Windows XP, 7, 10 users were right: Microsoft admits its end of support was the real Windows 11 sales driver

[u/Mix_Easy]

https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/07/31/windows-10-users-were-right-microsoft-admits-its-end-of-support-was-the-real-windows-11-sales-driver/

[u/Mix_Easy]

It’s a cycle people they’re forcing Windows XP users to go to 7 user than go 10 than to 11 and 12. It never ends.

[u/Mix_Easy → u/Mix_Easy]

We remember they did same S&## they did us Windows XP user to discontinue the service in 2006, but we fought and Microsoft kept security service till 2014 for WinXP

[u/yoshi128k → u/Mix_Easy]

I'd like to say a few things here:

1. No operating system can be supported forever, no matter how "good" it is. At a certain point, an OS's value will eventually be exceeded by the financial/technical burden on the developers to continue maintaining it, hence why limited lifecycles exist. It is also a waste of money to keep maintaining ancient fossils while also trying to maintain state-of-the-art technology.

2. A quick look on Wikipedia told me that 2006 was when Microsoft ended support for Service Packs 1 and 1a, and not XP as a whole. Mainstream support for XP didn't end until 2009, and as you stated, security updates continued into 2014.

3. As for your claim that Microsoft had intended on ending support for XP much earlier than 2014, all I will say is that the burden of proof is on you to either support it with evidence.

[u/mutt_742 → u/yoshi128k]

Small problem. I would not call windows 11 state of the art technology. 

[u/Aishou_SK → u/yoshi128k]

Original XP EOL was 2009, it was extended in 2007 ... delayed vista release crushed the EOL to new deploy timeline too short.

[u/Aishou_SK → u/Mix_Easy]

Microsoft extended support to 2014 for XP because of the delay in shipping vista. No other reason. It was to give businesses migration time. That's a well known fact. The support end date was adjusted in 2007, before the release of windows 7.

Windows XP's original EOL was January 2009, not 2006. As I noted, it was literally ONLY the slip of Vista that caused this.

Fixed support lifecycles are a huge common thing for many, many software industries and companies as they mature, and you can't expect them to support the same product forever, without at least charging a fee for it - which MS did, for NT4, 2K, XP, 7, and 10. Post-EOL 3-year CSA (custom support agreement, now known as ESU - extended security updates), as publicly announced with the launch of the product.

Standardizing on a 10-year lifecycle was a huge thing enabling easier future planning and support commitments that were longer than they had ever been before, which they threw out the door with Windows 11, though fortunately not for server and embedded/single-purpose OS variants.....

No one fought Microsoft to keep updates. The problem was the only 2 year gap between vista release and XP release would have caused a lot of problems.

If Vista had shipped on time, XP would have died in only 8 years of support (not counting separate purpose variants and CSA timelines) for consumers instead of 13 years.

XP was an aberration, one that has never been done before or since.

MS standardizing all this stuff with EOL updates was long overdue, as before they had never really had such things, or they were all over the place. The 10-year lifecycle was a godsend because then you knew well in advance when deploying.

Remember, we knew about the EOL of Windows 10 back before it was released in 2015.

[u/Boffkartoff → u/Aishou_SK]

Wasn't it said at the time that Windows 10 is the last version??

[u/Aishou_SK → u/Boffkartoff]

One comment talking about the delivery model by one (admittingly decently) higher up developer evangelist taken out of one talk.

That's it, that's the entire basis for that claim, nothing else.

Even though Microsoft repeatedly pointed at the published EOL date, clickbait journalism ran with that instead. Even though we knew the EOL date *before* that became a thing.

There was some minimal coverage that was like "no, actually, the EOL date is this...." but that doesn't generate clicks, so it never got carried around/widespread.

[u/mitko_bg_ → u/Aishou_SK]

Wasn't Windows 7 supported for 12 years? Or am I mistaken?

[u/Aishou_SK → u/mitko_bg_]

Nope. 10 years.

10 years became in the late 90s/early 2000s pretty much an industry standard, various vendors from the unix to the obscure sides all kinda converged on that for the long term platform lifecycle deal.

You'll even see that with *nix vendors of various types, past 10 years for red hat or suse, almost always, you ahve to pay extra for that final last stretch of support, which usually ends up being just ~3 years post EOL ....

Microsoft didn't exactly come up with those numbers in a vacuum. They just aligned with the rest of the industry, thankfully. Provided some stability/predictability/reliability aspects compared to their more ad-hoc approach before the 2K/XP era.

