News Microsoft's draconian Windows 11 restrictions will send an estimated 240 million PCs to the landfill when Windows 10 hits end of life in 2025

[slightnitpick]

Most Windows 10 PCs built before or since 2018 will probably die on their own before Windows 10 retires. . Pushing obsolete hardware to the recycling bin is not entirely a bad thing and hardly unexpected. Lets face it, Windows machines frequently fail soon after their warranties expire. Microsoft is not the culprit here

If a pre-2018 computer has lasted this long, odds are it's going to keep on lasting for a while. Those warranties are long expired. Microsoft is indeed the culprit here.

Every once in a while these failures are due to blown capacitors or the like (I had a motherboard fail in 2007 or so after a few years of use), but a lot of these failures are people just not servicing user-serviceable parts of their machine. Those fans and intakes need to be vacuumed out periodically, and parts need to be checked for loose cables at times.
I'm currently over 10 years on a cheapish machine which would have "failed" years ago had I not cleaned out the fans and intakes and plugged in a loose fan cable.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Most Windows 10 PCs built before or since 2018 will probably die on their own before Windows 10 retires. . Pushing obsolete hardware to the recycling bin is not entirely a bad thing and hardly unexpected. Lets face it, Windows machines frequently fail soon after their warranties expire. Microsoft is not the culprit here

This LITERALLY makes no sense.

"Most Windows 10 PCs built before or since 2018"

That literally means ALL Windows 10 PCs ever made. And that is FAR from accurate. Not even remotely accurate. I have a system right now next to my bench that was running Windows 10 and is 10 years old. Just had added an SSD to it for this guy and there is very little chance of this system not being capable of lasting another 2 years which is when Windows 10 "retires" as you put it. So yes, Microsoft ABSOLUTELY is the culprit here. I have MANY, MANY systems that were waiting to get upgraded to Windows 10 that are between 5 and 12 years old that are still PERFECTLY capable when used as internet or office machines. It takes barely any horsepower under the hood to run a browser or any of the common office applications. Hell, most of them given enough RAM will run things like Photoshop just fine if you're just doing common projects and not doing massively high resolution work with dozens of layers. And even then, they'll still work, just more slowly. You sure do sound like you work for them though.

 

[thestryker]

Yeah this move is very much out of step with the past where only instructions locked out old equipment native installs. The slowest machine in our house is a C2D which started with Vista and is currently running 10, and the fastest machine is the one in my sig and nothing can natively install 11. My router box with a N5105 which is slower than every other machine aside from the C2D sure could though. That's the ridiculous nature of a CPU lockout for 11 and it is a lockout because 10 doesn't support any of them either as of the latest updates but can be installed on them natively.

 

[Tac 25]

I have a core 2 quad pc still running. and it has Windows 10. W10 is surprisingly easy to install, our technician put W10 into the pc without problems. Of course, it is not my gaming pc, it's more of a storage pc. Having some important backup files in case my other pc's bite the dust. The purpose of giving it W10 is so that Eset Internet Security could update, since I sometimes still use the pc for web browsing.

have 10600k, but I've been mostly using a 2600k the past weeks or so. since It's enough for the gacha games I play with friends. Also, the 10600k is often pestered by Microsoft to install Windows 11. There was one time.. after a casual windows update, I thought it was only a routine "introduction into windows" screen, but it would have started installing Winows 11 if I had pressed one more button.

 

[LIraklion]

With too many outdated PCs afloat, Windows 10 EOL in late 2025 could generate massive amount of e-waste.

Microsoft's draconian Windows 11 restrictions will send an estimated 240 million PCs to the landfill when Windows 10 hits end of life in 2025 : Read more

Curse Microsoft. I am running a Win 10 Pro install on a DIY build that has been functioning great for 13 years, with an ASUS Mobo that doesn't have EFI/Secure Boot/TPI 2.0. I even have Co-Pilot, which, ironically, I love to use. Win 11 strikes me as junk and nothing but trouble. My current computer does everything I need very well. Double curse Microsoft. May the instigators of this fast smash-and-grab by Microsoft just go away, preferably to the Nether Regions. So, I am put to the expense of a new build, all of a sudden with challenges that would tax the patience of Job. I am not giving up Win 10, which I also love until the last possible moment. Thankfully, Version 10945 will boot from a GPT boot drive, so I am trying to migrate my dual boot disk installation to the new hardware. There are just so many hoops to jump through, so much preparatory study and so much required caution--all because of money-hungry, predatory Microsoft.

