"Your problem there wasn't running XP machines with a public v4 address, it was failing to put them behind a working firewall. Moving them behind NAT wasn't necessary, you just needed that firewall."
the implied point is that NAT _IS_ a firewall. And there have been KNOWN vulnerabilities with Micro-shaft's "firewall" running on the same PC it's "firewalling" (because their vulnerable code is still "listening" even if you 'firewall' it). And do you REALLY want a firewall appliance that is capable of filtering and routing multiple IP addresses? That would be FAR more expensive than a simple NAT router that does the same job at a much lower cost (especially for a business with fewer than 10 employees).
besides, the ENTIRE POINT is the total unnecessary use of IPv4 blocks. What, you'd want this just so you can have a public IP address on a workstation? It is POINTLESS! And, it's a built-in security problem. 'Wannacry' etc.
If you need a fixed IP address because you run web services, that's different. But for nearly every OTHER use of the interweb, NAT is preferable for IPv4 anyway. Large blocks of IPv4 addresses assigned to major corporations who are NOT doing cloud-based services or hosting are just an excuse for them to hang on to a limited resource until it's profitable enough to sell.
All of this should be obvious, though. Hence THAT icon.