You'll probably respond by saying that Microsoft is only doing what I authorized them to do on page 34, paragraph 8(c) of the EULA. At which point the only response I can offer is, "Fool me once, shame on me."
I'm not arguing that Microsoft should be selling 1992 Corollas retrofitted with 2016-tech-level features; I'm arguing that it's the owner of the '92 Corolla who gets to decide whether, when, and how it should be upgraded or replaced. Toyota doesn't get to make that choice just because they manufactured the car; the owner of the car gets to make that choice. That's what ownership means.
If I own the computer, I get to decide what software I'm going to install on it, and that means I get to decide whether, when, and how to update it. Neither Microsoft nor any other OS maker gets to make that decision, because they do not own the computer in question.
At some point Microsoft has to make breaking changes to Windows XP. Simple service packs won't suffice. Airbags, three point seatbelts, electronic fuel injection, variable valve timing, these are all modern conveniences that people expect in a car these days. Things that are very hard to retrofit into an old car without redesigning the platform at a core level. Sure, a 2016 and a 1992 model are still Corollas but it's hard to argue that Toyota should still be selling the 1992 model retrofitted to include all of our modern needs.
The argument here is "Microsoft should still be patching Windows XP." Should Toyota keep retrofitting modern safety features into their old car?