Windows 10 users who find themselves unable—or unwilling—to upgrade to Windows 11 have been facing a growing sense of uncertainty as Microsoft marches steadily towards the operating system’s End of Support date in October 2025. With roughly 400 million devices estimated to be stuck on Windows 10, chiefly due to Windows 11’s stringent hardware requirements, the stakes are high—not just for individual users, but for the environment and the broader tech landscape. Recent moves by Microsoft, such as providing new alternatives to the previously announced $30 Extended Security Updates (ESU) fee, have only partially quelled user frustration and have drawn sharp criticism from consumer rights advocates.
The Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), a US-based consumer rights organization, has for years sounded the alarm on the environmental hazards posed by forced obsolescence in the tech industry. Their Designed to Last campaign targets exactly the sort of scenario now unfolding for millions of Windows 10 users: serviceable computers headed for early retirement and, ultimately, landfill. PIRG’s concerns are not merely theoretical—studies cited by the United Nations International Telecommunication Union estimate that the world generated a record 57.4 million tons of e-waste in 2021 alone, with only about 17% being formally recycled.
While Microsoft’s official line is that the company is working towards sustainable practices, critics argue that actions speak louder than words. Windows 11’s hardware cutoff—most notably requirements for newer TPM (Trusted Platform Module) chips and specific CPU generations— means that an enormous number of otherwise fully functional PCs become “legacy” overnight. This, PIRG argues, is both unnecessary and environmentally harmful.
Last week, Microsoft announced a handful of new ways for Windows 10 users to secure an extra year of security updates (until October 2026), alternatives to simply paying $30. Among the choices: using the Windows Backup app to sync personal settings to OneDrive, or redeeming 1,000 Microsoft Rewards points, a digital currency that most users can earn through various activities in the Microsoft ecosystem.
Lucas Rockett Gutterman, director of PIRG’s Designed to Last campaign, told The Register, “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.” He added, “What [Microsoft hasn't] done is commit to automatically providing longer support for Windows 10 or loosening the hardware requirements for Windows 11.”
On the face of it, Microsoft’s new “no-cost” options for another year of security patches might seem generous. Yet, as industry analysts have pointed out, simply requiring use of the Backup app or redemption of digital points does little to actually soften the blow for the hundreds of millions of affected users. One critical issue is that even with these alternates, the extension period remains capped at a single year for consumers, with no guarantee of further options beyond October 2026.
Businesses have their upgrade cycles, budgets, and IT support structures; ordinary users, students, and non-profits rarely have similar resources. Critics like Gutterman and other right-to-repair advocates argue that Microsoft is unfairly putting the burden for environmental impact—namely, the proliferation of e-waste—onto consumers, while enterprises get preferential treatment.
Microsoft has consistently refused to budge on these minimum requirements, citing security as paramount. Independent infosec experts largely agree that TPM and Secure Boot provide meaningful improvements to system integrity and protection against certain classes of attacks, including ransomware. However, critics emphasize that older PCs can still function securely with regular patching rather than wholesale upgrades.
This latter proposal is, admittedly, a long shot. Commentators and analysts almost universally agree that Microsoft is highly unlikely to reduce the hardware bar at this late stage. Windows 11’s requirements have been flagged as final since 2021, and Microsoft’s product team has shown no signs of retreating from their chosen security strategy.
Still, from a practical and environmental perspective, PIRG’s call for longer support resonates with many users. Even a single extra year, whether paid or free, could offer significant breathing space to plan—instead of forcing tens of millions of users to choose between running a vulnerable OS or sending a computer to a landfill.
However, this proposal itself is controversial. Privacy advocates warn about the slippery slope of normalizing OS-level advertising, and many users balk at the encroachment of ads into what has historically been a paid or licensed product.
Yet, as critics point out, the alternative—forcing people to expose themselves to security risks or throw away still-capable computers—seems even less justifiable given today’s climate and privacy imperatives.
Still, numerous independent studies and policy papers underscore the enormous ecological impact of hardware churn. A Yale/United Nations report from 2024 estimates that extending the life of computers by just two years worldwide could prevent more than 100 million devices per annum from entering the waste stream. By comparison, the incremental improvements from annual manufacturing upgrades seem trivial in the grand scheme.
