The MSX, MSX 2, Amstrad CPC and Enterprise all had better hardware and ROM software but they came out later than the C64 (fall 1982), which by then already had lots of games and dominated the market sales-wise. As today, we buy computers and choose operating systems based on the software we want to run. Which would you buy? The system with the most software and the most software currently being made, or a system with somewhat better hardware but little software available?

When the C64 came out, it had the best graphics and sound, but not the best ROM software. I wouldn't even say it had an operating system. It was really just a small, simple KERNAL with some system calls. It didn't have a very good BASIC either, and couldn't auto boot. It was essentially a video game console with a keyboard and a slow floppy drive so parents would think it was a computer. It didn't even have a proper backward compatible upgrade path. The C128 and C65 aren't backward compatible with it, they have a C64 mode.

I had a VIC-20 and then a C64 in the 80's but looking back now, I'd rather have had an Atari 800/XL/XE. The graphics and sound were almost as good but it had a real OS, custom DOSes, and lots of interesting programming languages available for it. But I, as many others in software and IT today who got started with Commodore computers, couldn't afford the Atari or Apple systems so I am grateful Jack Tramiel made computers for the masses, not the classes.

I don't think anyone argues that specific c64 hardware designs, like how the video chip steals CPU time, were all that brilliant. The 6510 chip has some strengths and weaknesses compared to the Z80-based micros. Most micros beat the c64 on filled polygon 3d graphics for instance. But the c64 had the best sound by far of the 8 bit micros, even those very late models that you mention.

The Amstrad CPC 464, 664, and 6128 didn't have hardware scrolling or sprites, but the 464 Plus and 6128 Plus did, making them more comparable to the Commodore 64 and 128.