If you want to add in a note about lost OS/hardware support just from an archival prospective, go ahead. I'm just highlighting that it wouldn't serve any purpose beyond that.
For as much as I feel like you are pretending nobody on earth will ever need that, which imo is a big underestimation of the diverse people "needs".
As for mentioning unofficial OS/hardware support lower than what the minimum specs are, my reasoning is that it would complicate troubleshooting issues if we do.
I'd hardly see somebody with unsupported software cause troubles. trivia: technically even newer (and not only older!) Windows versions count for some developers
I mean, you just politely need to ask him "try the supported XYZ version" and see if things improve.
As for hardware.. Really, I haven't all that distrust in humanity to believe one would complain because his Pentium 4 doesn't run smoothly arma 3.
When a developer states minimum system requirements, they are saying "This is the general configuration we found that allows you to play the game at the bare minimum with no issues. We cannot guarantee stability with older configurations".
Ok, that's how an ideal world would work.
But of course we aren't, and that's why even we need a wiki for fixes in the first place.
Said this, we aren't devs so we don't have to care for "formalities".
Also, as I was saying here (and probably in other rants here or there) there's simply NO criteria devs use to establish them.
Given we bring up this argument then, I'd link to the relevant thread.
Of course, you can try to run the game on older configurations. It might even work just fine, abit with heavy compromise in graphics. But any issues that do arise under such configurations would be difficult to nail down. Is it the person's configuration that's causing the issue or the game itself?
I think you are a bit too much dramatizing the story.
I mean, it seems like we are talking about sorcery or something.
The only reasonable fix I could give in such a situation is "Upgrade your hardware/software".
If that's not something you can workaround, obviously.
If a particular OS/hardware works, but is not officially supported (and not specifically mentioned as an unsupported configuration), it can be listed. It would need some notice along the lines of "X OS/hardware works with the game, but is not officially supported. Stability is not guaranteed".
Once we manage to find a wording for which words "work", "run", "support", "start" can't be misunderstood for something they aren't (e.g.: you can never figure out if "we are not supporting" simply refers to "bug reports & complaints" or literally "exe crashes straightaway") I don't believe all that pedantry will be needed.