I’ve often heard that the reason Windows has suffered from bloat and so much has been built on top of ancient underlying technologies, partially to ensure compatibility with old software.
If something like Windows 11 requires specific hardware in order to install it, why does it need to accommodate compatibility for archaic devices/software?
Would it not be preferable for Microsoft to start from scratch with an OS that is considerably more efficient and cut-down for newer devices, similar to something like Apple’s MacOS transition from Intel to Apple Silicon, and just provide security updates for the legacy operating systems that would be in use on un-upgradable hardware?
Enterprise customers depend on legacy stuff that you haven’t heard of. And there’s enough of these 800-pound gorillas in the room that pay for enough of Microsoft’s bills that they have to listen to, that they can’t cut it. A behaviour bug from 2002 is actually used by, say, JP Morgan’s trading department as a critical part of their flow. Until you’ve worked on IT in one of those megacorps, it’s hard to fathom how much spaghetti and dominoes can be in one company.
Also, the legacy stuff is literally decades of work and knowledge so unscrambling it is not really feasible.
They can’t nuke it because of the customers that rely on it. Microsoft’s job (and that of all vendors) is to cost less than a migration to another option.