Microsoft’s gradual approach to winding down support for Windows 10 sits squarely at the center of a growing storm, with privacy advocates, environmental campaigners, enterprises, and everyday consumers all questioning the company’s motives, methods, and the real-world consequences of its decisions. In the wake of a recent announcement promising a limited, conditional reprieve—namely, a single year of free Extended Security Updates (ESU) for specific Windows 10 users—the debate has only intensified. This new gesture, while touted as a lifeline, has already garnered potent criticism, with advocates warning that millions of PCs could be forced into obsolescence and landfills, while organizations still weigh the costly, complex process of transitioning fleets of machines to Windows 11.
Recently, Microsoft confirmed it would extend at least a first year of ESU at no cost—but the fine print immediately stood out. The free updates are not universal: only individual consumers qualify, and even then, most must jump through hoops such as either redeeming 1,000 Microsoft Rewards points or using the Windows Backup tool to sync settings to the cloud. This is a far cry from broad, unconditional support.
For everyone else, the safety net stretches thin. Commercial customers must pay $61 per device for the first year of ESU, with the fee set to double in subsequent years. The seemingly affordable offering for schools also comes with caveats, while Windows 365 offers another, typically pricier alternative for continuous updates.
Lucas Rockett Gutterman, Campaign Director for Designed to Last at the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), expressed deep skepticism. “Microsoft's new options don't go far enough and likely won't make a dent in the up to 400 million Windows 10 PCs that can't upgrade to Windows 11,” Gutterman told The Register, echoing concerns that a massive wave of hardware will soon be left behind.
Microsoft has justified these firm requirements on security and reliability grounds—for example, to counter increasingly sophisticated firmware-level threats—but critics accuse the company of “planned obsolescence,” driving unnecessary e-waste and steering customers toward new purchases for reasons more financial than technical.
In 2023, PIRG launched a petition urging Microsoft to extend native Windows 10 support, warning that ending updates would force consumers and institutions alike to discard millions of otherwise useful devices. Indeed, research by Canalys and other outlets indicates hundreds of millions of computers globally face this predicament—machines that can’t upgrade, yet remain essential to households, businesses, and schools.
ControlUp’s latest Windows 11 Readiness Report shows just how daunting the upgrade path remains. As of the latest analysis, 50 percent of enterprise Windows endpoints still had not completed the migration to Windows 11—a marked improvement over the previous year’s 82 percent, but still leaving millions exposed to hard choices as support winds down. In sectors such as education and technology, migrations proceed apace, but in healthcare and other regulated industries, progress lags. Only about 41 percent of healthcare endpoints run Windows 11, and up to 19 percent of devices in the enterprise sector are projected to require physical replacement rather than software upgrades alone.
Instead, the company’s insistence on strict payment for commercial and educational institutions sharply limits access, leaving organizations on the hook or forcing them to consider riskier alternatives, such as third-party patching solutions, unsupported systems, or costly physical upgrades. Particularly vulnerable are schools, health providers, NGOs, and small businesses with limited IT budgets.
Privacy activists also raise concerns about what’s being offered in exchange for the free ESU year for individuals. The requirement to use Windows Backup for cloud settings migration or spend accumulated Microsoft Rewards points may incentivize data transfers into Microsoft’s ecosystem and promote deeper user profiling, something privacy campaigners have long resisted.
Manufacturers and governments alike have sought to extend the useful life of devices as part of circular economy initiatives. Microsoft, for its part, has committed publicly to sustainability, yet critics say its stance on hardware requirements undermines these goals. Gutterman and others suggest that, by refusing to grant free, universal security updates or relax Windows 11 hardware mandates, Microsoft is missing an opportunity to lead on responsible technology stewardship.
Yet, for many organizations, especially those with complex application requirements, custom in-house software, or regulatory constraints (such as HIPAA in healthcare), switching to Linux is far from straightforward. Compatibility snags, user retraining costs, and the need to rewrite business-critical apps can render mass migrations prohibitive. Certain sectors—such as finance, education, or industrial control—rely on proprietary Windows-only software, essentially locking them in unless those vendors themselves transition to cross-platform solutions.
Likewise, cloud-based solutions such as Windows 365 or Desktop-as-a-Service (DaaS) options offer continuity at a price, essentially “renting” a virtual Windows 11 PC in the cloud. The ongoing cost, connectivity requirements, and privacy implications of sending all user activity to cloud servers have prompted skepticism from privacy advocates and those in bandwidth-constrained locales.
