I have a software system distributed across multiple servers that's getting a bit long in the tooth, in that it uses (soon-to-be) unsupported versions of Windows and archaic versions of various third party software products, all running on pretty old hardware.
There is therefore a risk that the failure of a non-replaceable hardware part could lead to major problems - specifically that the existing OS & other software will not run on newly procured hardware.
Options to address this risk would include (A) upgrade all of the software products concerned or (B) migrate to a virtualized environment (whereby the exact same third party products would run under the exact same operating systems, albeit hosted by a spanking new server & OS).
My question concerns option B. If the core aim of the exercise is purely to maintain the status quo of the current software, as a general principle would you consider this a legitimate motivation to virtualize? (By 'maintain the status quo' I mean that the potential benefits of virtualization such as server consolidation, ease of deployment, failover, DR etc are nice-to-have but not essential.)