It takes up no screen space. You have to switch to it to see it. If it is something one isn't using there is no reason what so ever to have it displayed. This is true of the TV as well as the CV. 
 
I'll bet that a new user may not even know that it is there. 
 
 
The notion that the PC takes up too much space for people that say they don't use it is not unlike the fellow that goes to the doctor and complains that his head hurts. The doctor says to him you must stop banging your head against the wall. 

For me the "problem" of the PC isn't so much that it can't be removed but that it creates an unnecessary dichotomy with regards to fx placement and standards development. I would much prefer a universal solution, although I suppose one could argue at least a basic and useful EQ is universal enough to place on every channel, even if it's used only for rolling off highs or lows. I don't see why we can't also get the QC EQ as VST though, nor the tape sim, most of the compressors (not that I would use them, to be honest), andsoforth.

If you don't have ProChannel you still get Sonitus EQ on every channel. As far as the SSL emulators go- I have SSL Duende channel/bus so that's better. I think IKMultimedia and Native Instruments do better versions too from what I've read.  Have Satin which beats PC TapeSim. etc Have Cakewalk LA-2A as a VST so that's a draw.
 
Plus have a host of precision VSTs which have no ProChannel equals- Izotope Advanced/ fabfilter/ brainworx etc.
 
For me- ProChannel slowed me down.
 
 

"For me the "problem" of the PC isn't so much that it can't be removed but that it creates an unnecessary dichotomy with regards to fx placement and standards development."
 
I wish I knew what you are talking about. 
 
You do know that the PC uses VST as its plugin format?
 

Edited because another reply came in between

John
"For me the "problem" of the PC isn't so much that it can't be removed but that it creates an unnecessary dichotomy with regards to fx placement and standards development." I wish I knew what you are talking about.  You do know that the PC uses VST as its plugin format? 

No I didn't, but even so, modules are apparently "locked" into the PC or not and obviously the graphics have to be scaled/adapted so it IS another standard for people to support (or not). PC will never be adapted by all plugin manufacturers, Sonar isn't big enough for that. So there will always be two places you can put FX. If you use a PC fx bin that destroys the point of PC to begin with. And having the inspector on track view and your track display wide enough to show your fx bin actually gives you MORE usable controls in less space in that case. So the bottom line is that the PC is only nice if you like the sound of the plugs or don't own better equivalents. Otherwise it is
A. Taking up memory and potentially screwing with the code base (as evidenced by the recent problems with the 64 bit engine),
B. Creating more "standards" to support, and
C. Creating an inherent duality in where you place FX because some FX we may like can't be used outside of PC.

there have also been very few extra PC modules - just overloud & softube so far - is it offering enough return for 3rd party devs to add yet another format?

The problem is that the main Cakewalk DSP guy Bob Currie is no longer with Cakewalk.

@Sanderxpander I still agree with you that if you want the Pro Channel off you should be able to turn it off in preferences (I will leave mine on, but each to their own).... however in regards to your points....

a) Do you have access to Cake's codebase? I thought not. Therefore you are making wild assumptions about cause and effect.

b) Every software house creates features and standards. Don't expect Cakewalk to bow down to the almighty Steinberg every time it breathes.

c) Don't buy pro channel plugins then. Simple if you don't wish Cakewalk to succeed through another revenue channel don't spend your money. At the end of  the day the consumers will decide not your sole opinion.

I appreciate in the nice to have world, it would be great if everybody innovated and followed the standards at the same time, but that simply doesn't happen. Check out the w3c standards for the internet for instance, they are always playing catchup.

A, I have no evidence of memory being use with a non active PC any more than a non active FX bin. 
B, Until CW fixes the problem we don't know where the problem lays. 
C, The PC has FX chains to allow inserting non PC modules in the PC signal path where you want it to be. Plus the PC can be post FX bin or pre.
 
The notion that CW has plugins that can't used in other DAWs is not a new one and very normal in the DAW industry.
 
A new standard, perhaps that relies  on VST.  
 
The other thing that I see in posts is quality concerns. With various tests that have been done plus just careful listening this to me is an incorrect view. Third parties may charge more but that is no proof of higher quality.  If one does their homework and reads up on the CW's development of the PC modules what they promise they deliver. No different from other developers. The care that was taken is impressive to me. 
 
Dismissing them because of prejudiced against a plugin coming from CW instead of some one else is only hurting oneself. Its both snobbish and foolish and wrong.