There is one area where Satya is better leadership-wise. The success of Microsoft in the long term ultimately depends on its ability to run a good engineering o

There is one area where Satya is better leadership-wise. The success of Microsoft in the long term ultimately depends on its ability to run a good engineering organization. Everyone at MS knew Ballmer was never an engineer, so he had very little respect from the engineering rank and file. His brash, business oriented personality and the lack of "filter" did not help matters. While it is true that customers largely don't give a shit who runs Microsoft as long as it's run reasonably well, Microsoft employees (and prospective employees) do care, and the ability to attract and retain them is the cornerstone of Microsoft's continued success. I saw a post in another thread that suggested that former enlisted men do better as officers than people who were never soldiers. The same is true here in terms of people leadership, if not the vision.