> But that's also a billion+ users with much slower computers! So you need to compare the harm on both sides. Far more likely Microsoft would be legally expose

> But that's also a billion+ users with much slower computers! So you need to compare the harm on both sides. Far more likely Microsoft would be legally exposed due to a skipped patch than a patch that slows machines down. Intel on the other hand, that'd be more interesting. > And then MS could add a switch in Settings for anyone who is concerned. (I realize not many people would find it, but it seems important for the option to be accessible, without digging into the registry or some such.) Any such switch would just be disabled via GPOs by corporate security teams anyway, so what's the point? The entities who would most "benefit" wouldn't even be able to do it.