@xgamer: WinRT was created because of the bloated nature of .NET and Windows as a whole, watch this video http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Charles/Inside-Windows-8-Martyn-Lovell-and-Elliot-H-Omiya-The-Windows-Runtime
Microsoft also choose this so they could lock people into using the Windows App store, that is why no resources hitherto have been spent
@versuvius Thanks for pointing to a great video. Though I had not watched that video, I had read a few articles explaining that tried ( not in so much detail but somewhat similar) explaining the need for Window RT.
I am all for Windows RT for Windows App store and eventual move of most applications including desktop to Windows Touch based products ( as I mentioned in my original post ).
What I fail to understand, why Microsoft did not try to port .Net and its runtime to ARM/Windows RT, when as they mentioned in the video itself, there is/was a very dedicated developer eco-system around managed development and MS spent a lot of 2000s promoting it. I can understand difficulty of making low-level x86(com/c/c++ etc) apps compatible in totally different CPU architecture, but .Net was managed and the advantage it carried was that it was base-architecture agnostic.
So instead of having Surface RT - which as per the normal retail sales agent/normal user a Windows which does not run anything from windows though it has desktop, it atleast could have been a Windows that ran "newer" managed applications and would have been attractive to business users.
Microsoft could have saved millions from "re-imagining" their apps to run on long-battery life, energy efficient "Windows" device . (Here I agree with many LOB and even consumer facing applications developers, that not many businesses including in SME/large sector re-imagine their applications every time a new OS version arrives).