The "XP situation" happened because Win7 sucked. You do not get to release an awful, backwards "update" to your software and then expect that people pay you for it on the grounds that you also can't be bothered to keep updating the old, good version.
We have lost sight of the fact that software, operating systems included, is supposed to serve the consumer. Users choose to upgrade because there is a better version available. Developers demanding that users upgrade because, well, gosh, that's just what you do, is backwards.
Microsoft's decision to not charge for the Win10 update was a step in the right direction, which they promptly reversed by nagging and abrupt, involuntary updates.
The "XP situation" was not because Win7 sucked. Win7 has always been considered a successful and better upgrade to WinXP. I think you are thinking of Vista.
We have lost sight of the fact that software, operating systems included, is supposed to serve the consumer. Users choose to upgrade because there is a better version available. Developers demanding that users upgrade because, well, gosh, that's just what you do, is backwards.
Microsoft's decision to not charge for the Win10 update was a step in the right direction, which they promptly reversed by nagging and abrupt, involuntary updates.