Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I still use my iPad Pro 12.9” (2015) every day, and it is fast enough and eminently stable in doing everything that I want to do. Eight years is a good run, but I can’t help but think this is an attempt to force an upgrade at a time before the natural end of life of the device.

I will keep on using the device as long as the browser works, it just means that for some things like my taxes and my online banking I’m going to shift to other devices.
Running iOS 12 on my 9.7-inch iPad Pro (same processor, the A9X). Works perfectly fine as far as performance goes (almost, a nearly imperceptible decline from iOS 9, but it’s acceptable), and significantly worse battery life (around 20-25% worse, or a 3-hour SOT loss), but far better than iPadOS 16.

I can confirm that the browser is, for now, mostly okay. By this I mean, as long as you’re happy with the current performance and battery life of that iPad, it will probably be fine for many more years.
Agreed. iPadOS 16 supports iPad (2017) with A9/2GB, but iPhone 7 (A10/2GB) doesn't work. The excuse this time from some people was the lock screen "needed" a neural engine. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple pulled the same stunt with iOS 17.
My own theory is that Apple dropped A9 and A10 iPhones solely due to battery life. It’s unacceptable on iOS 15. I reckon iOS 16 was unacceptable even for Apple’s paltry standards. iPads, with larger batteries, are able to withstand it a little better (even though they still suffer). I wouldn’t be surprised if iOS 17 repeats this.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.