Re: Windows 7
"Could someone rationally explain what's this thing is with windowz users, why all the clinging on to an old dying or unsupported version."
This has been explained before but clearly we need to explain it all again. Let me preface this by saying that not only am I not a Windows fan I'll be abandoning Linux in favour of BSD when my current version falls out of support on the grounds that the next version will be insufficiently Unix-like. But I have a fair degree of experience in the commercial world with both Windows and Unix.
Firstly you need to understand that system administrators don't like change. Change breaks things. Change brings them problems they don't need, often in return for fixing problems they don't have. This applies as much to Unix as Windows. Old, rusty and working is better than new, shiny and useless. Sysadmins are paid to run things that make money by working.
Secondly you need to realise that there are often very good* reasons why stuff is running on Windows & maybe specific versions of Windows. At the bottom, however, these reasons come down to money.
One reason is that the computer is tied to a very expensive piece of machinery. When I retired at the end of 2006 my last client was running a digital print centre on a number of industrial printers. These are not the sort of thing you go down to PC World to replace. They're massive beasts, bigger than some printing presses. The economic lifetime of such beasts would probably demand that they're still working. AFAIK the embedded version of WIndows was 95. That sort of kit doesn't get replaced because MS has decided to EoL W95. Or NT. Or W2K. Or XP.
Another reason is that the business is running, and depends on running, S/W that is tied to some quirk of Windows. If it was bought-in from an external vendor the vendor might have gone bust or simply stopped developing it and may not have ported it to another version of Windows. Even if it runs on later versions the vendor might not have certified it for those versions which, in highly regulated industries, might be a show-stopper. If the S/W doesn't run on the new version a replacement will have to be bought in - assuming a replacement is available. If there's no replacement on the market commissioning one will be expensive. If the S/W was specially commissioned in the first place it might need work to port it over to the new platform which assumes the source hasn't been lost, that there's anyone available who understands the language it was written in, that there's good enough documentation to rewrite from scratch if the source has gone - you name the problem, someone will be going through it.
Finally there is an investment in training and accumulated experience of users. To some extent this might be an overrated issue but a big change in interface will require expenditure on training and inevitably set back productivity whilst the users adapt to it. Linked to that is the amount of testing that has to go on to ensure that everything the business needs works on the new system (assuming that it does - see the previous paragraph). There may be other costs associated with migration such as converting data from old versions of S/W to new.
The bottom line with all this is that users have made investments in good faith only to find that those investments are now dependant on what's become abandonware.
*For given values of good. What may have appeared a cost-effective decision in the past is no longer such a good decision when seen in the longer term.