Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Jan 2011 22:09 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 456185
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 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-09
My suspicion is that Microsoft realised that ARM is a dynamic architecture and if they didn't run with it then ... others would as ARM dominates tablets and potentially other new forms of system.
The key driver here, I suspect, is the consumers who will (asap) become intolerant of anything less than (say) a 12 hour battery life.
If ARM takes less silicon to make and consumes less power then that battery life is easier to achieve.
Microsoft being a massive corporation will have ported NT (all versions) behind closed doors in any case.