Windows 10 will require a paid subscription for security updates starting in 2025

[Redaktion]

Windows 10 will no longer receive new features from the second half of 2022; Microsoft will continue providing monthly security patches until October 2025. Anyone wishing to use the operating system after this date will be asked to pay for further updates.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Windows-10-will-require-a-paid-subscription-for-security-updates-starting-in-2025.779617.0.html

[Vaardu]

Making Linux more favourable by the day.

[NikoB]

The majority of the population does not care about these patches that slow down both the processor and the OS. Business is a separate issue - whoever really needs it will pay. Formally, M$ has committed to support the LTSC version until 2029. So browsers will support W10 until 2030 - and most of them don't need anything else, with rare exceptions. And then it doesn't matter at all - by that time the majority of the population and business will already be forced to replace the hardware due to its wear and tear. Moreover, new hardware is many times worse in reliability (including due to the subtlety of the technical processes, without taking into account the increasingly widespread vile practices of introducing accelerated artificial aging methods into products)

[Hunter2020]

Biggest joke of the century.  I only approve WinXP/7/8.1 to go online.  Windows 10/11 I have kept permanently offline.  How or what need I have for security updates?  Fully waiting for Huawei Harmony OS for PC to kick Microsoft to the curbside for good!

[NikoB]

Do you know what these "security patches" look like, if we draw an analogy with the car market?

Remember the Dieselgate (Volkswagen) scandal in the USA?
What happened there? Volkswagen violated environmental standards in real engines, during real driving, and underestimated emissions in tests.

When they were pinned down, what could they do - reduce emissions, right? What happens to an engine that is forced to meet these standards? Bingo - the torque and overall peak speed of the car drops sharply. It got to the point that Volkswagen agreed to pay large sums of money to some buyers for turning their fast cars into pumpkins.

It was an international scandal, right?

But what is surprising is that processor manufacturers (together with OS manufacturers) constantly engage in such fraud - the buyer buys a processor with one performance, before the "security" patches, and then suddenly it turns out that it is up to 50% slower with the "patches".

Don't you think that most of these patches and updates are probably contrived and fake - just to create a reason to slow down the old series of processors in order to constantly sell new hardware? Especially when the performance growth curve per 1W becomes more and more flat and there is no reason to change hardware over 10 years...

[NikoB]

It is necessary at the legislative level to oblige processor manufacturers (and OS, if they also influence) to pay penalties to customers in all countries, without exception, in strict proportion to the slowdown of hardware due to their fault.

[Logoffon]

Someone's gotta make a bypass patch to get  those updates for free just like what happened on 7 and 8.1. I'll wait.

[indy]

Do you know what these "security patches" look like, if we draw an analogy with the car market?

Remember the Dieselgate (Volkswagen) scandal in the USA?
What happened there? Volkswagen violated environmental standards in real engines, during real driving, and underestimated emissions in tests.

When they were pinned down, what could they do - reduce emissions, right? What happens to an engine that is forced to meet these standards? Bingo - the torque and overall peak speed of the car drops sharply. It got to the point that Volkswagen agreed to pay large sums of money to some buyers for turning their fast cars into pumpkins.

It was an international scandal, right?

But what is surprising is that processor manufacturers (together with OS manufacturers) constantly engage in such fraud - the buyer buys a processor with one performance, before the "security" patches, and then suddenly it turns out that it is up to 50% slower with the "patches".

Don't you think that most of these patches and updates are probably contrived and fake - just to create a reason to slow down the old series of processors in order to constantly sell new hardware? Especially when the performance growth curve per 1W becomes more and more flat and there is no reason to change hardware over 10 years...

Do you have direct evidence you can point to that shows significant slowdowns in a system across a variety of hardware types based on security/etc patches?

Is Linux or Android or OSX somehow immune to the same performance hobbling?

[The Werewolf]

This NOT new!

This is Microsoft's SOP for each verstion of Windows. In fact, it even applies to specific versions of each  major version. Businesses (Microsoft's main source of revenue) tend to hold onto older versions for far, far longer than conumers do as they verify that the new version works with their existing hardware (a HUGE issue with Win11) and with their LOB software (also a problem). Some businesses just keep going with the older versions. I mean there are businesses out there will running WinXP!

Microsoft has to eventually draw a line in the sand as supporting old versions cost them money but at the same time, the number of customers using an old version drops to the point where it's just not worth the effort... and so to give companies that still want support, it converts to a 'pay for support' model.

It's frustrating reading bloggers presenting this as some nightmare new thing Microsoft is doing to torture people who won't upgrade to Win 11, and it suggests they really don't know their subject matter.

[A]

Microsoft has to eventually draw a line in the sand

People simply forget Win10 will be 10 years old in 2025.

[ikek]

Microsoft has to eventually draw a line in the sand

People simply forget Win10 will be 10 years old in 2025.

Windows 11 was originally a W10 Feature update that went under the codename "Sun Valley", just before Microsoft decided W10 wasn't meant to be the last Windows release ever. Aside from that, there was also W10X (which kind of leaked on Windows 10 Mobile with C-Shell).

By this, what I mean, is that there's more difference behind the scenes between W7/8.1 vs 10, than 10 vs 11.

So, no. W10 is not 10 years old. We aren't talking about Version 1511 (which is long forgotten). Each W10 "release" could be seen as a "versioning" release that kept things "Fresh". Only the name stayed the same.

Either way, this will make businesses consider moving to the Cloud, or, drop Windows and finally jump to Linux altogether where possible.

[A]

So, no. W10 is not 10 years old.

It literally is 10 years old in 2025.

[NikoB]

ant slowdowns in a system across a variety of hardware types based on security/etc patc

Search for Meltdown/Spectre patches to start...and keep digging until 2023...the funny thing is that this crap came to light exactly when Intel started having problems with technical processes and performance that I predicted back in 2015, and Zen came out, which forced them to take some "actions" in order to continue selling goods with smell...

[NikoB]

And here's a new "vulnerability" - www.youtube.com/watch?v=EufeOPe6eqk

=)

Quickly grab your wallet and run to buy a new computer! Because in the old PC, no one manufacturer will update firmware. =)

The funny thing is that all these "vulnerabilities" are in reality deliberate backdoors for intelligence services. And when they "reveal" another "vulnerability", it means that these guys have already found a bunch of other ways to have you in every crevice... )))

[Toortle]

So, no. W10 is not 10 years old.

It literally is 10 years old in 2025.

It literally isn't. 22H2 update was released on October 18, 2022. Now how do you find 2025-2022 to be 10, I won't ask. But I will tell you that your quoted claim here is identical as saying how macOS is literally 22 years old now in 2023.