Opcode wrote:That's hogwash as mobile processors are perfectly capable of running all Win32 software. The only difference is allocated time to complete a said task of a said software. Per example it's going to take a long while to encode a movie on a Atom compared to a desktop i7. The mobile industry is making it's move to x86 and we will see a lot more use of Win32 software on mobile devices as time passes.
A totally irrelevant paragraph. 
When Microsoft took the plunge into the tablet market just a few years ago, they not only stripped down their operating system to the lightweight, now-defunct,
Windows RT, but they also went with an ARM-based processor; nVidia's
Tegra.
Today, their new Windows Phone 10 is also another stripped-down version of the full Windows 10, and the processors that they have been using in their
Lumia line of phones, including the latest 900 series, have all been ARM-based.
x86 processors have been notorious power hogs, but Intel have been doing their best to catch up with the competition. Among their latest offerings is the
Atom x3, which is an x86 SoC processor, aimed at the mobile market. Even so, it's said that this processor would not be able to directly support Windows in desktop mode.
The truth of the matter is, the Win32 architecture is simply too big to be efficient on lightweight mobile devices, with many aspects of the API being resource-hogs themselves.
Microsoft knows this, and have thus introduced the Universal Windows Platform in a bid to eventually unify platforms efficiently. UWP apps must be built atop the Windows Runtime, and can only utilise a small subset of the Win32 API.
On the other hand, the full-blown Win32 API is still available for desktop-specific development.
So, to reiterate,
apps written on the current Win32 API simply would not run on lightweight mobile devices.
Opcode wrote:Android and ARM are both already being pushed out of the tablet ecosystem by the blue giant Intel w/ help from Microsoft.
Utter nonsense. iPhones and iPads utilise ARM architecture in their processors. The same go for Samsung, LG, Lenovo, and many others. Even Intel themselves utilise an ARM graphics core in their latest
Atom x3 processors. And so far, Microsoft have not supported them in this category.
Opcode wrote:...I would rather have a Windows tablet running a x86 microprocessor and a full fledged version of Windows.
After the recent demise of Windows RT, all Windows-based tablets only run full versions of Windows on x86 processors.
Opcode wrote:...it's only a matter of time until companies like Qualcomm cannot beat what Intel is offering ... Intel lost $4.5 billion dollars last year investing into the mobile ecosystem.
No; they lost big in an unfair contra-revenue scheme, trying to undercut the competition by subsidising manufacturers who use their processors.
At just one-sixth of Intel's value, ARM is currently worth about $25 billion. However, they are a 25-year-old purely IP-based company with exponentially smaller overheads, and an army of leading manufacturers licensing their designs;
Intel included. It is pretty unlikely that their stronghold on the market would be undermined anytime soon, especially since they have been able to weather Intel's offensives thus far.
Opcode wrote:There's a ton of variables as to why Microsoft went with WinRT for their universal applications (primarily because if its uarch support) but also for hardware acceleration and other aspects that Win32 simply does not offer.
Microsoft did not
go with WinRT; they specifically designed it. And logically, they would have implemented improvements and new features, especially in line with their intended direction, which is a more resource-efficient architecture that would perform well in lightweight mobile devices, and also better-integrate with their managed development languages.
Opinions are really great, and always welcome. But please know your material before refuting others, and spewing poppycock all over the forum.