 

[worstalentscout]

no it won't. People aren't going to throw away their PC/laptop just because Windows 10 isn't updating any more. Most people absolutely hate the updates as it is. Not to mention the countless workarounds to install Windows 11 on pretty much any PC/laptop.
Windows 10/11 is literally the biggest Spyware platform in the entire world.

come to think of it............i switched to Win10 only in late 2021.........

umm...you presented a scenario where people might just continue (perhaps cluelessly) on, loving it that the annoying updates have stopped.

Personally, on the old system I'm keeping around I'll just get a decent anti-virus package and keep it updated. I'm not really a risky user anyway. But I'd love to move it to Linux just for the fun of it.

so without any more updates for Win10.............no more updates to Windows Defender ?

 

[drea.drechsler]

so without any more updates for Win10.............no more updates to Windows Defender ?

That's what I'm wondering, mainly because of all the hyping up how dangerous it is to continue with it being unsupported. But I've not heard anything specific about this.

 

[USAFRet]

all because of money-hungry, predatory Microsoft.

I've seen variants of this statement many times.

Given that an upgrade from a valid Win 10 to Win 11 is, on compatible hardware, actually free....please explain the thought process behind this money grubbing thing.

 

[thestryker]

As far as I'm aware Windows Defender won't get further updates, but definitions should likely still be available.

The lockout is tone deaf and cynical, but Microsoft isn't exactly profiting here aside from making upkeep slightly easier by locking out official support of a lot of devices.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Windows 10/11 is literally the biggest Spyware platform in the entire world.

You are either not very knowledgeable, or you have never owned a phone. Or known anybody who owned a phone, which would mean you live in a cave in Nepal somewhere. Since there are FAR more people with Android and Apple phones than there are people with Windows based PC hardware.

 

[Darkbreeze]

As far as I'm aware Windows Defender won't get further updates, but definitions should likely still be available.

The lockout is tone deaf and cynical, but Microsoft isn't exactly profiting here aside from making upkeep slightly easier by locking out official support of a lot of devices.

Well, I fully understand where you and USAFRet are coming from, and for the most part I'd agree, however, given how often we've seen companies FULLY busted down for their attempts at money grabs, such as with the DRAM price fixing scandal back in the 98-2002 era, the Samsung-LG television price fixing scandal, the Nintendo price fixing and attempted retailer monopoly scandal as well as the previous monopolistic antitrust US vs Microsoft case, it is not even remotely outside the realm of believability to think that since Microsoft has partnerships with practically (Or literally) every company that makes or sells prebuilt systems and the fact that about 95% of those consumer systems comes with Windows installed on it, that would be in favor of the sort of action that would require users to have to purchase newer systems in order to remain on a supported OS since it would also mean that there would be a sustained or increased demand from the companies that make and sell those systems, for licenses.

If companies are selling more systems because users feel like they have to buy newer systems, then there is at best going to be a need to maintain a certain level of licensing purchases and at worst an increase if suddenly a large portion of the population is being told "your Windows version is no longer supported". Consider, most users are clueless, so when they see "you need a newer Windows version" and "Your current hardware does not support the requirements of a newer OS version" they are simply going to buy newer machines. That sure as hell looks like, if not an outright grab, at least an underhanded attempt by Microsoft to bolster the need for bulk licensing (Which we know is where they primarily make all their money on Windows development) to their OEM and enterprise partners.

I don't think anybody can say that this is not legitimately at least partially on the mind of MS when it comes to these issues. It would literally not cost them anything to continue offering at least security and definition updates for Windows 11 indefinitely since they are going to be the same pieces of software for both 10 and 11 in 99% of cases. No, I do not believe that is the ONLY reason for these policies, but I also do not believe it is not at least a PART of the intent behind the curtain.

