I was not talking about personal preferences, but about the different philosophies of the manufacturers you pointed to. Every Windows user can install Chrome and even if they all did that, it does not change the fact that IE was the default for way too loooooooong.
By the way, I'm not familiar with Office 2007, but it seems it's been receiving a good number of updates, many of them critical (I'm also not familiar with MS classification for their updates). It would also seem that even if it ran on Windows 10, that would be with no support from MS.
I'm still using the version of Office for Mac that was released in October of 2010 (Office 2011), today in 2021 (just like some people skip Windows 8 and both Office 2010 and 2013). So I will be hitting your 11-year mark this coming October. Apple has been using Intel processors for a good while now and 32bit apps could run until Mojave (including Office 2011). That said, I would be careful about glorifying the fact that someone can run a software from 11 years ago "as it came out of the box", just like I do not recommend running software that is unsupported. Yes, some will consider running Office 2011 a "feature" that Catalina "broke" in October 2019, making abstraction that end of support for 32 bit apps was announced in June 2017 and that Office 2016 (released in 2015) would let them make that transition.
Bottom line, if you run something that you need for your everyday work, be careful about being part of the early adopters for an OS, regardless of the platform. Same thing for a new version of a given software, even without changing your OS. Your mileage may vary, but I feel that for most users, apps are getting updates from the manufacturers to account for those type of changes. If there were not enough people who were comfortable with that model (both consumers and application manufacturers) Apple's model would collapse. Is it making everyone happy? No, but they do so because there are enough people who are ok with that. Objectively, I think making 64bit apps a standard was a good thing. Big Sur is introducing changes, but in all fairness, what "breaking changes" can be attributed to the OS vs the change in the processor architecture for the machines running M1 chips, I am not the one who will attempt to draw that line, and yes, I will wait a fair bit before I consider running that hardware. It does look like Rosetta can give some people a decent mileage on non native apps. But as you have mentioned, Intel is not going out of business, neither is MS. Everyone has a choice and I do not doubt that a good number of people may have gone from Mac to Windows for the reasons you point to and other reasons on top of that.
Looking ahead and tying back to the article @harvest shared, I am curious to know what will be the next breaking changes Apple will introduce that will force people to upgrade, because in all honesty, with a product lineup that uses the same processor all around, and an OS that can run apps that were developped for iOS, it would seem there won't be much to justify rewriting apps. For those who like to customize their rig, Apple will not be the right choice, the environment will risk getting boring, but in terms of stability, boring is usually a good thing. I'm simply curious to see where we will be in 5 years from now.
Some of this might have been applicable when they went from PowerPC to Intel, thinking it would be easier to take Windows apps and bring them over to Mac. Looking back to the Intel era, bootcamp and virtualization aside, I remain somewhat disappointed that projects like Wine did not lead to a larger number of windows applications running on Mac. So I don't want to get my hopes too high about what M1 brings. But from where I stand, it does look promising.
I'm glad that you got a great experience when changing your Windows OS and that leads you to claim that it just works. A quick google search simply leads me to believe there are some who would disagree with you.