[deanhills]

[...] ... I know that no everyone upgrades it's pc every 1,2,4 years but if Microsoft wants to innovate... [...]

We have to ask ourselves here @LightDestory.  Why does software have to be innovated so that new hardware has to be purchased, particularly given environmental concerns.  Why can't the innovation happen around hardware that is still in good shape and has a long life left.  Mind you some of the hardware manufacturers - particularly with phones - have been building hardware that only lasts for a few years.  They call it built in obsolescence.  For me this whole "innovation" thing is to keep feeding the greed of Microsoft, not only to make a simple honest buck, but to make billions of which the beneficiaries are your shareholders.  The rest of the world say "thank you" when the Microsoft share holders donate a buck or two, but in the meanwhile a good portion of the world population is living in poverty with no computers.  Some of those who could afford to get an old computer that was in good shape, may find it out of date soon and unable to be used the Microsoft way.  

I'm all for innovation.  But keeping the environment in mind.  And also not enriching only a small part of the world at the expense of every one else.  Yes, it's OK to make profits.  But Microsoft is going for greedy profits. I don't know whether you've noticed how much more controlling the OS has become with Windows 10?

Moreover, Windows 10 will be supported until 2025, so there are another 4 years of support for people that will not upgrade their pc. Will someone change it's PC on a 11 year time span? Probably.

I absolutely hated Windows 10 when I tried it out.  Particularly the fact that Microsoft has taken complete control over one's computer.  If you check the discussion groups on the Web you'll find millions of tutorials of how to opt out of updates, how to turn off features, how to basically retune Windows 10 so that it isn't as invasive and controlling as it is.  It's a leaky sieve of security holes that requires layers and layers of updates, so much so that you have to have much greater specs, but not necessarily for innovation only, but to deal with those updates.  If those updates were beneficial for you specifically, then I could understand.  But the update packages are for updates of features that people don't even use because they are globally implemented regardless of what your specific needs are.  And all of it shrouded in IT speak and mystery in the name of "innovation" and "security".  

I am not blaming deanhills himself ... but why complain about this?
I mean... Apple deprecates it's own pc after some years, there are Apple's machine stucked at Mountain Lion or older because they don't get the upgrade to the newer OS. Why no one complained to Apple? 

Apple falls in the same category for me of maximum greed at the expense of the environment.  One wrong doesn't make another wrong right.

Microsoft did an amazing job with their OSes (XP, Vista........, 7, 8..., 8.1 and 10), which support A LOT OF HARDWARE. Now, for the first time, Microsoft tries to put new minimal requirements and all the web is crying.

 Well I'm glad then I'm not the only one feeling this way.  

Again, I don't have anything against innovation - I'm all for it.  But the way it's done is for making not millions but billions in profit that only serve a few if you take the world population as a whole.  Why be a slave to Microsoft?  Which in essence this is all about.  Create software that they absolutely control, so much so that people have to be certified to manage it and pay for those certifications as well.  And then if that is not enough.  Change software so that new hardware is needed every time.  So their hardware friends would score major with sales, and of course carry the new OS on that hardware.  Well done Microsoft!