panels vs cones which is best and why ?

i personally have a hard time owning cones in a box--even a single driver.

there are ceratain colorations which are discernible over time which are annoying.

aside from radiating pattern and questions of bass extension, i see little objection to panels--sonically speaking.
Many (not all) panels ring, they have poor damping qualities, negating the faster rise time. Also most "panel" speakers overshoot on transients making them edgy and unrealistic sounding and bright. Stock Maggies can be this way but never to where they are "bad" sounding.

Dynamics are restricted, and when pressed all but the very best panels "Fold like a Baby" using the words of MLB Ray Lewis.

The panels need to be large to sound good, which can make placing them optimally in a "typical" to a below average size room more difficult.

If you're only going to have a two channel system the dipole is the way to go, but they completely ruin the effects of surround sound.

My message only the "best" panels rise above your generalization and so do the best box speakers for that matter. Problem is recognizing that the "best known" speakers are not the best speakers by defacto.

Due to the 30+ years most "panel" speaker companies have existed the best panel speaker companies have survived and by almost default have become the most well known. So people buy the best panel speakers much more than people buy the best cone speakers which is dominated image wise by under-performing over the hill superstars.

Cone speakers have yet to go through survival of the fittes. Panel speakers are obsolete relative to the mainstream audio markets needs, which restricts them to the specialist markets, thus all they make is specialist speakers.
I'm glad you like panels - good choice. Did you have a specific question, or observation, or are you looking for validation of some sort?
my observation about cone speakers is that for many cone designs the audible flaws make ownership for an extended period of time a challenge.

i personally have a problem with the upper mids and lower treble response from a dome tweeter.

in all i think it is harder to design a "good" cone than a "good" panel, and yet cones are more popular--go figure.
My Quads and Acoustats are in the closet. I have no problems such as you have described with the box speakers that succeeded them, but then I choose my amplification very carefully to match my speakers needs. Go figure.
All speaker designs have pros and cons. If panels had no negatives, so to speak, then that type of speaker will be in demand and the market will dump the other designs to sell what everybody wants to buy.

The choice usually falls to what you are looking for in sound rather than which is the best design or carries the most impressive innovation.

What you may find "annoying" others can overlook, and vice versa. If you have no problem with bass extension then you can look to mini monitors for imaging, e.g., or panels for the large sounding board with the wide sweet spot. But others place a premium on low end response and find that boxes work better for their needs. You simply choose your compromise.
I have owned many different speaker technologies over the years. Planars (different iterations of Magnepans), Ribbons (Apogee Scintillas), Electrostatics (various Quads, Logans), and dynamic speakers. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. However, in the end, since 1989, I have only owned dynamic speakers. Great dynamic speakers are just more real in my opinion. Colorations exist in each technology, but I hear the least colorations, best imaging, most palpably real sound, greatest transparency and resolution coming from great dynamic designs (ie: Big Kharmas, Verity's, Avalons, Big Vandys, etc.). However, I must say that another favorite is the big MBL which is another story altogether.