@Charlie Clark
Microsoft indeed made money hand over fist, but only on Windows, Windows Server and Office. Pretty much all the other businesses they tried to enter were money losers. Basically Ballmer was handed a cash machine by Gates, and he kept that cash machine functioning, but to say he did a good job as CEO you have to ignore not only all the billions wasted on failed acquisitions but the further billions he burned on failed reactionary attempts to enter huge new markets he saw others were successful in.
During his tenure Microsoft never lead the way into any new markets, instead he lead from behind and lost money trying to follow others in search, online advertising, social networking, consoles, music players, smartphones, and on and on. Shareholders would have been better off if Ballmer just ignored what everyone else was finding success in and worried only about Windows, Windows Server and Office.
Think of all the money that was thrown away pursuing those failed attempts to enter new markets, the failed acquisitions, and all the money spent on all those employees working with those failures who contributed only red ink to Microsoft's bottom line. Not to mention slowing Windows' momentum after the success of Windows 7 thanks to ruining the UI with Metro. All to add a touch interface to support the money losing mobile efforts (one can argue Surface Pro is successful in a way that Windows Phone and the original Surface have not been, but that isn't because of the touch support - it is successful precisely because it can be used as a traditional PC running traditional apps without touch!)
He was probably one of the worst CEOs of the century so far, simply because he was handed the most valuable company on Earth with its primary businesses still growing at a good clip, but he managed to fritter away a conservatively estimated $30 billion in shareholder value.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
