My problem isn't that I feel compelled to upgrade myself but rather that the upgrade cycle is killing off creativity to some extent. My best and most current example is probably the differences (or lack thereof) between Photoshop 5 and Photoshop 7. Yeah, I've looked at both and apart from a new splash screen and the odd one or two minor tools, everything is pretty much identical which, given that the time span between these products was in the region of around four years, makes me think that someone, somewhere, is being a bit cynical.
One possible cause is the naming convention itself - after all, if someone's got a new machine they're not going to go out and buy Office 2001 are they? I'm sure at least a few people will be wondering how current Dreamweaver MX 2004 can really be given that we're (almost) in 2006.
As for not wanting to upgrade, I find that, in my capacity as a home user and a freelance journalist, I am left with little option but to upgrade if the program I need says "10.3 or higher" on the box, whether or not it really does. As an example, my copy of Dreamweaver MX 2004 will only install on a 10.2.6 box but, once installed, will happily run under 10.2.2 - so what gives? Adobe has also been guilty of this practice in the past too so I don't really understand why there is a big push to get everyone running the latest systems. Or, being cynical, is it a lot easier for these companies *not* to have to support all these legacy applications and OSs?
As for the comment in your last point - take away my computer and I'm gonna have to get that old Quadra 700 fired up and raring for action
Failing that I'll just draw a "sad mac" icon on a cardboard box and make car-crash noises until someone buys me a new computer (or get sectioned, whichever happens first...)
dodginess