Yet, Windows remains the backbone of corporate, educational, and government IT infrastructure worldwide. This global footprint intensifies the stakes around support lifecycles and hardware requirements, impacting more end users and institutions than any other platform.
Within the enterprise sector, IT leaders are reevaluating their endpoint management strategies. Some are investing in third-party patching and endpoint security overlays, betting that they can safely bridge the gap between official Windows 10 end of support and hardware life cycles. Others are accelerating efforts to migrate to SaaS-based solutions or build replacement schedules that stagger device retirement to spread costs and disruptions over several years.
Meanwhile, the open source community is using this moment to evangelize Linux and champion interoperability, releasing new tools and guides explicitly to support Windows 10 refugees.
Still, waiting and hoping for another act of generosity carries risks, particularly as Windows 11 adoption, while accelerating, is uneven at best. Some organizations and end users will be compelled to accept the costs of ESU, the risk of running outdated systems, or the challenge of migrating to alternative platforms.
For now, Microsoft’s current policy is a mixed blessing—offering temporary relief for a minority of affected users, while expecting most commercial and institutional customers to pay up, upgrade, or move on. The company’s failure to offer broader, simpler, and more affordable security support, say critics, not only increases the risk of disruption and harm but signals a disconnect with its own sustainability rhetoric.
With stakes this high—for users’ security, organizations’ budgets, and the health of the planet—stakeholder pressure is unlikely to abate. The coming months will reveal whether Microsoft, facing mounting criticism and competitive pressure, can find a path that satisfies not just its shareholders, but the broader digital public that continues to depend on Windows as the world’s foundational computing platform.
Source: The Register Microsoft's free updates for Windows 10 draw criticism
Microsoft’s Limited Reprieve: A Closer Look
Recently, Microsoft confirmed it would extend at least a first year of ESU at no cost—but the fine print immediately stood out. The free updates are not universal: only individual consumers qualify, and even then, most must jump through hoops such as either redeeming 1,000 Microsoft Rewards points or using the Windows Backup tool to sync settings to the cloud. This is a far cry from broad, unconditional support.For everyone else, the safety net stretches thin. Commercial customers must pay $61 per device for the first year of ESU, with the fee set to double in subsequent years. The seemingly affordable offering for schools also comes with caveats, while Windows 365 offers another, typically pricier alternative for continuous updates.
Lucas Rockett Gutterman, Campaign Director for Designed to Last at the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), expressed deep skepticism. “Microsoft's new options don't go far enough and likely won't make a dent in the up to 400 million Windows 10 PCs that can't upgrade to Windows 11,” Gutterman told The Register, echoing concerns that a massive wave of hardware will soon be left behind.
Understanding the Hardware Lockout
At the root of this problem are Windows 11’s much-debated hardware requirements. While Windows 10 can run on PCs released as far back as 2012, Windows 11 demands considerably newer hardware: TPM 2.0 chips, Secure Boot compatibility, and, in most cases, eighth-generation Intel or second-generation AMD Ryzen processors or newer. This jump leaves a huge swathe of functioning PCs technically incapable of moving up, even if their hardware remains performant and reliable for years to come.Microsoft has justified these firm requirements on security and reliability grounds—for example, to counter increasingly sophisticated firmware-level threats—but critics accuse the company of “planned obsolescence,” driving unnecessary e-waste and steering customers toward new purchases for reasons more financial than technical.
In 2023, PIRG launched a petition urging Microsoft to extend native Windows 10 support, warning that ending updates would force consumers and institutions alike to discard millions of otherwise useful devices. Indeed, research by Canalys and other outlets indicates hundreds of millions of computers globally face this predicament—machines that can’t upgrade, yet remain essential to households, businesses, and schools.
The Marketplace Impact: Enterprises and Education
As deadlines draw near—mainstream support for most editions of Windows 10 ends in October 2025—corporate and public-sector customers find themselves in an expensive bind. The cost of purchasing ESU, multiplied across thousands of endpoints, rapidly balloons. Marcel Calef, field CTO Americas at ControlUp, described the $61 per-device fee as “untenable,” especially given that the price doubles in the program’s second year. “No organization will want to pay the $61 fee, especially since it doubles the following year. While the extended security updates will give organizations time to line up their upgrade strategies, the gap between Windows 11 features and the older Windows 10 will continue to widen,” Calef observed.ControlUp’s latest Windows 11 Readiness Report shows just how daunting the upgrade path remains. As of the latest analysis, 50 percent of enterprise Windows endpoints still had not completed the migration to Windows 11—a marked improvement over the previous year’s 82 percent, but still leaving millions exposed to hard choices as support winds down. In sectors such as education and technology, migrations proceed apace, but in healthcare and other regulated industries, progress lags. Only about 41 percent of healthcare endpoints run Windows 11, and up to 19 percent of devices in the enterprise sector are projected to require physical replacement rather than software upgrades alone.
