Thanks again, that is actually what I originally through the meant. My problem in understanding is that analogies usually work because there is some similarity between the qualities of the analogical objects and the objects they refer to.
In this case, referring to a chromebook as a computer while a windows machine is a sliderule is not an analogy because nothing about the computer<>sliderule relationship holds true about the chromebook<>windows relationship other than the fact that the op prefers chromebooks over windows and presumes that computers are also universally preferred offer sliderules.
I.e. There is nothing analogical about the statement. It's just an expression of preference dressed up to look like an analogy.
It has the same explanatory value as chromebooks:windows::hamburgers:cyanide
In this case, referring to a chromebook as a computer while a windows machine is a sliderule is not an analogy because nothing about the computer<>sliderule relationship holds true about the chromebook<>windows relationship other than the fact that the op prefers chromebooks over windows and presumes that computers are also universally preferred offer sliderules.
I.e. There is nothing analogical about the statement. It's just an expression of preference dressed up to look like an analogy.
It has the same explanatory value as chromebooks:windows::hamburgers:cyanide