 

[Globespy]

I think that Apple is a lot worse than Microsoft when it comes to their much shorter EOL dates on laptops and tablets. I've got multiple 'perfectly usable' iPads/laptops that were simply turned into useless trash within 3 years of purchase, because Apple decided it.
Perhaps the author of this article may want to point the finger at other companies like Apple, a company that's much more responsible for growing electronic waste to fund their greed.
I recently purchased a new Google Pixel 8 phone, that comes with guaranteed updates until 2030. Apple remains 3 years.

Technology has an every increasing need to be secure, and that's a big part of the reasoning behind Microsoft cutting off certain hardware builds. It's a tough topic, where people will complain that Microsoft is the big evil for stopping updates on a close to 9 year old OS (and the similarly aged hardware that can't be updated to use Windows 11).
These are the same people who would happily jump on class action lawsuits if their information was leaked/hacked etc.
The line must be drawn somewhere, technology moves forwards faster and faster.
Perhaps more should be done with better recycling, that's a big part of the problem that's being ignored in this article. It's of course all about the cost of recycling vs poisoning the earth.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Google and Apple DO have a lot of the same culpability when it comes to exactly what I was talking about here: https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...its-end-of-life-in-2025.3831595/post-23166592


Very expensive things like smart thermostats, doorbell cams, other IOT devices, PC hardware, PC software, it's just ridiculous that these companies can lead people to believe they can buy these expensive devices and that they will get years of use out of them, then shut down the software or server support for those devices within a couple of years making them completely useless and not have any repercussions attached to it. What's next? You buy a car and then they decide to not support it anymore so they shut down the backend support and now your two year old car is a giant doorstop? Granted, these examples are a bit different than Microsoft ending support on an 8 year old product but when you are doing it for no other good reason than the fact that you can force people to buy new systems, and could EASILY continue to support those systems without any real financial hardship attached to it, well, it really does seem criminal to me.

Sorry, you got 8 years use out of your car, now you have to buy another one because, heck with you.

 

[USAFRet]

Sorry, you got 8 years use out of your car, now you have to buy another one because, heck with you.

Its almost getting that way with cars.

"Hey, we're not going to provide any more software updates."

 

[thestryker]

Technology has an every increasing need to be secure, and that's a big part of the reasoning behind Microsoft cutting off certain hardware builds. It's a tough topic, where people will complain that Microsoft is the big evil for stopping updates on a close to 9 year old OS (and the similarly aged hardware that can't be updated to use Windows 11).

Can you name a single actual reason any system that can support TPM 2.0 (and every other supposed requirement) shouldn't be able to run Win 11?

 

[logainofhades]

I have made the switch to Win 11, this year, and really don't get the hate. Guess too many aren't old enough to remember the abomination that was Mistake Edition. Now that was a truly terrible OS.

 

[USAFRet]

I have made the switch to Win 11, this year, and really don't get the hate. Guess too many aren't old enough to remember the abomination that was Mistake Edition. Now that was a truly terrible OS.

I don't get it either. My main systems here are 50/50, 10 and 11.

And we have other members around here who are white knighting XP...lol.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Can you name a single actual reason any system that can support TPM 2.0 (and every other supposed requirement) shouldn't be able to run Win 11?

Yes. Because Microshaft said so. Other than that, no.

 

[Darkbreeze]

I don't get it either. My main systems here are 50/50, 10 and 11.

And we have other members around here who are white knighting XP...lol.

Honestly I don't even get the hate for Windows ME. The only versions of Windows that, to me at least, were truly an exercise in pain and self abuse as well as an unending source of WTF-ism was everything Windows 95 and back (Which is understandable because consumer personal computing was a fledgling industry at the time and was simply in its infancy, and Windows Vista, which was truly a giant pile of poo. Probably also Windows 8 before the release of 8.1, which I really don't even count as a legitimate version, more like a bad idea that was quickly stuffed back in the basement like a seriously deformed relative. Windows 7, 8.1, 10 and 11 are really only hated by people who haven't even been around long enough to have any idea or understanding of how insanely easy they have it these days.

 

[thestryker]

Honestly I don't even get the hate for Windows ME.

