> 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