AMS> I really think you have an unreasonable requirement for your OS to run on ARM hardware. Users who are unaware of the internal workings of a computer really aren't bothered by what processor is under the hood. Having a different processor to everyone else is not a marketing point; it's largely irrelevant unless it provides some other inherent benefit (such as low power consumption for example).
I am aware of what a GUI is, and I fail to see the point you are making regarding a consistent programmer's interface. The Win32 API is also consistent.
You seem to be overlooking everyone's point simply because they dare to suggest we shouldn't be using ARM processors. I'm not talking about emulating RISC OS, I'm talking about reimplementing its best bits elsewhere (see stoppers' explanation). I think this is the point you are missing. The whole x86 vs native ARM speculation is irrelevant.
I'm not bearing in mind what's best for Linux/Windows users because they're not part of this debate.
Finally, what are the enherent(sic) problems with the x86 architecture? I'd be interested to hear what they are.