It's not really a bother to have an OS that does more things at the same time. It can be practical to have notepad open in another window for those lyrics you're composing a track for. It can be practical to have Acrobat open, showing a score you're rearranging, it can be practical to have an imageviewer open to display images you need to compose for. It may be practical to have a chatwindow open in case you don't want to miss the fun. The reality is that these programs are really lightweight and don't do a thing unless they 1) get updated (chatchannels) or 2) you do something to them, like moving their window. This is the beauty of the event systems in modern programming languages: nothing happens while the system waits for an event. In either case, these updates are lightweight anyway.shaft9000 wrote:- no dependence on a host PC w/ an OS that is far too complex than it ever needed to be for running softsynths
May be. Such a sound can only be 'really' compared when it concerns an emulation. And even when it's slightly different, does that mean the sound is bad? Also, it also works the other way: new software that isn't based on a hardware model can typically do more than the hardware model that comes closest. For instance DX1/5/7 and the FM part of the SY77/SY99 compared to FM8. In fact, FM8 doesn't emulate anything. FM7 only emulated the visual looks of the DX7 afaik, it already could do more things than any DX. So, I'd say the balance is right in the middle again. Hardware may have the D/A you find so important, and software has the vast functionality and polyphony I find important.shaft9000 wrote:- some hardware units have a sound that software alone can approach, but alas will never be exactly the same
And yes, these analogies with Ferrari cars are a bit weak.. I think my Japanese cars analogy hits the nail where it should.