[spastic]

The commodore 64 totally beat the Apple II line of computers back in the day. Whoever made this list didn't make a simple mistake here by excluding the C64 computer. The TRS80 is on the list but not the C64? This doesn't make one bit of sense.

[glider03]

The TI 99-4A was a dream for a lot of us. It's modular style was captivating. I saved up to get one and was heart broken when TI dropped it (which for TI was problably a great idea also). But I think it should be listed in the top 25 because of it seemed so promising and tangible (affordable) at the time.glider

[vintagecomputer]

The Apple ][ shouldn't even be the number one Apple machine more or less the number one machine of all time. It's certainly a top ten box, though, which is a good thing.There are some in your top 25 that wouldn't make a reasonable top 100 list and many in your "also rans" that belong in your top ten.Of course, this is just an opinion piece (as is my response) but by making the scoring a black box you're hiding some important information.

[glider03]

The TI 99-4A was a dream for a lot of us. It's modular style was captivating even though you had to use your own color tv and cassette recorder. I saved up to get one and was heart broken when TI dropped it (which for TI was problably a great idea also). But I think it should be listed in the top 25 because it seemed so promising and tangible, ie affordable.glider

[Georgnjop]

With all due respect (sic) the guy who posted the responce "your list is incomplete......" obviously can't count. I counted the list twice and there are definately 25 computers there making the list IMHO, very complete.

[tigger]

My first PC was also one of my favorites: the original Nec Ultralite. I bought one used in 1989 for $900. It weighed about 4 lbs, which was remarkable for the time. However, the most remarkable feature of the Ultralite was that its main storage. It had an external floppy drive, but no hard drive. Instead, it used a 2MB battery backed ram disk. To save space, DOS 3.3 was stored on a ROM chip. If you could survive with only 2MB of storage floppies, this machine was remarkably usable. Because it was all solid state, this thing was, in a sense, screaming fast. The OS would load completely within a couple of seconds of turning on the machine. I've never owned a machine since that one that could boot anywhere near as fast.I had wanted to get a Mac. The Macs were light years ahead of DOS PCs in 1989. However, I needed a laptop. There was no good Mac notebook, certainly not one weighing 4 lbs, so I ended up with the Ultralite. Almost 20 years later, I'm now finally using a Mac notebook.

[RustyAlaska]

In 1983, the school I attended bought 10 different computers for the Math/computer lab. I remember programming in CPM and not DOS or MAC. This first exposure allowed myself to continue in the field for companies in Alaska--both domestic and international.

[myoung]

Too bad you didn't mention the two Wang PCs. They put a friendly user interface overlay on DOS that made tasks like deleting files, copying, etc. simply a menu choice. Also, these computers used 8086 chips that performed considerably faster than similar systems from say IBM. The screen displays were also notably better than those of competitors. There was an extra pixel top and bottom so ascenders and descenders looked much more crisp and readable. When you wanted to underline text, you didn't have to waste a line of the screen doing it because of the extra pixel. In short, Wang produced superior PCs in many respects (oh yes, the keyboard was even better and the monitors were more trim and nicely designed, too. You see I could go on and on.) I used to write software and sold it for less on the Wang than on any other platform simply because the support was substantially less. Killer machines for their day.

[bpatton]

While I enjoyed your article, I think you missed the 1st and 2nd PCs of all time. After having owned almost all of the PCs mentioned among the top 25, I feel you missed the point. The top PC was and is the IBM PC Model 5150, the one that started it all. Before this all were experimental orfun to play with. The second one of importance was the Compaq Portable, the beginning of the Laptop > then the Portable > then the Notebook. The Compaq Portable started it all. How do I know? I sold them all...Thanks, Bill Patton - Hewlett Packard

[vnyx]

[quote name='spastic']The commodore 64 totally beat the Apple II line of computers back in the day. Whoever made this list didn't make a simple mistake here by excluding the C64 computer. The TRS80 is on the list but not the C64? This doesn't make one bit of sense.I agree. The C64 got me into computers. It had to have the biggest influence on the largest number of people since so many were sold. It should at least be in the top 10.

[vnyx]

[quote name='bpatton']While I enjoyed your article, I think you missed the 1st and 2nd PCs of all time. After having owned almost all of the PCs mentioned among the top 25, I feel you missed the point. The top PC was and is the IBM PC Model 5150, the one that started it all. Before this all were experimental orfun to play with. The second one of importance was the Compaq Portable, the beginning of the Laptop > then the Portable > then the Notebook. The Compaq Portable started it all. How do I know? I sold them all...> > Thanks, Bill Patton - Hewlett PackardYes! Where is the Compaq Portable!!!!!!

