After many people flaming me and telling me that vi is better, etc etc, blah, blah, blah, I have finally come to my final resting place on the vi vs emacs debate.
The problem is simple: consistency
No, not consistency there. Not there either. Think simple.
Emacs is consistent with every text entry method I have used except vi.
Almost every text entry system uses the same type of interface, with very few exceptions:
1. You move your cursor
2. You type
3. You move your cursor.
Think about it, the text box that you will reply and flame me with, is it closer to vi or emacs?
Microsoft word, bash, Eudora preferences text fields, dos games that are 20 years old, the google search bar, IE's URL bar, Renaming a file, and just about everything else you can think of where text needs to be edited, the three steps are true.
Now, is emacs a huge bloated piece of software? Yes. Is that a good enough reason to not install it? Sure, if you are the only one to use it, or if resources are really tight. Does emacs *need* a browser built in? Absolutely not.
To vi's credit, it is small and fast for those who have gotten past the fumbling.It is installed on nearly every unix/linux available, so if youlike vi, it will always be available to use, but it doesn't need to be complicated just to be 1337, and honestly, thats what it feels like when people bash me for not using it. "You're not good enough to learn vi, so stfu". You know what? That is the same attitude that turns people away from technology, weather it is Linux, computers, or product X. Your job as a computer <fill in the blank> is to realize that not everyone else needs to know everything you do, and that can start with the editor.
SO, when I open a file in emacs, I can use my arrow keys, and start typing, and then use the arrow keys again.
Just like everything else I have ever used on a computer. That is, except vi.
<edit>I suppose this is more "why I don't like vi" instead of "vi vs emacs"</edit>