The trouble is you're still thinking old school when you are considering how modern DAWs work. A good friend is really struggling with his old kit dying around him, but the jump to computers seems to really cause him grief.
many have tons of samples (which just jack up the memory needs of the software)
Yep - 100% right, but don't use them. Its a bit like trying to find a car without aircon, or electric windows, and power steering. They all eat up engine power and use the battery - but it doesn't matter. The engines are better and have more power to do all this.
I have a huge rack of effects, started the collection in 1980, and they gather dust. I could feed out audio to them, then take it back in - but why? In every case, the computer does it equally as well, if not better - and can of course control things - I can suddenly ramp up a delay for a snare hit, add in a double tap on the guitar and put an effect on a vocal stab, and then remove them again a bar later - I don't have three hands so couldn't do this for real without a computer?
Realistically - the problem is in the computer-human interface. So many bits of software, all working differently, but often doing the same things. The issue is can you stop doing things historically, and convert to doing it from a screen?
Audacity is free and pretty comprehensive. Lots of under the hood trickery, but I don't personally find it friendly. I'm currently using about 5% of cubase 9.5. The Cubase elements can do largely the same thing - but there are a few restrictions on what you can do, to urge you towards the full version. Other people use products from Magic or work on things like garage band, and the other more modern ones. Sound on Sound magazine for years have run an article for each popular platform each month - have a read of the back issues maybe.
The big problem is kind of surrendering to the machine. They ALL will have massive numbers of features you don't use. We all use different ones, and have different workflows, and do very different things. What you really don't want, is to focus on an electronic replacement for the old system - they can do more.
One of the biggest benefits is editing. With your linear recording system, you probably either re-record entire tracks till it is right, or do lots of drop-ins. With digital, you have almost infinite freedom to to much more - comping - for example. Record multiple takes and then chop it all up and re-arrange. Copying a phrase from versa 1 into verse 2, fixing pitch errors, snipping out the odd stand thump - all little stuff you will never want to give back. You 'think' you just want to replace what you have and carry on - my friend insists this is all he needs - but then gets grumpy when we fix things instead of re-recording.
All the current crop of DAWs have no problems running on most modern computers, and with a decent interface with lots in and out, everything (almost) is possible.
Re: the samples. Don't use them if you want, but I bet that at some point, you will - simply because they are on tap, and very decent quality.
They will ALL be a very steep learning curve, and you MUST allow considerable time to let it sink in. You will hate it for quite a while, and then one day, it will save your bacon by rescuing a project in a way the old linear systems never could have.
You do not want a basic product - nobody buys those any more, you buy a better one and only use what you are comfy with. The 5% figure I mentioned on my Cubase setup is probably accurate. I keep reading own forums somebody doing X with Cubase and me thinking.... I didn't know it could do that! I then try it, and either add it too my regular workflow, or not, as fits. Almost every need can be covered in multiple ways. I use Cubase's score editing quite a bit, but other people will never have tried it. Only recently did I start to use one of the other editors, and now that's the one I go to first.