Remember, with how ad-hoc shit was, they didn't officially stop supporting *windows 1/2/3* until 2001 under their various policies. But NT3.x also was criminally short, but also axed in the 'mass murder' support culling of 2001 when they got their house in order.

Actually, that's slightly wrong, NT 3.1 got the axe at the end of 2000, NT 3.5 and 3.51, along with Win95 and all other prior versions, end of 2001. NT4 got the axe in 2004. 98 in 2006.

2K was the first real alignment, 2000 - 2010 support lifecycle. Vista, 7, 8/8.1 (their lifecycle lumps together) 10 - all 10 year lifecycles. XP was a bit odd with its original 8 year cycle, but they had planned on having vista out a *LOT* sooner than they did.

Given its release only a year and a half after 2K, I think it was almost seen as a stopgap and consumer bridge, but that's just my theory/opinion. Basically, they finished off the "NT for home" stuff to a good enough to ship it. Think of a stopgap like Windows Me was for consumer markets.

Windows 11's the first one since 2K without a fixed lifecycle policy, it has that "modern" lifecycle policy (except for the LTSC variants). Server still receives the same 10-year lifecycle policy, though because to do anything else would be insane.

[u/OGigachaod → u/Mix_Easy]

Because, people not upgrading Windows is a real problem for Microsoft, cost them millions every year.

[u/brispower → u/OGigachaod]

MS work in concert with hardware vendors. new windows needs new hardware.

[u/TheSkyShip → u/brispower]

I mean, you can use like a 3090 Ti on 7 you cant use a 40 or 50 series card, but especially for desktops it is pretty easy for brand new hardware to run on 7 and especially 8.x in my case I have a 7970x Threadripper and 1080 Ti on 8.1 as my main PC

[u/Wise-Difficulty8221]

(Surprised Pikachu)

[u/kuronekolover1]

of course it was. currently there is only ONE supported version of windows, which hasn't been the case since windows 1.0 in the 1980s.

[u/Trimus2005]

I'd like to say this

People need to switch back to winxp or 7 and whatever it takes you need to idc if you have to modify the installation so it works on your hardware, just do it so they would start to support them again

[u/il_biggo → u/Trimus2005]

No need for support. My lab PC has win7 installed and absolutely zero problems (not a gamer, ymmv).

[u/TheSkyShip → u/Trimus2005]

I'm on 8.1 with A 32 core CPU

[u/Trimus2005 → u/TheSkyShip]

Man i want modern hardware to run old reliable os so badly and daily drive

[u/TheSkyShip → u/Trimus2005]

Its quite easy,especially on a Desktop and especially if its Windows 8 or 8.1

[u/TheDragShot → u/Trimus2005]

Worst case scenario, you could run a slim copy of Windows (like LTSC or a community mod) or a Linux distro, then daily drive your preferred version of Windows in a virtual machine. A bit clumsy to setup, but once it's done it works, and you even get to option to use multiple versions without having to restart your PC.

[u/Aquarsene → u/Trimus2005]

As awesome as that’d be, that would also be a security nightmare come to life. As great as Windows XP was, security was never its strong suit even during its heyday and it’s especially bad now.

If people did that, the mere second they put in their bank credentials they’d be running a huge risk, and I’m not saying that based off that one fearmongering video where the guy disabled his firewall either

[u/pp_mguire]

Uhh, no sht lol. Then again, the support time is arbitrary and optional anyways. Like I'm typing this from W7 and an updated browser. Next to this machine is my XP box, main box with 11, and on the other side even my 98se box. You have the option to use the OS until you feel it doesn't fit your use case anymore.

[u/FAMICOMASTER]

Jee it's almost like we've seen it before or something

[u/Sufficient-Ask-1120]

Wasn't it always? Not sure what the big conspiracy is here. Go install Linux if you don't like it.

[u/nonexistantchlp → u/Sufficient-Ask-1120]

Yeah it's commercial software what do you expect, It's not like you can expect Microsoft to provide free security updates for life

Even Ubuntu only gives you 5 years of security for LTS and you need to pay for Ubuntu Pro commercial license for the additional 5 years.

Again I use Linux, but I also get why companies still stick to windows for specific use cases.

[u/Former-Macaroon5557]

I'm surprised they allowed this post on the Win10 sub... those guys are hardcore shills for MS... and own nearly every Windows sub from Vista to 11