ME had a lot of random issues which were a step back from 98SE. It was mostly fine on OEM machines, but the couple of friends I know who'd had it ended up installing (or going back to in the case of upgrades) 98SE.

Windows Vista, which was truly a giant pile of poo.

I ran Vista on my i7-920 machine until a few months after 7 came out (I'd guess around a year or so of usage) and can say I had zero issues with it. Now I had tried to use it on my previous Athlon 64 x2 and it was a nightmare. Most of the problems with Vista though were largely due to Microsoft forcing driver changes and nobody wanting to do proper re-writes for older hardware. Without Vista you don't get 7 being as good as it was, and honestly there was basically no difference between them by the time I went from Vista to 7.

I may be wrong, but I've always thought the only reason we got 7 when we did was because Microsoft wanted to wash the stink of Vista off even though they were basically the same OS at that point.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Well, see, I guess that's why they say everybody's situation is different, because my experiences were the exact opposite. However, mine weren't merely a sample of one. And in fact, after dealing with Vista for SEVERAL client systems I never even bothered to bother with it on my own systems. I went straight from XP SP3 to 7 on those. And on Windows ME, I'm sure there were a few hiccups here and there because there ALWAYS are, for EVER Windows release, but nothing I can recall specifically or that stood out, and I moved dozens of systems to ME back in the early 2000's and dealt with all their administration and maintenance. In my experience, 7 was a huge improvement over Vista.

But anyhow, not really the point of this discussion.

 

[slightnitpick]

ME had a lot of random issues which were a step back from 98SE. It was mostly fine on OEM machines, but the couple of friends I know who'd had it ended up installing (or going back to in the case of upgrades) 98SE.

At the time I rolled my own system with a 1.8 Ghz Applebred Duron, probably an Asus motherboard, and a used Radeon card that had been RMed but I was able to get working by using electrical tape to stop a short through the heat sink's mounting post. Windows ME with a LiteStep 'windows manager' worked fine for it, though this would have been on equipment made a few years after the initial ME rollout (I was probably using the ME on my 1996 Packard Bell before transferring the HDD to the new build, but I might have freshly installed, I can't really remember).

Some years later I think there was an HDD issue corrupting the install and I needed to upgrade to XP, which only lasted a short while until I started getting pop ups about it being an unlicensed copy (apparently the computer shop didn't install a legitimate copy?). After getting those popups I soon upgraded to Vista and was fine with it too, other than losing some of my registry hacks.

I guess I got lucky.

The real issue with these new OSes (especially 8) are the UI changes, and the unasked for features, both of which are tedious, or impossible without third party programs, to unwind back to what worked..

 

[worstalentscout]

That's what I'm wondering, mainly because of all the hyping up how dangerous it is to continue with it being unsupported. But I've not heard anything specific about this.

is no more anti-virus updates.............then it's back to free Avast for me.............i only moved to Win10 in 2021 when i got a new pc..........

 

[Deleted member 2962262]

That's what I'm wondering, mainly because of all the hyping up how dangerous it is to continue with it being unsupported. But I've not heard anything specific about this.

If anyone knows zero day vulnerabilities that might be discovered after support ends they're probably either writing an exploit or preparing a bounty claim.

You can get a feeling for what might come up by looking at more recent vulnerabilities for Windows 7 or XP, but there's no guarantee something radically different won't be discovered.

If you're not worried about this type of risk you should probably spend a little more time learning about PC security.

 

[drea.drechsler]

....
You can get a feeling for what might come up by looking at more recent vulnerabilities for Windows 7 or XP, but there's no guarantee something radically different won't be discovered.
...

I don't think so since Win10/11 operate completely differently from XP and even Win7 which makes it an inherently far more secure platform. But yah, I've no doubt people are waiting to pounce...if they can. I mean, they always are, even for Win11.

But what's more interesting is you seem to be saying Microsoft is indeed shutting down on Defender security updates at EOL. I don't think they did that even for Win7 until quite a while after EOL.

So the value of Avast free, or MalwareBytes or any of the many other anti-V programs are something to consider for my Win10-only, but still very capable, computer I want to keep running.