You misunderstand my position, but you also seem to deflect my critique.
Due to changes in the driver model and use of newer kernel functions that are not present in earlier versions of Windows, there are no workarounds. Literally none! Even if you're insane enough to write a kernel extender for Windows 10, the other changes in WDDM will prevent functional graphics drivers from ever existing for newer hardware. It took over a year for the community to figure out some ancient driver branch that supported the 3090 Ti to get it to run on Windows 8, Ada is still a total no-go and it'll stay that way. AMD? No man's land even on supported configurations.
I'll maintain that people's resentment towards Microsoft and their refusal to keep a healthy Windows environment has caused them to take these drastic actions. Windows releases have had their life expectancy dragged out to absolute extremes because people resent change, compound that with their responsibility towards internet security being the largest vendor of a commercial OS, and thus the subject of the widest attack surface, it's no wonder they took the hostile approach of jamming it all down everyone's throats. In fact i'll go a step beyond, with all the ideological charge, reckless computing practices by Windows users that are fueled by FUD, BS and "street wisdom", as well as rampant piracy and people actually creating and distributing those ridiculous modified "lite" images, I'm surprised Microsoft did not crack the whip earlier.
We power users are but a mere side casualty. The truth is that modern software developers hate the fact that an OS is a tool and once it's achieved its usability peak, there's little need for them to be in the picture. So alongside this push to keep people's computers up to date, even if against their will, they're also imposing the undesirable new features to justify it all. It's all a means to an end, creating a problem that did not exist to sell you the solution.
And i'll stand by that.
Don't assume that if I contradicting you it must be that I just don't understand what you said. I understood your critique perfectly well and just didn't agree with it.
You believe the cause for MS taking "drastic action" is "luddites" not wanting to progress and sticking to the old stuff. That's where I don't agree for a multitude of reasons.
MS implemented the forced updates/reboot in Win10 because many users simply didn't know or care about them. These people weren't luddites, they were mostly people with no computer education. Some others were against reboots. Some probably against the principle of MS installing and possibly breaking their crap. Do you know what happened the first moment these were enforced? People who didn't know this was an issue (ignorant, not luddite) started getting updates (hooray). People who were "against progress" found ways to still disable them. The internet it rife with scripts to "take back control of your PC" even though this makes the installation unsupported. So fixing luddites was the one place the strategy to fix luddites failed. Strike 1 for your luddite theory.
Then MS raised the bar for the HW requirements to install Win11. Again the internet is rife with solutions to get Win11 running regardless, as yet another proof that something being unsupported will not actually be a blocker for people who really want it. So called "luddites" probably really want to stay with the old stuff. Strike 2 for the luddite theory.
MS makes money from pushing the next thing to you. Win7 simply didn't have what it takes to collect all the telemetry and show you all the start menu ads. Win10 did. Now where Win10 was limited, Win11 brings that to the next level. Not wanting that and preferring to stay with the "older but at least not a gaping hole of privacy and shitty UX" isn't being a luddite more than rejecting MS's "drastic measure" of resetting all your defaults is. Because you are a luddite if you don't accept those MS imposed defaults aren't you? MS has a responsibility to you and gave you Edge and the drastic measure of periodically forcing it on you, as default, or for some types of links where you didn't even get the choice. Because you're too much of a luddite to recognize progress. Strike 3 for your luddite theory.
As for the MS responsibility towards internet security, you gotta be kidding me. The company who got majorly hacked 6+ times over the past couple of years alone, who screwed their corporate customers royally repeatedly and was completely opaque about it every time, that company has a responsibility to make sure I don't run an OS that's technically still supported until October 2025 on a CPU that gets launched probably 6 months before that?
The reason people want to stick with the old is because that's less crappy than the new. Because they don't want more start menu ads, candy crush saga auto installed, more telemetry, more BS AI collecting everything they do, more constant push for MS products and reset of defaults that no longer have workarounds, or AI and Windows Recall enabled by defauilt to take screenshots every 3 seconds of everything you do which will pinky swear never be shared with anyone except every person who uses your PC with your user (like family) and MS when by accident they collect all the info, and the world when they fail again in the responsibility to "protect the internet", and so on.
You don't get it because maybe you are used to being a product. Or you simply can't conceive that your preferences aren't shared by everyone just like you assume that not agreeing with you means people must have misunderstood. Because it's so obvious that you're right, and your preferences are the gold standard. And when enough people are used to being the product and MS can make money hand over fist selling you shinies, then the rest of the population doesn't matter. It's as simple as that. Target your biggest, richest, and most gullible segment and the rest will reluctantly have to follow but if not you still make a killing.
And it's fine if you're fine with it for yourself. Assuming there must be something wrong with people who aren't fine with it for themselves isn't.
To be clear, I'm not convinced MS necessarily pushed for this as much as AMD wanted to cut some development and support costs and focus on all new AI/NPU stuff in new OSes only. It's the first time in a long time the CPU changed a lot with the addition of NPUs so who knows what kind of effort AMD is looking at there. MS probably just greased the wheels.
