This is a work in progress (new machines inserted as I go along and recollect). ‘My’ is what means to me and is primarily a ranking on hardware capability with ‘fun’ being the deciding factor between adjacent entries. A good example of this is the comparison between Amstrad CPC and MSX, the MSX had sprites so it just pips it on that aspect of hardware, but you’ll generally get way more fun out the software on a CPC (IMHO that is).
- C128. It’s a C64, but it has more memory, a Z80 and runs CP/M. No seriously this was a great machine because it was a C64 with extra things. The problem is that it didn’t sell and largely what it should have been used for went under utilized. This was a great 40 column games machine, with 80 columns more for more serious stuff but unfortunately going underutilized given you needed a specific (potentially second) monitor.
- C64. If the C128 is 1st, the C64 is second. Graphics – yes a bit blocky and certain colors from the palette are a little ‘depressing’…but the games looked good for the day and of course…SID chip for sound. I never owned one of these as a kid, but truth is, C64 + a disk drive could easily have worked out as my home setup for my hobbies and gaming just as well as my Amstrad CPC did. The downside against the CPC…lack of 80 column mode (so I would’ve wanted a C128 and the 80 column second monitor). I’d have liked to have used CP/M too. Truth is, it’s not worth comparing against the CPC though. It’s #2 because it + C128 are the only hardware I would say is actually better than the Atari 800. The VICII chip is better for graphics. The SID is the best for sound. Note I say best and better. Better is because it’s best in class. Best is because there just isn’t any competition – the SID chip stands on it’s own as well all know.
- Atari 800. I’d put ‘400’ here too, but the keyboard wasn’t great which would drag the entry down a long way. If time were the judge, Atari 800 would be #1 because what was achieved with the 800 in terms of it’s gaming hardware was way ahead of it’s time. In fact, even if it were invented later than it was…it’s so good that it would still be just behind C64/128 in rankings as is. For it’s timing, there was nothing better than this system available, but the C64 VIC-II and SID did go onto inching this from the top spot.
- Sam Coupe. I had to include this ‘never really got off of the ground’ system which being a late 80’s machine is quite advanced. In terms of what it can do, it possibly does outrank what’s immediately above it but you’ll get more out of #1, #2 and #3 than you will a Sam Coupe and I think it’s graphics chip, while having met more demanding resolution and colors option of it’s time, does not necessarily outrank the earlier technology. It needed sprites.
- Amstrad CPC 6128…given the expansion and peripherals I always thought of this as the Z80 version of the BBC Micro, but with an AY sound chip. Great games and you either love the bright palette or you don’t. I loved it.
- MSX. Z80,TMS9918,AY – what’s not to love. The TMS chip has sprite capability but overall I don’t think this plus outweighs the CPC’s colorful bitmap screen modes.
- BBC Micro. Great 6502 system, with good modes TMS sound. An AY would’ve been better, as would hardware sprites.
- ColecoADAM. This is a weird one. This is a home computer version of a ColecoVision. It has the same TMS graphics chip as the MSX. TMS sound chip though. Great games, but generally Coleco games failed to advance the TMS chip as much as MSX did. As far as being a home computer goes, it had great tape drives and CP/M. An issue with the tape drives means tapes were easily wiped though and the system was not popular. It’s a great shame because this SHOULD have been a bigger hit.
- Tating Einstein…actually really is a Z80 BEEB IMHO.
- Spectravideo SVI is more or less an MSX, but other computers just did all this better.
- Enterprise 128. Nothing wrong with it, but as per above other computers did what it can do bigger and better.
- C16/+4 was a 6502 machine, with the C16 version held back by lack of RAM and overall a limited range of software. But for the C16 RAM, the hardware is better than the Spectrum due to the color and improved sound. Had the RAM issue been solved, chances are this machine would’ve still been overlooked largely due to the size of the software library on competing machines. If the timing was right and Commodore didn’t already have too many options, I kind of think the +4 could’ve worked.
- TI-99/4A. I really should rank it higher due to the TMS9918, but I can’t…16k. No, seriously with more memory this is a kind of ‘MSX Coleco’. It was a 16-bit CPU, so it technically breaks the rules, but overall it’s just not up to the job.
- Camputers Lynx. This seems like the right place for this, but it’s the hardware pushing it further than the fun factor does.
- Acorn Electron. Hardware potential over the Spectrum due to slightly more colorful and number of colors per 8×8 square.
- ZX Spectrum. Gaming classic. Hardware-wise it’s limited, although there were later versions with the AY sound chip. People would stone me for putting this at #16 given the great that it is, but remember I am trying to rank based on hardware. The Speccy is a king when it comes to software and gameplay.
- Amstrad PCW. Look, it was a business machine with green text on a dedicated monitor so the colors weren’t there and neither really was the hardware, but it was the best CP/M machine the world ever saw and it did have some good games ported to it. Now if this didn’t have the screen resolution it did, it would rank below Dragon 32 though.
- VIC20. More colorful than a Spectrum but very limited in terms of base memory and hardware.
- Apple II. An expanded Apple II might rank a bit higher and they were considerably expandable and the range greatly improved upon during a die hard and fanatical lifespan. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the Apple II, I just don’t think it’s better than the machines I’ve ranked above and that must hurt anyone who notes I’ve put the Spectrum further up.
- Tandy/Dragon 32. Better than the Spectrum in some ways due to color. Games tended not to use these modes though and they didn’t have as much supporting software.
- Oric 1 and Atmos. I have a hard time putting this below Dragon 32, but I think the Dragon was more successful in terms of market and software, which does increase the fun factor. Actually, I knew one person with an Oric 1 and NOBODY with a Dragon 32, but I think most of us would’ve likely bought the Dragon if given the choice, although I am partial to a bit of obscure assembly so the 6809 swings it for me.
- Sord M5. Actually I don’t know much about this other than I was fascinated by them based on it being one of the computers on the front of one of the first computer magazines I read as a kid. I do vaguely know that it wasn’t a bad machine, but it wasn’ t popular or well known. Despite the fact I would’ve still liked to own one, I’d have been disappointed if I didn’t have a better machine. There are plenty of better machines.
- Mattel Aquarius. ZX81 with color.
- ZX81. It’s classic.
- Jupiter Ace. It’s ZX81 with Forth more or less. I like Forth, but you can have way more fun with a ZX81 game wise. Out of the two I would probably prefer to own the Ace. I do have a modern PCB version I still have not built.
- ZX80. It’s great a what it was designed to be – a cheap kit. It did start a trailhead blazed by others. It is notable but there was better stuff floating around the Homebrew Computer Club.