The instant-on nature of a supercharger appeals to me, but I think at the end of the day I still prefer the lighter weight, improved efficiency, and conceptual elegance of the turbocharger. Plus, once once fast-spooling VGT turbines start to become more commonplace, it'll be hard to think of a reason to pick a supercharger over a turbo.

Obligatory: <img src=http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll149/rgonzalez1211/huge_turbo.jpg>
So my vote for turbos…

There is a certain aural enjoyment in a supercharger that a turbo cannot match but in all other aspects, I prefer the turbo. I've owned three different factory turbo cars but have never owned or driven a supercharged car.

My turbo experiences were little (in the 1.8T A4 and the S60R) and although they were nice they can't beat the S/Cs (RR and E55). I've been in a Cayenne Turbo also and, although it was faster than the RR, I didn't like it. SC FTW!
<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5009/5375323054_21db3b7625.jpg"/&gt;

Nothing beats the pure impracticality and utter awesomeness of an '80s Porsche turbo suddenly punching you in the back at 3800RPMs.

[youtube ATigVqeECoQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATigVqeECoQ youtube]
Super, all the way

<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5088/5731724122_d1f23555a3_b.jpg&quot; width="500">
In this installment of Ways in Which the KV Mini 1 Just Ain't Right, we learn about the fuel system. Although the carburetor is naturally aspirated, the fuel itself is delivered via supercharger. The crank-driven fan (G) forces air simultaneously into the fuel tank (D) and the top of the sight glass (H), although in this case the 'glass' is merely a length of translucent flexible tubing. This drives the fuel towards the side-draft carburetor (F) via the fuel line (C), further assisted by gravity. A special fuel filler cap (E) forms a tight seal to minimize loss and, if necessary, acts as a blowoff valve.
Figure taken from page seven of the KV Mini 1 owner's handbook.

It depends on the application.
For a diesel, a turbo just belongs there. There's so much heat energy that otherwise would just go out the exhaust, so it makes perfect sense to reuse the energy and compress the intake air to make the engine more powerful and efficient.
For a hoontastic kind of gasoline engine, my preference is displacement, but I liked the Eaton M90 applications like the 3.8L GM's and the T-bird SC where they were able to make a V6 perform about like a naturally-aspirated V8 of the day. It seems these days you get a turbo if you're getting a blower, and I'm OK with that in a performance car; the turbos have come a long way from the silly carbureted setups and such that we had to deal with in the '80's.
What I'm most skeptical of is turbo gasoline setups on cars more toward the appliance end of the scale. I'm sure the turbos are better and the engine oil chemistry also has improved, but I'm still skeptical that your typical Cruze/etc. customer will allow adequate runtime before shutdown for proper turbocharger cooldown after hard running or in high ambient temperatures.
Edit: also a random comment WRT "Each of those is worth growing like 30 chest hairs – or if you’re a girl, not growing them": when my sister and I didn't want to eat part of supper, my Dad would say something like "eat it, it'll put hair on your chest". My sister would object, so he would amend it to "it'll put chest on your chest" for her.

Both!
http://www.ausmotive.com/images2/VW-Polo-GTI-01s….