Ummm... yeah, about that 'inefficient, outdated systems'...
Can we please get some specifics about that?
Since when does outdated equate to inefficient? Anybody who upgraded to IE10 from IE8, or to Windows Vista from XP will probably have a few words to say in this space.
Or alternatively, you could look at the scenario of a middle sized financial institution where I used to work about 12 years ago. They were looking at upgrading from NT to 2000. It was going to cost them in the order of $32M to upgrade about 6000 desktops. This included some hardware upgrades, but also sociability testing on apps, a few software upgrades, deployment, retraining, etc. Senior Management said 'what is the payback for this $32M project'. IT said 'Microsoft told us if we didn't do it, they'd stop supporting us.' After a while the howls of derisive laughter died down and management said 'No, really... what's the benefit to the company'. There was none. Nada... zip. Outdated did not equate to inefficient. Eventually, they realised that Microsoft had them over a barrel, and decided to act. What did they do? They hired 5 top notch NT gurus at a the princely sum of $200k per year each and told them to support NT in our environment. $1M in staff costs is cheaper than $6M in depreciation on their $32M investment.
In the end, they were able to delay the upgrade a couple of years and leapfrog straight to XP. Saved bajillions of dollars.