I have, which is why I make the point. I feel Graham is not looking beyond his precise workflow and is therefore limiting the comparison to zooming in on more than two images.
Strangely, that is exactly what I feel you are doing, I am trying to look at a feature in a broad workflow context and you keep on saying its nothing to do with workflow, and reduce things to a very narrow comparison. This is the part of your argument I find perplexing, and to use your word a little exasperating.
I have tried to explain how there are "multiple" small things, that make me prefer the way C1 works variants into the workflow that I find more useful and efficient, than the way LR does it.
But really, it was you that forced me down this narrow road when you insisted, after I had described how I use variants in C1, that Variants and Virtual copies worked "exactly" the same in LR as they do in C1. Which, I assumed was referring to how I had described using them.
My memory of Virtual Copies in LR was that they did not work exactly the same way, and that replicating this part of my C1 workflow in LR was either not possible or very clunky. But I took you at your word and went about spending some time revisiting LR, where I have confirmed to my satisfaction that in terms of workflow, in particular the way I use them in my workflow, Virtual copies and Variants are not implemented and managed in exactly the same way in both programs.
There was never any requirement to look beyond this precise aspect of my workflow, as that wasn't what this was about. A general comparison of workflows between the two programs is a much bigger task, and I think, it would be impossible to arrive at any conclusion on which might be universally better. I certainly wouldn't attempt it.
Cheers,
Graham