e, so you're a Microsoft upgrade technician. Wow, can I help you out? Which way did you come in?"
-holt
Through the window of course.. 
___________________
-Stoic Joker
Then the quickest way out would presumably be ... defenestration?
But seriously, there would seem to be a lot of business sense
for Microsoft behind their pushy approach to converting the existing installed bases/populations of Windows (i.e., XP, Vista, Win7, Win8, Win8.1) to Win10, however, this would seem to have little to do with
user requirements. User requirements probably don't figure too much in Microsoft's thinking.
From a user perspective, the question should probably more properly be:
Does the user want or need to upgrade from AS-IS to a new TO-BE state - e.g., to one of the newer OSes up to and including Win10?My response would probably be along the lines of: If you are happy using WinThing AS-IS at present, then don't upgrade, unless you feel it would be necessarily useful to first upgrade the PC hardware to (say) 64-bit and jump to the OS that would be most suitable/current to support that hardware. However, would that jump support all of your existing main applications? If not, then stay as you are in AS-IS for as long as you can continue to support the AS-IS state and as long as it is cost-effective and not holding you back in some way.
Following that path of reasoning, the user may decide, for example, that one of the other interim OS versions - i.e., rather than Win10 - might best suit their needs. So, for example, an XP user may decide that moving to Win7-32 would be their best option as it would leave them with a better, more stable, and still currently supported OS, and mean they could continue using all of their existing applications without problems, whereas moving to Win10 would force them to upgrade their applications as it was not backwards compatible and did not support their existing applications. With these sorts of complex considerations, one could map out an array of choices in a condition-action table.
But where it has a monopoly, Microsoft doesn't necessarily
want or care to accommodate those sorts of cases, as it doesn't suit their optimum cost-efficiencies and profitability to do so, so that option for the user is effectively going to be squeezed out by persistently pushing/forcing the Win10 upgrade path, even though it might not necessarily be backwards compatible or be the best option for the user. It's
the best option for Microsoft that is important in this.
IBM invented this kind of Win-Lose/Trample game and were monopolistic past masters at it, setting the standards, as it were. Microsoft have the excellent IBM model to follow, and have been pretty good at it so far. They are just being a good corporate psychopath.
