30 fps it's 100 ms. For an amazing display of what low latency is like, try playing something like Kaboom on an Atari connected to an analog tube TV. No buffeting, 60 fps, so only 16 ms between moving the paddle and seeing it move on screen. For racing games, the latency has a huge impact on the user's ability to control a vehicle without entering oscillation. Also, depending how far you hold the phone from your eyes, an iPhone game could potentially take up any amount of the visual field. 60 fps is definitely noticeable on an iPhone. Whether or not the tradeoff of reduced graphical detail versus 30 fps is worth it is a very subjective choice, which is why even on home consoles, there is no standard.

Don't forget that the primary reason for the existence of Apple Inc is to facilitate the orderly and systematic transfer of money from the bank accounts of bored yuppies to the account of Steven Jobs.

That was priceless... and probably hits a little close to home for me these days.
As a youth programming C64s in BASIC and a little ASM, part of the appeal was being able to make programs (e.g. games) that weren't too far off in complexity/polish from commercial offerings. Nobody was interested that you could fill the screen with "I LIKE BUTTS", but having a joystick controlled sprite character wandering around shooting things was kind of cool.
I wonder if a better equivalent today would be writing Javascript/HTML in a web browser, or perhaps flash. Much as when I was doing PEEK and POKE in BASIC while pro developers were doing crazy hand-coded assembly hacks to get ultimate performance, the same relationship could exist between Javascript or Actionscript versus C++. Just as cutting my teeth in BASIC helped lay a foundation to eventually learn C/C++ and become a professional software developer, this might be how the next generation will start out. For a kid, getting something interesting to happen when they code is probably the most important thing to get them hooked.
From what I recall of the iPhone/iPad restrictions would allow some sort of web development app to be created as long as it used the Webkit Javascript runtime. I'm not a web developer so I could be way off, but I suspect that even with Apple's restrictions there could be some pretty cool stuff for budding programmers on an iPad. Also, there's no reason Apple couldn't make an iPad version of Xcode that would have the same restrictions as the regular iPad SDK ($99/yr contract, only run on developer iPads, require App Store approval for public release). I think a $499 iPad plus $99/yr is still considerably cheaper in inflation-adjusted dollars than a C64 was in 1984 (>$1200 in todays dollars).

In the previous era of console games before they started supporting patches, games were treated much more like hardware in this sense because once you made the gold master and started printing copies, you couldn't change it. When you compare PC games of that era with console games, the rate of crashes and bugs was much higher on PC games. This was partly, of course because they had to run on a zillion configurations and depend on buggy device drivers, but also because the console makers had fairly rigorous submission testing requirements, and could hold up a game from shipping if it didn't meet these requirements (In the case of 1st party games, of course, there is an inherent conflict of interest there, but typically the approval process was fairly independent of the console makers' publishing arms). By contrast, PC games (like other PC software) have absolutely no oversight, so developers/publishers just do however much or little quality control that they feel they want to.
The PC approach is to let the market reward or punish software companies for how buggy their products are. Unfortunately, so much software uses various means of lock-in to prevent users from switching, that it ends up being a situation where the focus is on getting users to pay for upgrades, sometimes merely to fix things which shouldn't have been broken in the first place, and even that incentive is being removed as more software packages try to force users to constantly upgrade (e.g., make different versions non-interoperable but not sell older versions, so if you add new seats to a company you may be forced to upgrade the whole office)
For software used in high-risk situations (e.g., medical software, aeronautics, space flight), the penalty for failure is high enough that people are willing to pay (and wait) for extensive quality control. For most other software, this is not the case.

I've build a couple of internal GUI tools at work, and I see this all the time among my less-technical coworkers--they just click Ok on anything that pops up without reading it, even if it's an error message, and then come and ask me why is something not working. It's a problem of too many apps crying wolf with too many needless popups and confirmation boxes that have trained people, but it's also just the nature of most people just to keep clicking on different things semi-randomly until they get the result they wanted.

I think the only real solution is better UI design--make things work the way people expect them to, make doing the right thing seem easier and more obvious than doing the wrong thing, try to make dangerous things more buried away, etc.

Probably the only good time to use a popup box if it is a failure state where the app just can't do what is requested, where even if they close the box, they'll keep trying it again and getting the box again, eventually they might read it.

This is one of the things I prefer about OS X, in that it seems much more "quiet" with far fewer popups, flashing task tray notifications, etc. The one exception is the way the System Update icon just keeps bouncing up and down if it has a new update--it would be nice if after ten seconds it would switch to a less annoying animation, or maybe just bounce every now and then, so that if you're in the middle of reading an article or something, you don't feel like you have a two-year-old tugging your pant leg.