Hi Jon, yes, LR is different to Mac environment (I have to work with both Mac and PC).
Let's see if I can be of some assistance in some of the things you mention:
You should be able to drag and drop pictures to Lightroom ( for example if you just drag and drop on the LR icon). It will check whether you want them to import (especially if they're already imported), but you'll be speeding up the process. Importing is basic to LR as what you're really doing is making the program aware of the existence of those images, not so much importing them in the traditional sense (meaning that you don't have to physically move them or import them anywhere unless you want to, but what you're doing is including them in the LR database). If not imported, the pics will not be in the database, therefore are "not existent" in LR. Consider that several of the LR functions work "virtually" instead that on the file so having the program creating a reference to the file is necessary (that's why you can't do anything without importing them).
Pro photographers (especially in some areas as fashion photography) have to deal with ahuge ammount of images. Even more so now with digital cameras. A database is therfore vital in order to quickly locate your images according to different criteria (as it is extremely versatile and a very powerful DB). The LR interface is designed to follow the most common workflow pattern, but also to easily suit any variation. The database and interface allow also to work on batches of images at once ina very effcient way (much more efficient than Photoshop) and more safely (as unlike in PS it automatically saves most of the work even when accidentally shutting of the program).
Web designing involves many languages nowadays (not so many a few years back), but remember many of the people using Dreamweaver were using it in the deign mode almost exclusively so could go along without major knowledge of programming (not even html). It's a bit like PS, people can use it without having to fully grasp it even when they are much more complex programs than LR as a whole. IMO, LR works the other way around: It is not that complicated but the hardest part comes at the beginning, so it can be a bit discouraging a the beginning. Other Adobe programs allow you to get started easily but can be very hard to master later on. I guess it will depend on each person's background, I had a harder time learning Dreamweaver than LR (but probably because I had more experience with DB than with javascript programming back then ;D ).
You'd be surprised of how many photographers get intimidated by LR too. When I assess my clients I try to make clear LR (or any other the similar programs) can be an asset if and only if it suits their requirements. I've worked with some studios that weren't interested in updating their DB (they had a physical one and didn't feel like digitalizing it, for example). Some decided to use LR but taking no notice of its DB function, that is just importing so that the progran knows of the existence of the files but that's it. In such cases, unless they work with a huge ammount of files that need relatively basic and fast processing, using LR will probably not make much of a difference, although it will at least improve the computer's memory use. Some photographers decide to have a digital artist taking care of the optimization altogether, so even learning LR falls on other members of their team.
If you have the time and you feel LR may really contribute to your work needs, I'd really encourage you to keep playing with it. LR requires some planning and analysis of how one works, so thinking whether it adds to your work is really something to consider before investing the time/energy. The forum is a very good place to learn (sometimes more helpful than the user guide), so I'd encourage you to, if you have the time, keep going and post any issue you may have. This is one of the cases in which having someone to consult may save you loads of time and make the path much easier.