[endicott]

I have no problem with your choices. My route was just different. My first computer was a Sinclair (not timex) Probably, because I told my wife that no young punks were going to make me obsolete. Iwas 32 at the time. Sinclair had a terrific Basic Program. Soon I felt the allure of the C64's terrific RAM enhancement. I then went to the C128. Phenomonal Memory and an outboard floppy disc drive. This was my first useful computer. This held until COMPUSA opened in San Diego. The grand opening had a deal. If you bought a 386, you got a barebones 286. I kept upgrading the puppy until the form factor changed. I then changed motherboard and case and switched cards. When something new came, I just added features and OSs.It's like havig the same knife for 20 years, just two different handles and three separate blades.The romance of the P.C. is you can always have what you want There are no seminal moments.

[webmastermike]

Ypu missed the Everex Step computers that raised the bar for all PC's that folowed.

[SuperBrain]

This list is complete nonsense. For example, if you are going to describe home computers as "PCs" you have missed the Commodore 64 and ZX81; two computers that really did make a huge contibution to home computing. However, this does not surprise me given my past experience with PC World.Incidentally I have a collection of vintage computers that includes all those on your list and more. If you want real facts about these machines, perhaps you should ask those who know?

[rmgzshd]

The US is undoubtedly the largest PC market but it is stunning parochialism to miss the Sinclair computers ZX80/ZX81/Spectrum and the BBC micro from the list of 'greatest' PCs. These were innovative and affordable. Missing the C64 too is strange too. The modern home computer and games market was born on these computers.

[Raffaele]

@ PC World crew:Counter of messages is mangled.It miss the real number of comments on the main pages of the article.Also javascripts are messed up.Sometimes clicking on SUBMIT had no response at all or just reload whole page without any further action and without saving the message in the forum page.Be careful with it.Ciao,Raffaele

[Raffaele]

@ ALLSee also the twin article at PC World about the 25 worst tech products of all time http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125772-page,1-c,techindustrytrends/article.html

[kingu]

I'm sorry, but editors and 'experts' continually discount the impact the C-64 had on the world of computers, a critical error that I believe will never end. The article puts the Apple // at the top of the list and skips this cricial piece of equiptment. That's just plain wrong.Yes, there were games for the C-64. What of it? Is this a reason to ignore it? Absolutely not.Probably the most critical innovation that came from the mass marketing of the C-64 was the 300 baud modem, and later faster versions. Were it not for the C-64, we would probably still be posting on CPM boards. Even this forum owes great credit to the C-64's invalable modem.WWIV boards introduced tens of millions of people to the concept of forums, of direct communication through a computer to another human being. Quantum Link, the first major commercial system for the masses became the heartbeat of AOL. All of which wouldn't have existed without the C-64.Beyond, the C-64 opened the door to the home for computers. While the TI/94a deserves a strong nod, it wasn't until the C-64 that most people were introduced to the concept of putting a disc into a drive. The C-64 and PaperClip probably had the biggst impact in destroying the market for home typewriters. Even without dropcase Y's and G's, it was the C-64 that brought the printer into the home.While schemes for prevention of illegal copying existed on other systems, it was the C-64 that matured the market. It was also that illegal copying that drove the ever increasing speeds demanded by computer users for telecommunication networks. 300 baud was great for reading boards, 1200 baud was better for making a copy of a program. And it was also the C-64 that introduced the planet to downloading software, legal and illegal.It was also the C-64 that gave birth to real mass marketing of magazines such as PC World. Without that huge base of homes that owned C-64's, there would not be computer magazines in your neighborhood market.If it wasn't for the C-64, a lot of people would never have thought of their computer as being a source of music. They would not have driven the demand for better graphics on Dos (and eventually Windows) PCs without the C-64's color graphics.The C-64 is a grossly undervalued machine for what it has brought to the market.

[Louie]

My first computer was a Commodore Vic-20. It was really not a great computer at the time but one could type in the game program. At that time it was great to see the game worked after hours of typing and saving it in a cassette tape. A special mention on this computer would be right.

[wh5916]

[quote name='foo2']The C=64 and Vic 20 were just primative atari 800's, Just like the 400, 800xl and 130xe don't appear, neither should the Vic, C64, or C128. They were all 6502s, with limited memory for the home market, released at the same time. The apple II was definately revolutionary enough to be almost a replacement for them all, except that the atari and Commodore computers had better graphics.Lumping the C64 and Vic20 together is no different than lumping the Atari 8 bit computers with the Atari 2600 game system.Granted, the early C64s looked as if they had been assembled in someone's garage...but, in some ways, the graphics were far superior to the clunky player missile graphics that were part of the Atari 8 bit line. The audio chip far surpassed the Atari as well.More importantly--Commodore, under the head of Jack Tramiel, made home computing affordable for many people. Jack Tramiel also made it affordable for me to own a complete Atari 800XL system a few years later, once he took over the company and brought prices of the 8 bit line down. The C64 doesn't deserve the top spot on the list, but its contributions to the world of home computing shouldn't have been ignored. It should be in the top 50.