I witnessed the Mac vs. PC wars, and endured my share of slings and arrows from clueless EvangeListas who assumed that I was running Windows, or made silly proclamations like "Linux is a CLI". Let the kids run around until they're all worn out.
I can tell you exactly why I bought a Windows PC, why I bought an iPad, why I bought a Palm VII, why I prefer a fountain pen, and why I prefer vintage cars. My 1960 Olds Super 88 is a better car than most made today. Some will disagree, but so what? I still have to qualify my reasons or I become an Olds Fanboy.
Or why I bought a Triumph running on Virgin Mobile or before that, a Zio running on Cricket. You would agree with my reasons if you are reasonable and not a bloody fanboy. You would disagree if I simply stated a Zio is the best phone made or an iPad is the best tablet out there.
Take my Zio for example. Large screen, high-end (at the time, and for a no contract carrier) and no contract. The only reason I am considering an iPhone is because the IPhone 5 will arrive on Cricket in November, they say, and no contracts.
My work phone will be a large screen Android device. It is the best choice because of the large screen. The only deciding factor, by the way.
Therefore, anything smaller is not a good choice and my Galaxy will be the best phone available. For me. Probably the only phone on the market I will consider. Yes, the Note is larger but I do not want a mini-tablet.
My unqualified statements would breed unqualified retorts and progress suddenly stagnates. I can tell you why my choices are better, clearly and logically. I can say my choices are better because I only have to deal with my needs.
The problem is, some people make general statements, like Apple is better than Android or Linux is better than Windows. For them, perhaps. Some people posting to forums are clueless and reactionary. They source Wikepedia and that copy and paste becomes their expert opinion.
I have preferences for many old things and my reasons are valid. For me and sometimes, for legitimate and demonstrable technical reasons. The problem is, some people disagree and that is sad. They confuse facts with ideas and that is never good. they have buyers remorse or they were clueless when they bought what they bought.
There are things that are clearly superior, period.
Take the old Hassleblad Superwide. The lens was theoretically perfect. No way to make a better optic. So that was my first choice for a WA 120 camera. It was a terrible choice if I could not afford to spend the money and an even worse choice for those looking for a 120 camera in the sub-$500.00 range.
I cannot say an 8 x 10 camera is better than a digital camera without qualification. I can say it is better for technical reasons that likely mean very little to you or other AF members. Just my tripod alone weighs 40 pounds without the fluid head. It is made from oak and cast iron. Add a huge camera, a few heavy lenses in a huge shutters, a focusing cloth and a few dozen film holders, and I should probably rent a mule.
Add to that, a darkroom, the need for large printing equipment, huge trays holding gallons of solutions, a big water bill, and careful working conditions . . . film and cameras of this size is the worst possible choice for most amateurs.
The tripod was designed for holding professional 35mm motion picture cameras in a sound blimp. It was a monster and a terrible tripod for most people.
When you need a picture of something for an eBay post, a film camera "sucks." For me, there are no other choices for some things like landscapes. Large format film is better for many quality related reasons, but it is the worse possible camera for other reasons I do not care about.
Lots of things are better based upon my opinion, and many things are clearly better, period, by any standard you want to apply. You might not agree, but then, you would be wrong. The trouble starts when people disagree without knowing what they are talking about.
Lots of that going around.
Fortunately, I do not have to worry about others, just little old me.