I simply stated something that was published on many technical websites in December 2013. I do not have access to the gathered sales information to prove if it is right or wrong. How is this my fault? Even that link states this is the case. For example:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428789,00

http://www.dailytech.com/Chromebooks+Capture+21+Percent+of+2013+US+Notebook+Sales/article33985.htm.asp

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/12/29/chromebook-sales-surge-in-2013-to-21-of-all-notebook-sales/

Funny enough your link supports my point so many thanks, the percentage may be debatable but what I said still stands.

Extraction from YOUR link:

Still, Chromebooks could develop into yet another threat for Microsoft, which is facing trouble on multiple fronts, including -- as the progress of Chrome OS shows -- desertions by its most stalwart partners.

There is nothing debatable about the percentage.  The way you put it is factually wrong.  I provided a link where the author of the oft misquoted statement slammed news outlets for not reading fully and accurately reflecting what he reported.  Still defending that is an even worse look.  You should just be mature about it, apologize for spreading incorrect information and move on.

That extraction is still speculation.  That's what the world 'could' denotes.  Plus I'd still like to know exactly what stalwart partners of Microsoft are deserting them...

Haha!! Apologise?? This a gaming forum. It's not a court of law. It's not a place of work. It's not as important to me as it is to you.

Apologise for reproducing information on a gaming forum put in the public domain by publications? Don't make me laugh. I am not going to loose sleep over this.

Of course the extract is freakin' speculation. So was my statement. What? You thought it was factual?

Your initial link quoted the author as saying:

"Chrome had a fabulous year," said Baker, talking about Chrome OS, not the multi-platform browser by that name

However, he never gave hard figures. Without figures it means nothing.

Nokia reporting a steep fall in phone sales a couple hours ago is now more of a worry to me. Oh, but this me being biased again and spreading false information.

Enough of this. Time to move on.

I guess this is the case. Windows PC sales keep dropping as more and more people satisfy their everyday entertainment needs with smartphones and tablets. A quick game here, some browsing there, maybe a song or movie now and then... Windows are less needed day by day.

Call it a personal knack, but I think Valve felt this wind of change and thought they could use it to their advantage by issuing a new OS. If Steam OS was to come with every new PC (call me Steam Machine) then they could dethrone Windows.

With Windows 8 failing hard, situation is going to worsen.

Actually, the OP was asking if WINDOWS is still the cashcow it used to be.

And the very obvious answer is of course: No. Microsoft has long realized that they will sooner or later loose the OS war to Linux, simply due to its versatility. (Already today, 2-3 times more devices running Linux are being sold than device running Windows) That's why Microsoft started diversifying many years ago, they soon realized their cashcow is not going to be around forever. In recent statements they actually hinted that they intend to be more of a hardware/services company than a software company, because they know that Windows will be dying out. (My personal prediction is that they will actually give Windows away for free in a few years, but that even this step will not stop the inevitable)

Windows will die very slow though. The only segment where Windows is still relevant is classical, x86-based desktop PCs. And in this segment, Windows will stay king. The big question is: When will classical, x86-based desktop PCs die out? Probably not within the next 10-20 years.

Nice to hear that somebody's saving money with the new Office model. My org (education) paid $50 per user to license a version of Office in perpetuity, which means we enjoy the luxury of deciding whether the next version is even worth upgrading to, and we have skipped versions in the past. Now Microsoft wants to sell us a 4 year sub for $80 which we'll have to renew whether the next version of Office has worthwhile features or not. That's an increase in price and a decrease in value.

I'll admit, Microsoft's deal is still pretty reasonable, especially compared to what Adobe is doing. $20 a year per user is chump change even with our ever-dwindling budget. But this software as a service trend digusts me and strong-arming customers into subscribing is anti-consumer. It's an attempt to take the upgrade decision out of the customer's hands so there isn't even a need to provide a meaningful upgrade. I intend to hold off buying into it for as long as I can, and so far, the SaaS model isn't offering anything my org can't live without.

I think you're wrong about Office alternatives, though. Advanced Office features are very valuable, but only to a minority of users. Just look at how much penetration iOS and Android are getting in enterprise with effectively zero Office support. Look at how little traction Windows tablets are getting with full Office support. The vast majority of users simply have no use for mail merges or Excel macros, and if file compatibility with Office alternatives is good enough, there's a risk that Office license purchases will start slipping until they only cover users who are really using those advanced features.

MS is doing fine.

You're going to have to hit me with citations if I'm going to believe you over Forrester, Citrix and Good.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304244904579278560822979176

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/28/citrix-details-apples-ios-iwork-lead-in-enterprise-adoption

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/26/apples-iphone-and-ipad-models-claim-top-5-slots-in-enterprise-device-activations-for-q4