You basically have to break the installer to get it to work, which supports my point that the limit is an arbitrary way to exclude PCs made before a certain date from the next version. There is no technical reason MS can't allow old hardware to work and no marginal cost to Microsoft to chose to do so. Like I said, while I don't expect them to support everything forever, Microsoft also made their bed with their illegal business practices that got us here and hordes of malware infested EOL'ed computers are everybody's problem now. They shouldn't be adding to that problem for arbitrary marketing reasons.

I'm not against to fixed support periods, but they really ought to be minimums and not halted based on arbitrary dates, especially in the consumer space where these machines will run whether they get patched or not.

Slippery slope fallacy much?

This already happened during the last big Windows-on-ARM push w/ Win8. UEFI secure boot was required enabled on all new hardware but no requirement for user-added keys. It didn't overtly restrict Linux (on MS's part) but several manufacturers did lock down their devices. I don't see any reason why that won't happen again. It's the norm in the cell phone and tablet ecosystem (which is a damn shame, but there may be hope on the regulatory front w/ right to repair laws gaining steam.)