From a sales pov, the company also grew and prospered. Microsoft had phenomenal growth while under Ballmer.
It's easy to remember all the things he botched (hello iphone?) but if you look at it objectively I think Ms did survive and prospered under Ballmer.
If you look at it objectively you include all the things he botched, which are "easy to remember" according to you. At best, he was meh. In my personal opinion he was horrible - I think a random employee likely would have done better.
One wonders how the future of civilization will work if the vast majority cannot even understand the true scope of the wheels they’re standing on, or turning in the background.
I thought we were assessing him as a CEO, not an employee. Sure, he contributed before, and during, being a CEO. And obviously everything is speculation since we can't A/B test hypothetical timelines. But the numerous anecdotes of his "unique" management (if some of the stories are true, which I cannot verify, the guy should get sued for harassment on multiple counts), the fact that he missed obvious opportunities for MS (sure it's easy in hindsight, but even then I remember thinking "what is he doing?"), and the fact that Microsoft's reputation plummeted during his reign (again, subjective, but none of my friends wanted to work there and openly mocked it as an employer and that has completely changed under Nadella) are all strong signs that he wasn't an excellent leader.
But ultimately this is just my opinion, and he's a brilliant (I think he's a horrible CEO, but a very talented mathematician) billionaire. So what do I know?