Right, they're inferior because pulverizers give you 5 to 15% increased yields. Wow. That's like... Wow. I don't even know what to say. This is completely game changing. Call the news, because that's gamebreaking right there.
You're a dunce. Macerators are inferior to pulverizers. "Gamebreaking" is your own fallacious argument, created from whole cloth.
In all seriousness, you either didn't read my post, or you fail at reading comprehension. I said that they're both useful in completely different sets of circumstances
I grasped your false claim just fine. Because they're not both useful. Absent some confused configuration where you have the pulverizer on hard mode and the macerator on normal IC2 recipe, or some ADD addled player who has no choice but to stare at the machine GUI while it works, there is no reason to build a macerator.
1) Try and build an efficient UU-matter solar factory using pulverizers.
Easy enough. Pulverizers grind ender eyes for my matterfab quite well.
Oh right, why bother integrating a machine that both can't handle the amount of ores that need macerating/smelting
This is a false claim that you repeat even though even if it was true would be irrelevant. There is no rule you can only have one ore processing machine.
and takes a completely different type of energy.
Also irrelevant, even with extremely poor efficiency electric engines, the 4 MJ/t required for a pulverizer (even two!) is less than the power required for a macerator overclocked enough just to match its speed. Powerconverters would of course be even better.
2) Try strip mining with turtles to get 80x80 areas mined in the same time it takes for a BC quarry to clear out a 9x9 while taking maximum power, and see if pulverizers are able to keep with the output. Or try a machine like the mining well on frames that DW20 used, but scaled larger.
This is napkin math and is not how reality would work. Absent config changes to increase ore density or multiple dense ores mystworlds (with instability turned off), a pulverizer would keep up just fine and you'd need a frame bore larger than the 1000 block limit to exceed that. And then, you can just add a second pulverizer.
Do pulverizers are generally the superior choice for the early-mid game? Yes.
Pulverizers are superior to macerators from the point you generate the world, to the time you stop playing on it. Absent some other ore processing mod like factorization, gregtech, or liquid metals, then they are also the best overall.
Do they keep up when you step up the mining game and need lightning fast maceratings to keep up? No.
False. You never need lightning fast "maceratings" for mining output, no matter how big you make it. As repeated several times, in the unlikely event actual problems are actually realized and not napkin math guesses, a second pulverizer can simply be added. Furthermore, that second pulverizer is arguably cheaper than the overclockers (particularly without GT) and definitely less power hungry.
Are they fast enough to keep up with on-demand crafting requiring macerating from AE in all circumstances? No.
As AE is a computer-fast system, and both macerators and pulverizers (and other, third-mod alternatives) all purposefully have less than instant-times, then there is absolutely no choice that can "keep up with AE". Thus this design goal is unreachable in general, and definitely with both macerators as well as pulverizers.
