Sorry - my phone number is on my site - I get calls from regular users all day. Still have yet to talk to one thats replacing their PC (or Mac) with a mobile device..... 
But to respond to your previous post - dead code is dead code isn't it? I mean, if it isn't being actively developed (as opposed to being relied upon), it's eventually going to die at some point?
COBOL anybody?
You are correct that all things die, but why kill them off while they are still healthy?
There is a difference between something no longer being actively developed and it no longer being useful.
I drive a 21 year old car. It runs fine even though this model has had 3 or 4 major upgrades since I bought it. Parts are still available. It's true that it doesn't have a factory GPS, nor a factory installed iPod charger. In fact it doesn't even have power locks or remote monitoring of tire pressure. It does get me where I want to go.
I do not have unlimited resources. If I were to buy a new car, this would divert resources that could be used elsewhere.
I have a Canon EF 17-35 f/2.8 L lens. This lens gets occasional use. It was long ago discontinued and replaced by a better lens, which itself was discontinued and replaced. For my needs my old lens works fine.
If Canon's new camera bodies refused to work with lenses older than 3 years, few would say that was a good thing because it forced everyone to upgrade to newer and better lenses. Most would simply point out that this made the other brand a better alternative for professionals.
Why should I spend money, time and effort replacing something that meets my needs? For instance, the most recent version of Quicken (Quicken 2007) meets 100% of my needs. Switching to a new program requires time to learn a new system, time to convert the data, and time to manually check and correct the problems introduced by the conversion. After expending all of this effort, the best case scenario is that the replacement software also meets 100% of my needs, and I break even. Worst case, it omits some functionality and I am worse off. Why would I want to expend resources on a project that at best won't leave me better off?
I have a few customers that have legacy web sites that were developed by others in GoLive CS2. They use a fancy GoLive plugin to build a fancy graphical navigation menu that they love. Neither GoLive nor the menu plugin are being developed. The customer calls me every few months and requests a minor change or two to the web site. I fire up GoLive CS2, make their change, and 5 minutes later everyone is happy. Eventually this customer will want to sped the money on a new web site. They want to be the ones who decide when that expenditure will occur.
Explain to me the business rationale as to why I should spend time and effort in moving development of this web site to a current development environment? I could tell the customer that I will no longer maintain his site as GoLive had been discontinued. What the customer would hear is that I use old tools, and I won't upgrade. I can't just blow this customer off as I get a lot of other work from this customer. So for my business, the loss of being able to occasionally run GoLive CS2 (a power PPC program) would be quite expensive.
After examining my options, it appears that my best course of action is to try to find a Windows version of GoLive CS2, and move my accounting to Quicken for Windows.
This is my point. From a business point of view, it appears that choosing Windows makes more financial sense than choosing Mac. This has little to do with which platform is better, it has to do with which platform can be relied on for many years.
I am not against upgrading when there is a reason to do so. I had an Epson 2200 printer that was in perfect shape. I upgraded to an Epson 3880 because it gives me better prints, costs less to operate, and allows me to reduce the number of prints I have to have done by an outside lab. The Epson 3880 has made my customers happier, and increased my profits. There was a sound business reason for replacing a perfectly functioning 2200.