Consumer rights groups stress that software vendors like Microsoft wield outsized influence. When an operating system as ubiquitous as Windows is forcibly retired on a fixed schedule, the downstream effects ripple across households, school districts, small businesses, and the circular economy.
Third-party patch backports and unofficial security updates have been tried in “end-of-life” communities for Windows 7 and XP. Yet these are niche solutions, risky from a security standpoint, and require technical skill far beyond what most people possess.
Microsoft’s own guidance for unsupported users remains a stark “upgrade or else.” Even their one-year reprieve, via the Backup app or rewards points, feels more like a delay of the inevitable than a true commitment to device longevity.
The contrast is especially stark given recent moves elsewhere in the industry. Apple’s commitment to providing up to seven years of support for iPhones, and Google’s extension of Chromebook security updates, have raised the bar. Windows, the world’s dominant desktop OS, appears out of sync with this direction—at least in the eyes of critics.
On the flip side, some IT professionals argue that perpetual support becomes unsustainable, especially when older systems become harder to secure, even with regular patches. The need for architectural modernization—including safer boot processes and better memory management—cannot be brushed aside.
Short of rolling back Windows 11’s hardware requirements (an outcome all but ruled out by Microsoft), ongoing discussion points to hybrid models, perhaps with modest fees, optional advertising, or public-private partnerships to bridge the gap. Clear communication, transparent timelines, and a public engagement campaign could ease anxieties and smooth the transition for vulnerable segments such as schools, non-profits, and the elderly.
As the October 2025 deadline approaches, the pressure on Microsoft will only intensify. Whether Redmond chooses to listen to its critics—or to its own sustainability messaging—will be a defining test of corporate citizenship in the digital age.
For millions of users, developers, and environmentalists, the next year will reveal whether Microsoft can strike a responsible balance—one that honors both security innovation and the broader social contract it holds with its global user base. In the end, the question is not just what’s best for Microsoft, but what’s best for a planet already groaning under the weight of digital waste.
Source: TechRadar 'It's obvious that users are frustrated': consumer rights group accuses Microsoft of not providing a 'viable solution' for Windows 10 users who can't upgrade to Windows 11
The Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), a US-based consumer rights organization, has for years sounded the alarm on the environmental hazards posed by forced obsolescence in the tech industry. Their Designed to Last campaign targets exactly the sort of scenario now unfolding for millions of Windows 10 users: serviceable computers headed for early retirement and, ultimately, landfill. PIRG’s concerns are not merely theoretical—studies cited by the United Nations International Telecommunication Union estimate that the world generated a record 57.4 million tons of e-waste in 2021 alone, with only about 17% being formally recycled.While Microsoft’s official line is that the company is working towards sustainable practices, critics argue that actions speak louder than words. Windows 11’s hardware cutoff—most notably requirements for newer TPM (Trusted Platform Module) chips and specific CPU generations— means that an enormous number of otherwise fully functional PCs become “legacy” overnight. This, PIRG argues, is both unnecessary and environmentally harmful.
Last week, Microsoft announced a handful of new ways for Windows 10 users to secure an extra year of security updates (until October 2026), alternatives to simply paying $30. Among the choices: using the Windows Backup app to sync personal settings to OneDrive, or redeeming 1,000 Microsoft Rewards points, a digital currency that most users can earn through various activities in the Microsoft ecosystem.
Lucas Rockett Gutterman, director of PIRG’s Designed to Last campaign, told The Register, “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.” He added, “What [Microsoft hasn't] done is commit to automatically providing longer support for Windows 10 or loosening the hardware requirements for Windows 11.”
User Frustration and the “Not Viable” Solutions
For many users who purchased machines in the late Windows 7 or early Windows 10 era, the prospect of being forced to upgrade—often requiring the purchase of a completely new device—strikes a nerve. Forums and social media reflect mounting frustration, with users feeling caught between security risks and forced obsolescence. “They feel yanked around and don't think this [latest] announcement provides a viable solution,” summarized Gutterman.On the face of it, Microsoft’s new “no-cost” options for another year of security patches might seem generous. Yet, as industry analysts have pointed out, simply requiring use of the Backup app or redemption of digital points does little to actually soften the blow for the hundreds of millions of affected users. One critical issue is that even with these alternates, the extension period remains capped at a single year for consumers, with no guarantee of further options beyond October 2026.
