Thank you for taking the time in elaborating on my concerns. Regarding 1) I agree that this used to be a valid argument. However does this really matter these days as modern computers have a lot of processing power resources? 2) As the declared purpose of the library is literally promoted to be "Solo" Strings and also is marketed as the right tool for quartet writing I would see the main intention and application as just this: for POLYphonic writing! Therefore the capability of playing a polyphonic arrangement with realistic legato lines is crucial and should be considered the foremost task of the SOLO String library. The application of playing a homophonic patch might be an add on goodie but is kind of odd in that regard as would be certainly be no quartet instrumentation anymore. I hope you agree. Just talking in terms of realism here. 3) I don't care what other composers say if my ears tell me different. I'm a string player and part of a string section myself. The important aspects again are sound AND realism. If the core sound is right but the big throw off is the transition it will ruin the overall performance anyway. Thanks again.well there are a variety of reasons to use basic long articulations. 1) instruments with prerecorded transitions are more resource hungry so in large templates having every long articulation be "true legato" would be undesirable and unrealistic. 2) In many cases, when writing less polyphonic or intricate music a patch that is not monophonic and can be played more than one note at a time is more desirable. 3) this is arguable but many composers don't believe true legato is all it's hyped up to be.
With regard to your second question, I believe SF simply decided true legato on the bass was less necessary than on the other instruments. With bass, basic long articulations can get you far enough.