When you get caught up in trying to preserve the "status quo" while you're simultaneously trying to "think of the future" -- you wind up with mediocre results. This is probably the #1 reason Microsoft's Windows product is considered inferior to Apple's OS X. Apple is willing to cut loose old tech. They draw a line and say "Tough luck... but anything we make after THIS point no longer has "legacy" code in it to support the previous technology." Microsoft, by contrast, tries to be everything to everybody. They're worried about their customers who STILL want to run some 16-bit application written for Windows '95, so they load up Windows 7 with a bunch of code that allows you to configure it to run the old stuff.
At some point, you're left supporting what amounts to two complete operating systems, rolled into one, just to maintain it all ... and it's a huge mess!
I think there's some more merit to trying to maintain support for older HARDWARE. Physical peripherals like scanners, printers or contoller cards generally have no reason they CAN'T work with whatever the latest software is. New drivers simply have to be written to communicate with them. When that doesn't happen, it usually comes down to planned obsolescence or laziness on the part of the manufacturer and driver developers.
But on the software/OS side? If you want things to progress forward efficiently and quickly, you have to draw a line and cut off support of the former "standards".