Yes, I think going private was a good strategy for Dell because there is so much drama and havoic going on at wall street it almost puts more stress on the company so I think it was a good idea for themto go private before they lost a good portion of their business over all this.
While many might view his decision as going private unprofessional, there are many positive sides to him choosing to go private. Chiefly among these, is his freedom to take his company where he wants it to go. When you are "on the market" you are beholden to all of your investors. However, when you are a private company, you only have to follow your own decisions and the decisions of your business partners.
Michael Dell's strategy in taking the Dell Computer Company private was an excellent choice for the company and it's future. To have the flexibility and access to financing necessary to make the company a leader in the current IT environment being private without accountability to shareholders and profit demands was necessary.
For many, if not most, tech start-ups, going public is the ultimate dream and in many ways the final marker of a successful venture. If your company has reached the size and scale of success required for a public listing on Wall Street, then you must be doing something right. Yet on the other end of the scale, for a struggling company, going private can help solve a lot of problems, which the situation with Dell illustrates quite nicely.
Since the mid-2000s, they've been losing money. Admittedly, they've tried transforming themselves to become an IT giant throughout that time, but acted too late, seem addicted to having PCs be their biggest economic driver, and let most trends pass them by. Michael Dell is comparable to Steve Jobs when working for Apple before the board fired him in 1985. Then, after 12 years of the departure and two other ventures, he came back, and there existed a big contrast between him in this tenure and his last as a leader at Apple. Michael Dell spent the past decade, taking the public's shareholder's money, not giving profit in return, and seemed as if as long as he's being paid by them, he has no problem coming to work. To be fair, he's not nearly as bad as Carly Fiorina, (or the "anti-Steve Jobs") who basically had no plan for Hewlett-Packard but get rich at whatever expense possible, whether it be by way of layoffs by the thousands, wage theft, etc. Michael Dell simply had Silver Lake come and buy them so he doesn't have to live up to Wall Street's expectations and hide from it's critics. That's why Bloomberg get's "I miss nothing about being a pubic company" as their response.