>
"the argument that ARM support requires a move from .Net really doesn't hold water."I would draw a thick, dark line between managed .Net and "legacy". When people talk about legacy Windows code, they're talking about those massive enterprise apps running front ends written in VB6/MFC-era code. Those are the ones that Microsoft has to push to the curb in Win8 [1].
That said, any number of .Net tricks to enable legacy behaviors will likely pose roadblocks for particular apps. So some .Net incompatibility will be at issue as well.
> "but based on this exactly what should the authors commit their investment to"
I'd imagine the question Microsoft is grappling with, is which versions and parts of .Net they can reasonably support. Though I'd be surprised if anything they recommended in the last five or so years that wasn't supported.
That said, anyone designing an enterprise replacement in the last five years, who did so as anything other than a web app is likely out of their gourd [2].
[1] i.e. live on in an XP-mode style ghetto only on Win8x86
[2] Sure, some of have some steep client requirements that rule out web apps. But that's a tiny minority amongst enterprise apps. The overwhelming majority are workflow/database interfaces.