There&#x27;s a lot of stupidity here (or perhaps one might charitably call it excessive glee, or even plain old clickbait), but it&#x27;s been a long time since 95% of computers ran Windows, if that was ever true in the first place.<p>You&#x27;d have to start by defining &quot;computer&quot;.  If we use a technically reasonable but broad in journalism&#x27;s terms definition of &quot;device containing a CPU with integrated MMU&quot;, then we&#x27;re including every mainframe, server, desktop, laptop, smartphone, tablet, industrial control system, laser printer or multi-function document management system, router, network or storage switch, storage system controller, sound mixer, and countless other devices.  A very small and diminishing fraction of those machines run Windows.<p>Even if you limited the definition to include only things we traditionally think of as computers, namely mainframes, servers, desktops, and laptops, Microsoft&#x27;s market share is something like 30%, though it&#x27;s very difficult to measure and once again subject to definition; see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Usage_share_of_operating_systems" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Usage_share_of_operating_syste...</a>.  And again, that&#x27;s been declining for a long time.  Even the most generous interpretations that include only desktops and laptops don&#x27;t get you to 95%; you can narrow-definition your way up to about 90%, and that assumes &quot;market share&quot; includes copies that were made in violation of license and&#x2F;or law (and thus for which Microsoft received no money).<p>The reality is that Microsoft is a niche player, not because they lost a market they were previously winning but because that market itself became a small part of something much bigger, in which Microsoft was never especially competitive.  As noted by the author, they&#x27;ve been investing heavily in changing that, but the early returns aren&#x27;t much to talk about.  Windows Mobile&#x2F;Phone is a complete dud, Surface is a weak seller despite recent improvements, and Azure is at best a very distant second in IAAS (see <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.datacenterknowledge.com&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;28&#x2F;gartner-aws-pulls-further-ahead-in-iaas-cloud-market&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.datacenterknowledge.com&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;28&#x2F;gartn...</a>).  What&#x27;s remarkable is not that Microsoft is doing so poorly but that they&#x27;re the only enterprise computing company that even appears to be trying.  I think that&#x27;s what the author was expressing.  The characterization as &quot;fucked&quot; comes from Ashlee Vance and should be given the credibility one would assume considering the source.  There&#x27;s little question that most of these companies&#x27; positions of relative importance are in decline and have been for a long time.  But some, especially Microsoft, still have enormous sums of cash and businesses that are continuing to generate more of it.  However irrelevant such a company is, it&#x27;s still a long way from going out of business.  Conversely, no amount of cash is a substitute for organic sales growth.