Have you talked to any Egyptians old enough to have lived under either of the other two dictators? Life was significantly better under the other two. They both had their faults, especially Nasser, who decimated agriculture, lost every war he fought and treated Egypt's Jews in a despicable manner. But both, according to Egyptians I have spoken to, had Egyptians living in far better conditions than they do now. Sure, you weren't exactly going to set up political parties under any of them and if you had a beard and dared to speak about politics or Islam, you'd be spending a few years in his interior ministry's torture cells (this seems to be acceptable to people though for some reason, such Muslims are not humans I guess?).
But they had food (Average wage now is 100 LE. Cost of a kilo of meat i around 70). They had housing (Many Egyptians live on rooftop dwellings, slums, on the street or in Pharonic tombs. Without sewage, electricity, water of course). They had more money (40% now live in absolute poverty). They had healthcare (the overwhelming majority of the country cannot access healthcare). They had a good education (now, if you don't have the money for a tutor, your child is going nowhere in life). They had job prospects (you can own a master's degree in Egypt and still be happy with a job cooking chicken in a kebab shop). They had less corruption. They had a less unequal society. They were still producing films and tv shows (ie culture). They weren't dying on Egypt's death boats and trains. And, unlike under his predecessors, torture and murder by the security services didn't come about at random and without provocation.
As for the compliance, no democratically elected leader in the Arab world would ever dream of maintaining the blockade on Gaza as Mubarak did.
He failed to cut corruption.He was one of the main causes of corruption. Mubarak has many 'main faults'. He absolutely destroyed that country. Until the late 70s, most Egyptians didn't dream of leaving their homeland. Now most dream of finding any way out. Even risking their lives to do so.
I'm not quite sure what you expect of Egypt? A flourishing, Western style democracy within 18 months? This is as ridiculous as the calls for 'gradual democracy' which in Egypt's case was to move the presidency to the even more corrupt Gamal Mubarak. Egypt was on the verge of being a Pharonic country again and replacing one average, corrupt man with an even more average, even more corrupt man. No problem though, they'd be on the gradual road to democracy!
"No democratically elected leader in the Arab world would..."...hmmm...How could we tell? Listen, there are international committments, and if the Arabs are to learn what democracy is then they'll realise that accountability is part of the package. The Sinai-GS crossing points were supposed to be subject to PA and EU inspection, neither os them existed after the Hamas coup. Furthermore, Mubarak knew well that Hamas and MB are one, and kept the latter in check to an extent, although not to a level preventing Hamas smuggling weapons that were aimed at Israel.
I am not denying Mubarak was corrupt, but I guess the differences in standards of living you're describing have more to do with population growth than with a more honourable conduct of Sa'adat or Nasser. As for the latter, a pan-Arab hero, he would have been elected democratically no problem and look where he brought the Arab world under his leadership- thousands upon thousands of war casualties nevermind the economic burden and you're talking about destroying the country. Egypt is not in a state where 10's of millions can't read or write because of Husni Mubarak.
One then has to ask what exactly a head of state, especially one with absolute powers, is meant to do then? 