Businesses vs. Consumers: The Support Disparity
Adding to the frustration is the contrast between Microsoft’s approach to business and enterprise customers and its treatment of ordinary users. While consumers can only secure one additional year of updates (for a fee or through workaround options), corporate customers can purchase up to three years of extended support, a practice Microsoft has followed with previous Windows versions as well.Businesses have their upgrade cycles, budgets, and IT support structures; ordinary users, students, and non-profits rarely have similar resources. Critics like Gutterman and other right-to-repair advocates argue that Microsoft is unfairly putting the burden for environmental impact—namely, the proliferation of e-waste—onto consumers, while enterprises get preferential treatment.
The Hardware Barrier: The Real Blockade
When Microsoft unveiled Windows 11 in 2021, its hardware requirements sparked immediate backlash. A compatible CPU, TPM 2.0, Secure Boot, and other criteria effectively excluded many devices bought as recently as 2017. The company’s official rationale was enhanced security, but some analysts—and a significant portion of the user base—perceive an underlying push for hardware sales, benefiting both Microsoft and its partners in the PC industry.Microsoft has consistently refused to budge on these minimum requirements, citing security as paramount. Independent infosec experts largely agree that TPM and Secure Boot provide meaningful improvements to system integrity and protection against certain classes of attacks, including ransomware. However, critics emphasize that older PCs can still function securely with regular patching rather than wholesale upgrades.
Consumer Advocates Call for Broader Support
PIRG and allied organizations are calling on Microsoft to take two concrete steps. First, automatically provide longer-term support for all Windows 10 users—two or three years rather than just one—regardless of whether they pay or jump through technical hoops. Second, PIRG suggests that Microsoft should consider easing Windows 11 system requirements, even just marginally, to tap into the vast installed base of perfectly functional hardware.This latter proposal is, admittedly, a long shot. Commentators and analysts almost universally agree that Microsoft is highly unlikely to reduce the hardware bar at this late stage. Windows 11’s requirements have been flagged as final since 2021, and Microsoft’s product team has shown no signs of retreating from their chosen security strategy.
Still, from a practical and environmental perspective, PIRG’s call for longer support resonates with many users. Even a single extra year, whether paid or free, could offer significant breathing space to plan—instead of forcing tens of millions of users to choose between running a vulnerable OS or sending a computer to a landfill.
Could Ad-Supported Extensions Be the Middle Ground?
Some tech commentators have floated the idea of ad-supported security patches as a potential compromise—much as Microsoft has experimented with advertising inside the Windows shell for tips, products, and services. An opt-in program offering two or three more years of security patches, partially subsidized by moderate in-OS advertising, might appeal to users loath to pay $30 per year, especially if this keeps their systems secure and sustainable.However, this proposal itself is controversial. Privacy advocates warn about the slippery slope of normalizing OS-level advertising, and many users balk at the encroachment of ads into what has historically been a paid or licensed product.
Yet, as critics point out, the alternative—forcing people to expose themselves to security risks or throw away still-capable computers—seems even less justifiable given today’s climate and privacy imperatives.
Assessing Microsoft’s Responsibilities: Beyond Minimum Compliance
Defenders of Microsoft’s strategy argue that the company has made exceptional efforts to improve the security and sustainability of its ecosystem. From advanced security features in Windows 11 to providing documentation and tools for device recycling, Redmond positions itself as responsive to modern demands.Still, numerous independent studies and policy papers underscore the enormous ecological impact of hardware churn. A Yale/United Nations report from 2024 estimates that extending the life of computers by just two years worldwide could prevent more than 100 million devices per annum from entering the waste stream. By comparison, the incremental improvements from annual manufacturing upgrades seem trivial in the grand scheme.
Consumer rights groups stress that software vendors like Microsoft wield outsized influence. When an operating system as ubiquitous as Windows is forcibly retired on a fixed schedule, the downstream effects ripple across households, school districts, small businesses, and the circular economy.
The Realities on the Ground: User Sentiment and Practical Options
For the average user locked out of Windows 11 upgrades, the landscape is fraught with unclear choices. While Linux distributions or ChromeOS Flex have been floated as alternative operating systems—often able to run on less demanding hardware—the learning curve, software compatibility, and support ecosystem remain obstacles for many mainstream users.Third-party patch backports and unofficial security updates have been tried in “end-of-life” communities for Windows 7 and XP. Yet these are niche solutions, risky from a security standpoint, and require technical skill far beyond what most people possess.
