What do you prefer, turbo or supercharger?

A supercharger is like putting a larger engine into your vehicle and running the a/c all the time (power drain). You could almost think of a 2.4L SC with 7lb boost is just like having a 3.6L engine... ALL THE TIME (including the gas mileage of a 3.6L).
A turbo will act more like a small engine at low rpms and a big engine at higher rpms.
It's power is not completely free. The turbo a little power robbing back pressure and exhaust heat buildup, which some may find annoying.
You will find car manufactured tend toward turbos because they can advertise the MPGs of a small engine and the HP of a big one. They forget to tell you that if you drive it for the HP, you get just as bad gas mileage.

Here's what I get from everything I'm learning. A turbo relies on exhaust volume to rev up and create boost. The issue is that, at a given rpm, the exhaust volume changes base on the load the engine is under causing an equal change in intake boost, whereas a supercharger is only affected by rpms and load doesn't matter. The intake air is a more of a constant with a SC and easier for an ECU to manage. A TC needs many more components to manage that flux of exhaust/boost volume. The more components and variables, the less stability and reliability.
The question is if the added stability/reliability of the SC evens out the added constant load that the blower puts on the engine.
It is evident that a TC produces a better net to gross power ratio than a SC, meaning the engine does not have to work as hard for the same useable power, but requires a lot more monitoring and complexity to do so.