Why the Changes?

[Judge Dee]

This probably is a stupid question, but I need some enlightenment from you all.
For the past week, I've been trying to figure out why I no longer see my Grub2 boot menu in Ubuntu Karmic. I googled and googled, using the menu.1st as I was told to do: nothing worked (it was empty). I finally stumbled across this (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Grub2) page, which way down explained that menu.1st isn't used any longer, and furthermore, the boot menu is now hidden by default.
So it's fixed and I now see the grub boot menu. But I don't understand the need to change these things when they seemed to have worked just fine as they were.
Is it change for changes sake, or is it truly to make things work better?
I'm honestly not ranting. I enjoyed the challenge of figuring it out. I'd just like to understand why.
Thanks for any input.

[Judge Dee]

I should have put this in my post, but forgot.
I fully realise that this question applies to all platforms, but with Ubuntu's 6 month release cycle, the constant changes are more obvious.

[wat0114]

Mrkvonic gives some reasons in his Grub 2 Tutorial (http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/grub-2.html)

-{ Quote: "GRUB 2 introduces many new changes. GRUB 2 has better portability and modularity, supports non-ASCII characters, dynamic loading of modules, real memory management, and more. " }-

I'm also wondering why the need to change, at least why change to something so bl00dy complicated?? Grub 2 will be okay if something similar to the excellent EasyBCD for Vista/Win 7 can be developed for managing it.

Something else to add, why is it that if I so much as resize the grub2 partition even just a little, the grub is rendered useless? Even restoring the / image won't help. It requires a fairly elaborate fix to get it back, but even that doesn't work as expected, as I end up with two separate grub menus when I'm done.

[Judge Dee]

Thanks for the link and comments wat0114.
I really don't mind change, but I'm old enough to not like change just for it's own sake. I like to think it serves a purpose. Just like with xorg.conf being done away with.
Again, maybe it's all for great reasons I don't understand.
Anyway, I'm off to read Mrk's "Ubuntu, which direction...". It may answer some things.