Woody Leonhard has stated several times in the last few months that he cannot think of a single non-security update that has been of benefit to Windows 7/8/8.1 users in recent memory (I think he said a year).
While I am no expert, I have reviewed all of the proposed updates for my two Win7 machines since early October 2015, and there was not one non-security update that tempted me. After futzing around with a blacklist of updates for a couple of months, it became apparent that the better course was simply to reject all non-security updates.
In fact, the whole notion that those of us who decline non-security updates are somehow missing out on ongoing improvements to our software is completely implausible. Why exactly would M$ do anything to improve the functionality or usefulness of older version of Windows when they are desperately trying to induce, cajole, and trick users to change to W10?
And what is it that we users of older versions want from M$, other than security updates? In my case, I just want them to leave my Win7 alone. It works. I'm not looking for improvements. I got what I paid for and am not looking for more. I'm not some welfare case dependent on M$ to keep me functioning, much as they would like to change that.
I'm surprised that M$ has kept its commitment to provide security updates as long as it has, and would not be shocked if they started quibbling about how long they will continue to do so or threatening to charge a price for the service. They're going to get to that subscription model one way or another. And in truth, if the price and terms are reasonable, it might not be the worst resolution. It would be the statesmanlike, wise thing for M$ to do: Stop hassling customers of older versions, and offer to support those versions for a charge after an initial support period ends. Legally, the exchange of consideration brings the bargain into focus, where the user currently faces gross uncertainty as to what M$ policy will be.