Privacy, Security, and the ESU Paywall
Another pivotal aspect of the debate surrounds Microsoft’s decision to put critical security updates behind a paywall—choosing, in Gutterman’s words, business logic over technical necessity. The ESU program, which delivers three additional years of security updates for Windows 10, essentially mirrors the infrastructure of regular support, but now with high fees for most users. Critics argue that, since Microsoft is already building and testing these patches for extended support, providing them broadly at little or no extra cost could reduce risk for millions without extensive outlay.Instead, the company’s insistence on strict payment for commercial and educational institutions sharply limits access, leaving organizations on the hook or forcing them to consider riskier alternatives, such as third-party patching solutions, unsupported systems, or costly physical upgrades. Particularly vulnerable are schools, health providers, NGOs, and small businesses with limited IT budgets.
Privacy activists also raise concerns about what’s being offered in exchange for the free ESU year for individuals. The requirement to use Windows Backup for cloud settings migration or spend accumulated Microsoft Rewards points may incentivize data transfers into Microsoft’s ecosystem and promote deeper user profiling, something privacy campaigners have long resisted.
Environmental Fallout: The Threat of E-Waste
The environmental implication looms as perhaps the most troubling: obsolescence on this scale almost inevitably means e-waste. If even a fraction of the estimated 400 million affected machines are decommissioned rather than upgraded or recycled, the ecological impact could be enormous. E-waste is already a global crisis; discarded computers and electronics leach heavy metals and toxins into the environment, while generating significant carbon emissions during manufacture and shipping. In prior research, the United Nations estimated that just 17.4% of global e-waste is officially collected and properly recycled.Manufacturers and governments alike have sought to extend the useful life of devices as part of circular economy initiatives. Microsoft, for its part, has committed publicly to sustainability, yet critics say its stance on hardware requirements undermines these goals. Gutterman and others suggest that, by refusing to grant free, universal security updates or relax Windows 11 hardware mandates, Microsoft is missing an opportunity to lead on responsible technology stewardship.
The Third Path: Alternatives Beyond Windows
While much of the focus remains on how to squeeze more life out of old hardware running Windows 10, there are, technically, alternatives—but each with significant caveats. Many Linux distributions run smoothly on older machines and offer extensive security support, often for free. Groups like Ubuntu, Fedora, and Linux Mint have specifically targeted the “revival” market, making it easier for less technical users to get started.Yet, for many organizations, especially those with complex application requirements, custom in-house software, or regulatory constraints (such as HIPAA in healthcare), switching to Linux is far from straightforward. Compatibility snags, user retraining costs, and the need to rewrite business-critical apps can render mass migrations prohibitive. Certain sectors—such as finance, education, or industrial control—rely on proprietary Windows-only software, essentially locking them in unless those vendors themselves transition to cross-platform solutions.
Likewise, cloud-based solutions such as Windows 365 or Desktop-as-a-Service (DaaS) options offer continuity at a price, essentially “renting” a virtual Windows 11 PC in the cloud. The ongoing cost, connectivity requirements, and privacy implications of sending all user activity to cloud servers have prompted skepticism from privacy advocates and those in bandwidth-constrained locales.
Microsoft’s Historical Balancing Act: Business Imperative vs. Social Responsibility
Through its long history, Microsoft has navigated the tension between business imperatives—driving new PC sales, maintaining user adoption, defending against security threats—and stakeholder pressures related to security, privacy, and environmental impact. Its rivals in the consumer OS space—namely Apple and Google—have taken a mix of approaches. Apple, for instance, supports Macs for five to seven years after release but faces less criticism, partly due to its smaller device base. Google’s ChromeOS is designed for lower-spec hardware, but even here, “auto-update expiration” policies have drawn fire from repair and recycling advocates.Yet, Windows remains the backbone of corporate, educational, and government IT infrastructure worldwide. This global footprint intensifies the stakes around support lifecycles and hardware requirements, impacting more end users and institutions than any other platform.
