Yes, this is bad, and should be called out as such.

However, tweaking the software to run against the intent of Microsoft is still just asking for pain. Versus voting with your feet, so to speak, and saying "fine, Microsoft, if that's how you want to play it, then I'm going elsewhere". Of course the number of people doing that will be negligible so as not to make a difference, but it's better than forcing Windows 11 to run against Microsoft's intent. That's just asking for a fight that you won't win.

There is a service called 0patch that offers microcode patching for EoL windows versions, for about 30 bucks a year I'm still getting updates for my Win7 gaming rig. Never had an exploit or hijacking and I pirate quite a bit on that PC.

Plan on getting one for my Win10 daily driver next year.

And as for trust: Microsoft has awarded 0patch for several zero day exploits, and have used their patches in official releases before so not only are they trustworthy, they are literally faster at finding exploits than MS themselves.

Full disclosure: No relationship with the company other than as a happy paying customer.

In order for this update to have any effect on you you would have had to have failed to upgrade your computer for basically 20 years in a row. I don't think it's unreasonable that support for older processors is dropped

edit: pls see jj4211s comment for an actual rebuttal. the below is just me being curious and probably ill-informed. i do appreciate your help if you are feeling helpful tho.

please identify the material changes that come with an end of support that force users to artificially switch.

in general i am entirely on the position against ms, but i genuinely do not see any concrete evidence of a “force”; ms’s own lifecycle policy even notes that products will continue to get “security and non-security updates.”

again i am anti-corporate, but i’d very much like to be accurate in my criticism, so any insight into the forces at play are appreciated 🙂