I am sure that it is personal preference, but does anyone strongly prefer one over the other? The SEA LP is 2006 and the SEA Rough Guides is 2005. I have been using lonely planet for last 6 months in S.America and Africa, but I like the way rough guides read. I don't care as much about accomodations and food, I can find that on my own. I am mainly interested in which provides the most useful and accurate travel details, bus schedules, visa info, prices etc. If they are about the same I will stick with LP because I'm used to it.

They're both good. Usually I buy LP , sometimes Rough Guide, I've even used Footprint. Inspect them at the bookstore and decide which most meets your needs.

I switched from LP to, I think it was Footprint, for Central America. I found, although it was a great read, I could read it the way I would a book, all about the history etc. it really annoyed me when I need info fast. I was just too used to Lonely Planet and how to read their maps and things. So I quickly went back to LP.
But yea, I think it's just a personal preference thing.

Lonely Planet makes the best guides for many (if not most) places, and since everyone else believes that, most people carry Lonely Planet guides. That is not a good thing.

The effect is that it seems like every other backpacker is following you around to the same guesthouses and cafes. At least real sheep don't have to carry heavy backpacks.

One year I (instead) used the Let's Go! guide to Thailand, and I liked it just fine. One year, I used the Rough Guide to Thailand and I liked that too.

My advice is: Use whichever one is newest and spread the money around among publishers.
Go to guesthouses and cafes that are not in the LP books, and find your own path.

(The exception would be South America, where Footprint rules)