I just gotta add this gem off the front page...
Hence the confliction, Dashel. On the one hand, they don't want cross-OS support between the different UIs; however, non-x86 tablets are underpowered compared to their pricier (and x86) relations.
I've made plain that if I were to purchase a tablet, it would HAVE to be an x86 tablet (with a dockable keyboard). The reasons why those two are musts are rather straightforward -
1. I HATE virtual keyboards. It's not unique to iOS or Android, as I have equal scorn for the VK in Windows as well. (Considering that I come from a clerical/secretarial background, such scorn should not be news.)
2. I'd rather NOT change my application just because I change form-factors - basically, the opposite of those that loathe ModernUI.
The second of those is where the anti-ModernUI posters and myself really differ - they think that the form-factor decides what sort of application fits, whereas I beg to differ. My largest pool of data is historical in nature, and covers more than a decade, and comes from Windows use on laptops, notebooks, netbooks, AND desktops. Are there applications (that are not customized for a specific brand of portable PC) that are ONLY usable on portable PCs? Amazingly, the answer is, in fact, no - and it's been "no" going back to the days of "luggables". One rather surprising use for the early luggables comes from Microsoft's old Business Systems (now Windows, but before Windows, Business and Personal Systems) Group - which was responsible for Windows NT for workstations and servers - the luggable server. And I'm not talking Windows 2000 Server or Server 2003, either - but NT Server 3.5/3.51. That's right - Microsoft's supposedly most-hostile-to-portable-computing operating system could indeed run, quite happily, on a luggable. Basically, so much for pigeonholing. Before seeing that, I would have quite easily been in that camp with the anti-ModernUI crowd. However, I had seen that prior to the launch of Windows NT 4 Workstation and Server - which brought yet more usability to not just running either on luggables, but ushered in the era of the laptop and the portable (as opposed to luggable) workstation and portable server - therefore, such form-factor-biased computing had no chance of taking root. The form-factor is irrelevant, and hasn't been relevant for longer than most have cared to admit - operating systems in general, and Windows (if not Windows NT in particular) has been more than capable of trainwrecking such thinking - how has it held on for so long?
If portable servers can exist (and I've given data that they have been existing since, at least, NT Server 3.x) - why is it that ModernUI applications have no place on desktops?
Such form-factor irrelevancy is part of why Windows (especially since the death of Windows 9x with the birth of Windows XP and the completion of NT's takeover) has been likened to the Borg (rather amusingly, the reference came from the Linux-distribution fanbase - what makes it amusing is that most Linux distributions share the same qualities of form-factor-irrelevancy as Windows NT long has) - given how long in the history of Windows that irrelevancy has existed, the nomenclature does, indeed, have merit. However, what was the original target of Windows NT in particular - a target shared, in fact, with common-ancestor and progenitor IBM's OS/2? UNIX - specifically, AT&T System V and the licensees (including Solaris - if anything, Solaris was the largest blip on the NT-OS/2 radar). How did Windows NT, in fact, supplant UNIX in both workstations and servers, and eventually supersede DOS and Windows 9x in more ordinary computing? It refused to let itself get hemmed in by such things as form-factor bias - as long as the hardware requirements were satisfied, the form-factor was not an issue. Solaris (and in particular, Solaris for x86) was certainly capable of going round for round with NT - Dave Cutler (who was at DEC and a co-creator of Digital VMS) certainly thought so, and so did many Solaris user groups - even those within Sun Microsystems itself. However, Solaris got hobbled by internal politics within Sun (specifically, the over-reliance on SPARC), just as IBM's mainframe and systems business tied down OS/2.
Still, given what happened to Solaris and OS/2 as a result of their internal hobbling, why would anyone want Microsoft to repeat such a mistake? The very reality that they did not make such a goof is, at least in my opinion, the biggest reason that Microsoft in general, and the NT code base in particular, is where it is today. And that (also in my opinion) is why the Start menu had to go - it introduces form-factor bias where none has existed, especially when you are ADDING new form-factors.