Newer != Better
We all know that just because something is new doesn't mean that it's better than what's gone before. A couple of examples I've had the misfortune to experience first-hand recently emphasize this:
Firefox 3 is dramatically inferior to Firefox 2. Not only does it feel much more sluggish, but the URL bar (in particular the drop-down menu) is terrible. Yes, the oldbar extension removes some of the maddening irritations of the look and feel, but the list of URLs presented is completely broken, to the point where it's worse than useless. I've not upgraded every machine I have, and the overall experience on the machines I have upgraded is pretty poor - so much so that I'm tempted to revert.
I've used emacs for decades. (And EDT/EVE/TPU before that.) For many years I've stayed with emacs 19.34, because it worked. Recently I've switched to emacs 22, because it's newer, maintained, and is what tends to be found on other systems. Again, the experience is staggeringly poor. Not only is it much slower but some of its features are just plain stupid. One of the more idiotic features I came across recently was that it assumes that a file named with a "zone" extension must be a DNS zone. (As a Solaris sysadmin, a zone is likely to be something else.) And if the file doesn't parse as it thinks a DNS zone file should then you are completely unable to even save the file - it's so smugly superior.
The world is full of other examples. Why do we put up with it?