TBH, it doesn't take a genius to work it out. If you're using the ARM instruction set, your apps aren't going to run on x86, and vice versa (run nicely, or run at all). Although it's theoretically possible (Turing-complete and all that), the performance hit by doing so would be the same as just emulating the other environment (which kinda makes trying to "save battery" - the least of my concerns with a Windows tablet - a waste of time, because you'll be doing extra work to emulate something else).

The way Apple got around it was to make a "dual-binary", where you could have one executable contain two sets of executable code - one for ARM, say, and one for x86 - and with formats like ELF, this is a cinch. You execute whatever one you can and hope the programmers had the foresight to include both.

But, again, without a recompile, that old version of Office will always be x86 or have to be emulated as if it WAS an x86 program. Did you think MS and every software manufacturer were going to go and recompile every Windows program in existence just so you can run it on Windows 8? And have every business in the world moan that Windows isn't compatible with itself even though MS told it it was? Only MS-controlled and newly-written software would be available that way, and most businesses would rather ditch the OS than be forced down the path of which software they MUST run.

No, they'll produce new programs which *COULD* have run on both but they are deliberately deciding not to, but in two different versions. That way, if the ARM one doesn't work / sell, they can blame the platform. There is nothing stopping them doing what Apple did with newer programs except possibly an Apple patent or two (and the two have a lot of patent-sharing between them, not to mention each owning parts of the other). This way, they get two lots of money from you and/or they can make ARM seem like a waste of time because "it can't do Windows" rather than a new market they could swamp overnight.

They were never intending to make it work properly on ARM, the same way that the Windows NT ports supported Intel IA-32, MIPS R3000/R4000, Alpha, PowerPC, Itanium, AMD64 and ARM. It's a niche and they rely on third-party applications to sell their OS - they have to keep *some* backwards compatibility and businesses churning out x86 Win32/64 code or their operating system has nothing to live for any more. A lot of money goes Microsoft's way because of the way you "have" to buy Windows on the machine. If they start selling things on ARM, they would have to try to get that same sort of exclusivity / reputation for necessity that they have on x86, and it wouldn't fly.

I have a feeling it would also show up their programming teams because I very much doubt that most of their code would run on different endianness, etc. processors, different memory architectures, etc. because it's just so focused on x86.

MS never wanted to put "Windows" as most people know it on a tablet - they know it wouldn't work for them and cause them more hassle than it was worth, even if they introduced new terminology. People would still want to know why they can't put their ten-year-old copy of Sage on it, and why the OS was bundled with the machine they bought if they couldn't do that.

In theory, there is NOTHING stopping them porting Windows proper to another architecture, including all their top applications, and nothing preventing a situation similar to Apple's Universal Binary, or even just an emulator from doing this job with relatively little effort beyond what they have (e.g. you have an NT codebase on this platform already!). The problem is that it will destroy their marketing strategies - they won't be able to ensure they're bundled on every ARM machine, and if they were, they would get a million-and-one criticisms about how its not as fast as Windows on x86 and why did they let people waste money on it?

>>It's so odd how the people that want a tablet with the functionality of a real computer are looked at like they're bizarro

Seriously. When I complained on Slashdot that tablets aren't as good as PCs at relatively simple and common things like web browsing, email, and office apps, I got flamed for having my expectations set too high.

Really? I'm not asking a tablet to be able to play DXHR or Crysis or something. My 100MHz Win95 computer could handle email, web browsing, and word processing smoothly. Is it too much to expect a Honeycomb tablet, with its 10x faster Tegra core, to be able to do these very simple things smoothly? Instead, there's weird input lag all over the place and while it works for short trips away from home, I'd never want to be stuck using it for long periods of time.

Maybe.

But if we are to believe this. then MS will have:

• A version of Windows running on ARM (WP7)
• A version of Windows running on ARM (W-8) that looks the same, but runs on slightly bigger machines
• A version of Windows running on X86 (W-8) that also looks the same, and might be installed on similar looking tablets

None of which will run each other's apps, and only one of which is even close to compatible with existing Windows software.

And they're planning to let this loose on the general population?

I'm getting some popcorn. This should be fun to watch.

My 100MHz Win95 computer could handle email, web browsing, and word processing smoothly

Your 100MHz Win95 computer could not handle "web browsing" on today's internet. If you visit plain text pages maybe, but not if you're going to be doing what most people do, which is facebook, youtube, etc.

I doubt your 100MHz Win95 computer could "smoothly" handle a basic news site today.