Heres my 2p worth:

I navigated from Italy to Singapore using a ARCS charts on a laptop PC
'installed' at the chart table... and loved it. However, I also recorded
my position on a paper chart at each watch change as a backup (and I needed
to). I also entered all my PC way points manually into my GPS so that a
helm repeater could display bearings, cross track error, etc..

Halfway down the Red Sea my laptop hard drive failed. I discovered that
regular backups are no help if you don't carry a spare hard drive. My PC
setup was out of action for over a thousand miles and, because my backup
regime was not good enough, I lost all my chartplotter records of the first
part of the trip.

I particularly enjoyed being able to see my position on a screen when coming
into unknown anchorages (taking care to compare what it displayed with what
I could see and with a paper chart). My biggest dislike was having to leave
the wheel and go below to do that:

Go below.. choose a feature on the chart... go up... find it visually...
take a bearing... go below... plot it... choose a second feature... go
up...take a bearing... go down... plot it ... etc, etc.... (but faster than
plotting on paper)

Summing up, its only real advantages we a) to help passage planning; and
b) to reduce the need to transfer a GPS position to a paper chart... but I
still loved it!

Since then I have installed a GPS Chartplotter at the helm (Standard Horizon
CP150 mono). It has a small monochrome display which I find perfectly
adequate, and it saves me the regular trips below. I still use the PC for
planning and to record my position logs and, on my next long trip, I will
still record positions on a paper chart..

However, if I had to choose only one, then in the light of experience I
would go with the chartplotter at the helm. Having the information that
electronic navigation can give you really comes into it's own when available
at the helm!

Good Luck, fair winds

Twig