Windows 10 gets a version of the program that extended updates for Windows 7.
Windows 10 gets three more years of security updates, if you can afford them::Windows 10 gets a version of the program that extended updates for Windows 7.
Why are people making a huge deal out of this? Win10 was released in 2015, and support ends in 2025. That's 10 years of support, I don't think this is unreasonable for a consumer product by any means.
As far as industry goes it's a bit short, but nothing catastrophic. There's plenty of xp machines still running just fine in many places. Lack of security updates is less crucial for most of these applications since they're often not required to be connected to internet.
I can't upgrade to Windows 11 (not that I'd want to considering all their enshittification), so they're leaving me with an unsecured OS. I survive on £160 a month so, no, I won't be paying for fucking security updates, instead I'll be switching to Linux and literally never considering using Windows again.
It's also not reasonable to expect updates forever. No matter what, support for software always stops at some point, and 10 years of support is pretty reasonable for consumer products. Not great, but also not terrible.
Normally sure, but maybe Microsoft shouldn't have tried saying windows 10 was the last windows version, to then release a new version that a lot of people can't even upgrade their current PCs to.
But consider that windows is a paid product, and its competition, linux, is both free and with much much longer support for old hardware, not to mention never having "sequels" in this way. I feel like windows doesn't have much excuse compared to this.
It's not like this is something that's right around the corner, it's nearly two years down the road from now. If you already have old hardware that doesn't meet specs, then that will be even more deprecated in two years.
Its the same circus every time a windows OS goes EOL, people loose their shit for no reason and then move on.
But not any less usable.
I tried Windows 11 on Compal FL90, a 16 year old laptop. It ran fine, better than Windows 10. But it didn't meet the requirements to allow installation, even though it worked just fine. So some 5 year old computer that doesn't meet requirements for whatever reason would also be just fine. And I don't think people will bother with making hybrid installer just to get Windows 11 running.
Just for fun, this is how fast it could boot up with Windows 8.1:
8.1 actually outperformed both Windows XP and Windows Vista this laptop was made for.
Anyway, even with Windows 11, it was still pretty fast. I didn't try any better games, but Asphalt 8 and Asphalt 9 ran on it nicely. It's just to say that old computer doesn't mean it's garbage.
That may be true for the exact hardware you used, and the exact tests you have done. For Microsoft the problem would be that they need to actively continue supporting older and older devices. At some point it makes sense to drop active support. If it works, that's fine, but they won't continue testing and fixing for unsupported configurations.
They don't have to. It could just give a warning with something along the lines "Your current hardware setup is not supported by Windows® 11. By continuing you acknowledge that you're proceeding with the upgrade at your own risk with no guarantees from Microsoft® and that you won't be entitled to any support from Microsoft. The risks include but are not limited to: OS failing to boot-up; frequent BSOD; programs unable to install; certain parts of Windows® operating system not working; data loss; non-functioning or only partially functioning hardware; violation of applicable laws; permanent hardware damage; or causing damages to property and/or bodily injury, including death as a result of improperly functioning drivers. While we understand this may seem harsh, we do not know how the hardware will perform under these conditions and therefore we want you to understand the potential dangers and that you are responsible for any repercussions. We strongly recommend upgrading your hardware to meet minimum requirements for running Windows 11."
Most people here buy computers used that are already pretty old. I can’t see windows cutting off support without offering some kind of upgrade path to this old hardware. Otherwise there will be millions of people used unsupported devices.
Because you think they should pay more for a product they already bought or because privacy and security are not important?
I said they didn't have to think bout it for another two years...none of what you're saying makes sense in relation to that. Its good they don't need to worry about it (yet), because the issues it may cause them is still far away.
Because it's forced obsolescence by a convicted monopolist. Microsoft is effectively withholding security updates from computers built before 2018 or so with the arbitrary TPM requirement to install Win11. While I don't expect them to support everything forever, this is another step along their journey to make PCs like cellphones. Fixed support periods for no reason other than they want you buying new ones every x years. Next up will be widespread locked down bootloaders so you can't install Linux if you wanted to. Throw away the old and buy new. Mamma needs more quarterly revenue.
Firstly, you can clean install 11 without TPM no problem, and you can upgrade in place with some tweaks. It’s annoying, but in no way “forced.”
Secondly, the EOL has been known since original release. We know the EOL of current versions of Windows 11 as well (they moved to supporting specific versions, for instance 21H2 recently went EOL, in October. 23H2 is slotted for EOL in 2026. https://endoflife.date/windows
Fixed support periods make sense. Otherwise you’re going to have to spring an EOL on people arbitrarily. 10 years of free support on Windows 10, a product most people got for free, seems sane to me. I realize it won’t make sense to everyone.
Next up will be widespread locked down bootloaders so you can't install Linux if you wanted to.
You basically have to break the installer to get it to work, which supports my point that the limit is an arbitrary way to exclude PCs made before a certain date from the next version. There is no technical reason MS can't allow old hardware to work and no marginal cost to Microsoft to chose to do so. Like I said, while I don't expect them to support everything forever, Microsoft also made their bed with their illegal business practices that got us here and hordes of malware infested EOL'ed computers are everybody's problem now. They shouldn't be adding to that problem for arbitrary marketing reasons.
I'm not against to fixed support periods, but they really ought to be minimums and not halted based on arbitrary dates, especially in the consumer space where these machines will run whether they get patched or not.
Slippery slope fallacy much?
This already happened during the last big Windows-on-ARM push w/ Win8. UEFI secure boot was required enabled on all new hardware but no requirement for user-added keys. It didn't overtly restrict Linux (on MS's part) but several manufacturers did lock down their devices. I don't see any reason why that won't happen again. It's the norm in the cell phone and tablet ecosystem (which is a damn shame, but there may be hope on the regulatory front w/ right to repair laws gaining steam.)
Break the installer? Two values get flipped. Hell you can have Rufus do it for you if you’re not tech savvy.
As for all the arbitrary and short dates… most distorts have similar. Look at Ubuntu, all having free support periods of less than 10 years, all having paid support beyond that point for a few years.
So how long is a reasonable time to support a version of software? 5 years, like Ubuntu? 10 like Windows? Are there even that many that support for longer periods of time?
I can understand the worry about older hardware, but they have a direction they are choosing to go to make things more secure. Even if there’s an ulterior motive, security isn’t a bad thing to strive for. And if not this version… which? The next? The one after that? Never?
Technologically, Window is great. There is no denying that, and if anything some the dated (+ insecure) things on it is the result of its own success, i.e. the app installation and management process, as it is hard to convince billions of people to do anything different.
On the other hand, the management of the company is the biggest problem with everything in and around Window. First, there is no single business model; MS sells you a 1 time licence for the OS itself, but then constantly try to harvest and sell your data (with ads everywhere in Windows 11), and if you want to do any office work then you have to pay a subscription for MS 365. Last but not least, they keep breaking things every few updates, i.e. I actually failed one of my university course because OneDrive decided that my report don’t need to exist after an update (in 2018).