Sure, if they don't make it everybody else's problem.
Not to defend MS too hard, but they supported Windows XP with security updates for 18 years. At some point software needs to be "finished", and once it is, all responsability falls upon the user.
The enterprises with competent IT that will airgap their XP machines to keep running the control plane for their factory probably "know better" than MS, the power user who refuses to use a Linux distro for their Pentium 3 box or who will disable Windows Defender and run random scripts on the internet to "debloat the OS" without understanding it, or the ones who run LTSC and then complain that their games aren't working - they all absolutely don't know better, but unfortunately they tend to be the louder voices in the conversation.
I disagree. If there is a fundamental architectural issue with the current platform that is getting in the way of progress, the right thing to do is to fix it.
By ‘progress’ I mean compatibility with new innovations like DirectX or some new instruction set that enable dumb things like transparency, or spacial audio, as well genuinely useful things.
You simply can’t bolt that onto an 18 year old system without breaking things irreversibly.
It also means depreciation of insecure ways of doing things. MS’ attempt to get TPMs into every desktop is clumsy, but it serves a greater good.
None of those things require W11 to operate, but I can see why they needed to make it look fancier than W10 to convince people that it’s somehow ‘better’.
> None of those things require W11 to operate, but I can see why they needed to make it look fancier than W10 to convince people that it’s somehow ‘better’.
It has the opposite effect. People do not like the fancier look.
It also depends on what you mean by progress. if it is genuinely better for customers why do you have to force them to use it?
And the fact that software developers think that they "know better" is part of the problem with our software world today.