Microsoft’s own guidance for unsupported users remains a stark “upgrade or else.” Even their one-year reprieve, via the Backup app or rewards points, feels more like a delay of the inevitable than a true commitment to device longevity.
The Bigger Picture: Is the One-Year Extension Enough?
It’s telling that even seasoned tech journalists and forums generally express skepticism at the sufficiency of Microsoft’s gesture. “Why isn’t Microsoft looking at extending support for multiple years for consumers too, from an eco-friendly angle?” one popular opinion piece asked, echoing PIRG’s position.The contrast is especially stark given recent moves elsewhere in the industry. Apple’s commitment to providing up to seven years of support for iPhones, and Google’s extension of Chromebook security updates, have raised the bar. Windows, the world’s dominant desktop OS, appears out of sync with this direction—at least in the eyes of critics.
On the flip side, some IT professionals argue that perpetual support becomes unsustainable, especially when older systems become harder to secure, even with regular patches. The need for architectural modernization—including safer boot processes and better memory management—cannot be brushed aside.
Notable Strengths in Microsoft’s Strategy
- Enhanced Security: The architecture of Windows 11, enforced by its hardware prerequisites, demonstrably raises the baseline for consumer security compared to earlier versions. Features like TPM 2.0, virtualization-based security, and Secure Boot are proven deterrents to some classes of malware and attacks.
- Transition Grace Period: By introducing no-cost or alternative ways to earn another year of security updates, Microsoft reduces the immediate burden on cost-conscious users and gives global institutions time to adapt.
- Clear Product Lifecycle: Microsoft’s regular cadence of product retirements and upgrades gives clarity to businesses, the channel, and the developer ecosystem—improving planning and reducing long-term support ambiguities.
Potential Risks and Weaknesses
- E-Waste Surge: Failing to extend Windows 10 support beyond a single year virtually ensures a spike in e-waste, contradicting Microsoft’s professed sustainability goals and painting a poor image compared to competitors.
- Perceived Double Standard: The different treatment of enterprise versus ordinary users feeds a perception of corporate favoritism and leaves everyday consumers feeling marginalized.
- Limited Practical Alternatives: Without sufficient support or clear guidance, less tech-savvy users may be left running unpatched systems—potentially exposing the broader internet ecosystem to botnets and vulnerabilities.
- Reputational Blowback: User frustration, amplified by critical coverage and advocacy groups, has the potential to erode goodwill and trust, especially as consumers weigh platform choices between Windows, macOS, and Linux.
Looking Ahead: What Should Microsoft Do?
The consensus among advocacy groups, environmental policymakers, and a growing cadre of users is clear: a more generous, multi-year extension of Windows 10 security support for consumers aligns with sustainability and customer trust, outweighing the relatively modest costs to Microsoft’s bottom line.Short of rolling back Windows 11’s hardware requirements (an outcome all but ruled out by Microsoft), ongoing discussion points to hybrid models, perhaps with modest fees, optional advertising, or public-private partnerships to bridge the gap. Clear communication, transparent timelines, and a public engagement campaign could ease anxieties and smooth the transition for vulnerable segments such as schools, non-profits, and the elderly.
As the October 2025 deadline approaches, the pressure on Microsoft will only intensify. Whether Redmond chooses to listen to its critics—or to its own sustainability messaging—will be a defining test of corporate citizenship in the digital age.
Conclusion
The debate over Windows 10’s end of life is, at its core, a clash between progress and preservation: the rush towards more secure, modern computing versus the imperative to maximize the utility of existing resources and limit environmental harm. Microsoft’s recent tweaks to the consumer extension process demonstrate some willingness to engage, but as advocacy groups point out, these steps may fall short of what’s truly needed.For millions of users, developers, and environmentalists, the next year will reveal whether Microsoft can strike a responsible balance—one that honors both security innovation and the broader social contract it holds with its global user base. In the end, the question is not just what’s best for Microsoft, but what’s best for a planet already groaning under the weight of digital waste.
Source: TechRadar 'It's obvious that users are frustrated': consumer rights group accuses Microsoft of not providing a 'viable solution' for Windows 10 users who can't upgrade to Windows 11