Same reason as Alexander Connor, I mainly work with computers of different backgrounds, including different OS and many are older than 5 years. The new GUI, although very nice, does cause increased processing. On top of Purr-Data not being supported for mac 10.8 and lower. On a side note, I did test the CEAMMC Puredata distribution and it works better in older systems although it is also not supported. I believe they use QT.

cheers

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Alexander Connor <a.connexx@runbox.com> wrote:

Increased processing overhead with the new GUI  -- assuming that matters with a specific computer set-up.





On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 13:48:09 -0400, Ali Momeni <batchku@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I've been playing around with the latest Purr Data from:
> https://agraef.github.io/purr-data/
>
> and, well, I love it.  The entire experience of working with Pd is much
> more pleasant.
>
> I'm compelled to ask the group, especially the Pd Vanilla users among us,
> the following simple question:
>
> What reason is there NOT to use Purr Data?
>
> Am I missing something?
> Subtle disadvantages?
> Missing functionality?
> Reliability?
> Performance?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> ali
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list



_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

--

José Rafael Subía Valdez

www.jrsv.net

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list