Why would it be any different than the Windows 7 -> Windows 10 debacle? Disabling entire processor families after it boots into installation and wiped the previous windows.
Likewise the Windows 11 (which is just a rebranded Windows 10, just look at the full build number which should start with 10.x) kernel could boot systems from ~2017 onwards. Maybe with some kernel features disabled which most (if not all) Windows 10 users would not miss anyway, but it could still boot without any issues. Those running a Rufus-patched Windows 11 are living proof of this.
This never was a technical issue, or one which could cost them money, but a cold blooded business decision which generated thousands upon thousands of kilos of e-waste.
And for what?
Because no one on the kernel team likes deleting code, specifically because someone will try to install it on their old ass work laptop from a decade ago.
Microsoft choosing not to support that old ass laptop is a company choice. There are costs involved with maintaining the support structure. Whereas Linux is primarily funded by enterprises who use it on servers, which may not be updated hardware wise in a longer period of time.
If Linus Torvalds or Miguel De Icaza introduce copilot, I swear I’m going to go all in on BSD.
They got a storm of criticism after that announcement, but Microsoft seemingly has not given a single fuck about that and has not backtracked on this decision.
(Just like they technically could have allowed Windows 11 to run on older PCs with some disabled features out of the box, but didn't)