[PD] sanity check on workings of pd~

[Jonathan Wilkes]

> Running 2 instance of pd communicating with network socket is very different than using pd/pd~
Right, but like you said if you have video meeting its deadlines in one process and audio meeting its 
deadlines in another process, the pd/pd~ approach should meet the user's needs.
Furthermore pd/pd~ offers a better user experience (i.e., run a single patch and let Pd spawn the 2nd automatically).  Given that I'd think most people would be using it for simple divisions of audio/video work, 
but messages to the list suggest otherwise.  So I'm wondering if the increased cpu usage of pd~ is 
significant enough to be driving users to the worse UX in order to get the efficiency.
-Jonathan
 

  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160407/f0a88f3f/attachment.html>