I can understand people having personal preferences, but it should be remember that without the Meade/Celestron competitiveness we simply wouldn't have such nice gear available today and at relatively inexpensive prices. Competition pushes innovation after all. Once upon a time, I couldn't even dream about buying an equatorial telescope, as they were so expensive. So ubiquitous are computer controlled goto telescopes today that some have forgotten, or simply don't even realise, how lucky we are to have such wonderfully advanced equipment.
I own a Celestron 8" Nextstar SCT. Is it the best telescope I have owned? No, it isn't now, but it was when I bought it, however, it is still a great telescope.
It was the best available at the time, price vs quality. But as time has gone by and my knowledge increased I came to understand the optical limitations of such systems. There are much better telescopes available, but they have the price tag to match and my bank account simply says no.
Do I still like the Celestron SCT, you bet, but I now like my FLT110 flourite better, but it isn't a fair comparison, as tastes change.
It all comes down to what we can afford and frankly, price vs quality of telescopes today is quite amazing really. We get so much more for our money.
So, I fail to see why there is such an argument as to what is better. They all are, each in there own way.
Assuming that Celestron has similar selling costs (which includes marketing) to what Meade has (
