> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>> In article <gtdhfb$ccq$1@xxxxxxxx>, "DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Windows NT ran on MIPS, PowerPC, Alpha and x86.
>>> In fact, it ran on MIPS first. The x86 version was a port. Cutler
>>> did that on purpose--he knew that x86 would probably be the most
>>> popular, so made sure they developed it first on something else.
>> How did Gates let Cutler get away with that?
>> Also, the Alpha was a port done to help settle a lawsuit with DEC, from
>> whence Cutler fled, IIRC.
> That seems to be the general consensus.
>> I suspect quite a lot of people would buy a $100 "PC" whether it ran
>> Linux or not.
>> Do you believe that Microsoft has the will and the manpower to do
>> an ARM port?
> There's already a version of Windows that runs on ARM. It's not the full
> retail XP but the basics are there and in place.
Why not call it what it really is?
It is Windows CE. A poorly supported bastard version
> If MS wanted to support
> the ARM processor they easily could since it's not like they're starting
> from scratch.
And still have no applications ported for it. So the poor schmucks having
been browbeaten into buying such a machine can hope to play minesweeper.
And not much more
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species