Programs that do something useful, unlike hardware, don't, "wear out." If I
can still do what I want to do with an old program, then it isn't superceded
by the latest and greatest. For example, I don't use 90% of the features in
Word 2002. Office 2003 has a bunch of new features, but nothing that I need
since there is nothing lacking in Word 2002 for what I use it for. I also
thought that Microsoft put a lot of effort into making Vista an OS that would
work with legacy programs better than XP. I bring up the word processor
example because when it gets down to it, how many features do I need to write
an effective letter, be it for business, formal use or just for personal
correspondence? Keystrokes are the same since the keyboards, as stupid as
kwerty layouts are concerned nothing has been done to superced what is
obviously stupid. My fingers are trained to use a kwerty keyboard, but all
the fastest typists in the world use a Dvorak layout since it makes the most
sense.
I find that arguements that a new OS means one should expect to have to get
new software don't wash. Hardware, as it is, is backwards compatible. I can
still load DOS on a high-end box if I want! That is how backwards compatible
hardware is. Why software isn't is because of a bias toward wanting to drive
sales of new programs, not because of technical reason. Windows Vista-capable
machines should easily be able to emulate a dos environement if an
application needed it.
Out in the real world, outside of offices, many machines can only be
connected to for software diagnostics through a serial port. Industrial
machines that cost millions of dollars don't get upgraded like office
machines do. There is a whole world of legacy software that has to be run to
keep many machines going because the manufacturers of those machines will
never change their controllers to keep up with computer hardware changes.