Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 19:00 UTC
Permalink for comment 554435
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-05-19
I'm not even sure that Microsoft wasted that much money on Windows RT.
Remember that Microsoft announced the ARM port shortly after killing the Itanium build. They were already paying these people to maintain a port for an unpopular CPU architecture, so why not have them target an architecture that was actually popular?
The bigger investment was probably Surface. But a lot of the R&D was shared with Surface Pro.
In a lot of ways, Windows RT came "for free" along with the other stuff that they did.