Bob, You are entitled to give your opinion, just like everyone else is. This is a discussion that has no resolution because it is very similar to the Ford vs GM vs Mopar conversations that have taken place since the advent of the automobile.
I agree that there is a slight difference in "feel" between hydraulic and hydrostatic drive tractors. As I pointed out in my initial reply, both systems have their good and bad points. However, unlike you I do not disparage hydrostatic drives other than to point out that they have very limited capabilities when it comes to powering additional hydraulic functions.
Why do you find the need to characterize briemer's 442 as a "(basket) Case" or continue to imply that hydraulic drive is somehow inferior to hydrostatic drive? Perhaps I have it wrong but in my eyes, you have been condemning hydraulic drive from your very first post. I find that odd because I know of a great many people who abandoned their interest in Cub Cadet, Simplicity, Wheel Horse and even...........dare I say it...... John Deere, after discovering Case.
A properly set-up Case GT can hold its own against any competing brand on all aspects of property maintenance. They have been a high-end, quality machine since their advent and remain so today.
You knew at the outset that your words were going to draw fire from Case enthusiasts but so far, you have not explained why a hydrostatic drive tractor will outperform a hydraulic drive tractor. So how about putting away the bluster and get down to some facts. When it comes to ploughing a field, mowing grass, blowing snow or any other task normally performed by a garden tractor, tell us where the hydraulic drive falls short.