New versions of Windows may be necessary at times, but only if they are clearly better and offer substantial improvement. Just because something is new and has mostly cosmetic changes doesn't mean it's a worthwhile upgrade. The ideal upgrade is one that needs to be done for operational reasons, not on a whim or due to greed.
Define better. Define substantial improvement.
Performance? Sustainability? Usability? Uniformity?
I don't see how you can say the requirement for TPM and Secure Boot are cosmetic changes. If it were just
cosmetic, then there would not be a limitation on hardware supported.
The way I see it is that Windows is trying to make one OS for all devices (
again. Apparently they didn't learn the last few times). Easier than maintaining different versions for different types of devices (IoT aside, we've not talking about embedded systems).
How many people were up in arms when Vista came out, then 7, and they were adamant that XP was perfectly fine?
How many people were up in arms about Windows 8, then Windows 10, and they said 7 was perfectly fine?
It's the same argument over and over again. Things change - people don't like the changes. People are vocal about it.
How ticked off would people have been if they had released Windows 10 21H1 and said in order to install Windows 10 21H2 you have to have an 8th gen or higher Intel CPU / 2nd gen or higher Ryzen / ThreadRipper CPU in order to install 21H2,
plus TPM 2.0
and Secure Boot enabled, other wise you're stuck on 21H1 for 4+ years?
They couldn't mandate that in the same OS. It had to be done in a new OS.
Even if it is fluff, or smoke and mirrors to make people 'feel good' about security - it's what they have chosen to do.
