Did any of the complainers read the full story linked on the list page? They give a bit of reasoning for the computers they picked. They also give a list of 25 "near-greats." Unfortunately, PC World is definitely an American-centric magazine, so the BBC Micro isn't on the near-great list, either.
From the full article:
No single characteristic makes a computer great. But we managed to boil down an array of winning qualities into four factors, all of which happen to begin with the letter I.
Innovation: Did the PC do anything that was genuinely new? Did it incorporate the latest technology?
Impact: Was it widely imitated? Did it become part of the cultural zeitgeist?
Industrial design: Was it a looker? Did it have clever features that made using it a pleasure?
Intangibles: Was there anything else about it that set it apart from the same ol' same ol'?
IMO, the C64 fails the
Innovation part. It was really just a souped-up Vic-20. OTOH, it definitely had the
Impact part down (mostly due to its cost at the time). I'll bet there's still more professional game programmers that got their start on the C64 than any other machine.
