A site called "Live Science" has posted a "Top 10 Revolutionary Computers
." This was obviously written by someone who doesn't know a lot about what makes a computer significant, beyond advertising.
The TRS-80 (aka the Trash 80)? The latest IBM parallel monster? Give me a break. These were all reruns of well-understood concepts. Nothing new. They listed the Alto, so why list the Macintosh?
Where is Seymour Cray? His work doesn't even make the list. The CDC 6600 should be there, though a less astute person could at least list the Cray 1.
Where are the minicomputers? The PDP-1/8/11, et al, may have been little more than a reconstruction of the old SAGE (Whirlwind) architecture (as was the IBM 701-704-709-7090-360), but it paved the way for microcomputers. The minicomputers provided a practical demonstration of how software can wipe out hardware shortcomings to solve smaller scale problems.
Oh, well. Ten is an arbitrary number anyway.