The important difference between traditional RISC and what we have now in either x86 or ARM is the instruction encoding. You have to have a compact instruction encoding or you waste memory bandwidth. That's part of why x86 eventually beat the old RISC designs and that why ARM has the Thumb encodings.

I don't think it's that clear of a victory; ARM is everywhere (and so is MIPS, to a lesser extent) and is commonly mentioned, that much is true, but there are far more ISAs that most people don't hear about in mundane embedded applications (of which there are many) - 8051, 6502, PIC, etc. which are definitely CISCs.

Also the x86 being "RISC-like" internally is a bit of a misnomer - x86 uops are much wider (118 bits for the P6, even wider for later models) than most RISCs' fixed 32-bit instructions. Modern RISCs like the ARM Cortex series also decode instructions into wider uops.

Even the tiny windows computers are RISC machines. Windows NT also dates back to somewhere around 92 and made hardware independence a big deal. Dave Cutler had to fight tooth and nail to keep it in while lots if people were telling him to just build it for Intel.