Community and Industry Response: Advocacy, Workarounds, and Vigilance
In response to Microsoft’s approach, a spectrum of community, industry, and policy actors has emerged. Activist groups like PIRG and iFixit continue to keep the spotlight on e-waste, advocating for both regulatory and voluntary reforms around software support and the right to repair and reuse. Some local governments, especially in Europe, have floated proposals to mandate longer support for operating systems in the interests of sustainability and cost savings.Within the enterprise sector, IT leaders are reevaluating their endpoint management strategies. Some are investing in third-party patching and endpoint security overlays, betting that they can safely bridge the gap between official Windows 10 end of support and hardware life cycles. Others are accelerating efforts to migrate to SaaS-based solutions or build replacement schedules that stagger device retirement to spread costs and disruptions over several years.
Meanwhile, the open source community is using this moment to evangelize Linux and champion interoperability, releasing new tools and guides explicitly to support Windows 10 refugees.
The Road Ahead: What Users Can Expect (and Demand)
With less than four months until the end of Windows 10 support for millions of machines, the path remains precarious. Industry insiders do not rule out further softening from Microsoft—a history of last-minute policy reversals, spurred by public pressure, exists. Customers who feel “yanked around” and underserved may yet see additional concessions.Still, waiting and hoping for another act of generosity carries risks, particularly as Windows 11 adoption, while accelerating, is uneven at best. Some organizations and end users will be compelled to accept the costs of ESU, the risk of running outdated systems, or the challenge of migrating to alternative platforms.
For now, Microsoft’s current policy is a mixed blessing—offering temporary relief for a minority of affected users, while expecting most commercial and institutional customers to pay up, upgrade, or move on. The company’s failure to offer broader, simpler, and more affordable security support, say critics, not only increases the risk of disruption and harm but signals a disconnect with its own sustainability rhetoric.
Critical Analysis: Strengths, Risks, and Unanswered Questions
Strengths of Microsoft’s Approach:- The ESU program for consumers is, for the first time, a concession that acknowledges ordinary users’ needs, offering at least one year of free security for some non-upgradable devices.
- Educational pricing and integration with Windows Backup and Microsoft Rewards demonstrate attempts at creative solutions for extending support.
- Keeping ESU available for three years ensures that, in theory, users and organizations are not forced into a rushed transition, lowering the risk of catastrophic lapses in security.
- The eligibility restrictions and complexity of the “free” offering ensure that millions—especially businesses, nonprofits, and schools—are left out, further entrenching digital divides.
- By making essential security updates a paid add-on and linking free ESU to data-driven services, Microsoft risks pushing users to either risky behavior (like running unsupported systems or using unofficial patches) or unnecessary hardware spending.
- The exceptional hardware requirements for Windows 11, while defensible on pure security terms, undercut claims of the company’s environmental responsibility and threaten to worsen the global e-waste crisis.
- The ongoing gap between Windows 11 features and application compatibility, particularly in sectors like healthcare and finance, will add costs, complexity, and potential vulnerabilities in the coming years.
- Microsoft’s posture creates opportunity costs for the company: reputational risk from angry consumers, lost loyalty, and the possibility of policy intervention, especially in environmentally conscious markets.
- Will Microsoft face broader regulatory scrutiny or pressure over e-waste and digital inclusion if millions of PCs are retired prematurely?
- Could mounting pressure from institutions and users lead to further softening of end-of-support or hardware rules?
- Will the demand for Windows alternatives, both open source and commercial, rise to a tipping point, pressuring Microsoft to reconsider its business model?
- How will affected organizations balance patching, performance, compatibility, and risk in the post-Windows 10 landscape?
Conclusion
Microsoft’s latest reprieve for Windows 10 users represents a notable shift—especially its willingness, for the first time, to extend free ESU support to certain consumers. Yet, the company’s stance remains at once partial and heavily conditional, leaving most affected users and institutions to shoulder the costs of security, migration, and potentially premature device replacement. Unless major changes materialize, the next year will see the technology landscape tested by the aftershocks of decisions made not only in Redmond’s boardrooms, but in thousands of schools, hospitals, businesses, and households around the world.With stakes this high—for users’ security, organizations’ budgets, and the health of the planet—stakeholder pressure is unlikely to abate. The coming months will reveal whether Microsoft, facing mounting criticism and competitive pressure, can find a path that satisfies not just its shareholders, but the broader digital public that continues to depend on Windows as the world’s foundational computing platform.
Source: The Register Microsoft's free updates for Windows 10 draw criticism
