Although it has gotten wave after wave of bad press recently, is Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) really on the ropes in terms of not having a vision or executing a mission? Far from it. Competitors like Apple, Inc. (AAPL) and Google, Inc. (GOOG) have taken the limelight away from the world's largest software company in recent years with flashy products, sales numbers that would make any CEO grin and general rich tech-worthiness in terms of press coverage and upwardly mobile stock prices. At the same time, Microsoft has had one thing go well for it -- the recent launch of the Windows 7 operating system.

When Tom Taulli wrote about Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer's running mouth on Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) being a "one trick pony," it seemed a chance to review the context in which that comment was made and provide my take on it. While delivering an address to Stanford's Graduate School of Business (ironic, considering both of Google's founders graduated from there), he called the web search giant a "one trick pony" that is growing way too fast for its britches.

Fair enough -- and he has a point. Google has skyrocketed from nothing in less than ten years to where it is today, and the company is looking to grow even faster with new data centers, product offerings, media partnerships and acquisitions in the advertising world. Although I can see why Ballmer said what he did, the CEO is forgetting that innovators and newcomers can disrupt a level playing field and turn entire industries on their heads.

It can be argued that Google has done that (to a point). Google has won the internet search war -- and Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO) and Microsoft can compete but will probably never be able to overtake Google. In a case of "too little, too late," the software giant has many solid businesses, but it lost this one.

If Ballmer is right and Google is growing too fast to manage itself -- playing in too many sandboxes -- it sure does not seem that way. Google, in my opinion, wants to get information about anything to anyone through any medium necessary -- while connecting buyer and seller and making money on each transaction to feed its coffers. Is that so big a task? It's huge.

Every time we write a critical post about Time Warner or Microsoft, or expose a negative fact, rumor or analysis, the refrain renews: fire the CEO! Dick Parsons, that lucky guy, gets the brunt of our readers' anger. He's screwing up Time Warner, you've told us time and time again, he should go. So say you of Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, he of the explosive personality, sweaty armpits, and billions in inexplicable operating expenses. Sometimes it's Jeff Immelt of GE, or even well-loved figures like Meg Whitman of eBay.

But usually, it's Dick. Today is no different. With 2nd quarter earnings coming out next Wednesday, and everyone wondering about the company's plans with its AOL unit, Joan Lappin from Gramercy Capital Management demands in the pages of Fortune, "Save Time Warner, Fire Parsons."

It's nothing new, but it's worth evaluating her reasons for the radical battle cry. She argues that Parsons is all about politics (in fact, he's rumored to be angling for a 2009 run for New York City mayor), a skill that helped him avoid perishing in the "shark tank" that has been Time Warner's boardroom for the past decade and earned him credit as being a "Teflon Don," but has failed miserably to maintain Time Warner's legacy as a creative, entrepreneurial culture where good managers were rewarded "generous financial incentives for producing solid earnings growth." Fire Parsons, she says, and maybe that creative culture can be revived.

I honor her passion, and agree that the creative, entrepreneurial company always wins over the political shark tank. But who, Joan, is positioned to take the helm from him? That question must be answered before anyone brings out a block and starts chopping.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer can't get no love. His famous "monkey boy" performance is crazy-popular among those who thrive on poking fun at (and re-mixing) Ballmer's sweaty antics. He's being marginalized as Ray Ozzie and Craig Mundie are groomed to replace Gates (and, we imagine, Ballmer as well) -- and reporters and analysts are jostling to get past him and talk to Ozzie, who everyone seems to adore.

Now the worst possible judgment, from Business 2.0 Magazine. He just doesn't matter. And what's more: he matters less than anyone in business. Ouch.

In conjunction with the mag's "50 Who Matter Now" list (featuring Ray Ozzie and competitive leaders Steve Jobs, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and worst of all for Ballmer's ego, Bill Gates himself), Ballmer headlines the "10 People Who Don't Matter" segment. "Let's face it: The head of the world's biggest software company is a lame duck," the judgment begins.

A lame duck who decides what happens with billions of investors' -- of your -- cash. Somehow, that's not very comforting.

Can you hear us, Steve Ballmer? Can you hear us now?

The answer to the question (asked by analysts across Wall Street, on behalf of the millions of Microsoft shareholders they purport to represent) has been a resounding no. But Ballmer is trying to change all that. Tomorrow morning he heads to New York to present at the Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Strategic Decisions Conference (Strategic Decision #1: presenting at the conference), at 8 a.m., bright and early. Says Michael Holland, fund manager and MSFT shareholder for more than a decade: "What I want to hear is how much he listens." As Ballmer is known for listening with a huge chip on his shoulder, this should be interesting.

Says David Hunter: "This may be a cross cultural experience for all involved." It will be the first time Ballmer has done anything of this kind, and he'll be repeating his performance in Boston on Thursday. We'll be blogging the webcast live.