I agree that, for an experienced skier, the increased edging requirement for wider ski is merely noticeable but not a game breaker.? I have used my iM77 Chips here in Virginia on hard snow when I just felt like something different and it's no big deal.? Other than a 12m sidecut vs a 16.5 meter sidecut, they ski pretty much the same.
However, I also don't feel that using my narrow waisted skis in non-groomed skiing is very much more difficult than the iM77's.? I have skied my i.SL Chips (120-65-102) in up to a foot of Colorado fresh morning snow as well as the cut-up, skied out results throughout the day with no difficulty.?I don't believe the wider skis would have skied any differently or easier.
One earlier pair of skis (iC160's, slalom footprint, but softer) would do just fine in deeper snow, but was bad about deflecting in variable/cut-up snow or when you hit a pile of snow.? Stiffer skis (or variably stiff skis) handle this better whether they are narrow or wide.? I also remember the days when I was more of a stem christie skier rather than turning by tipping, and variable/soft conditions make it real difficult to push the tail of the ski out.? Wider skis are probably more conducive to that technique.
For me now, I almost always ski the i.SL Chips here on the East coast and the iM77's west.? Where I am, there is very little likelihood of skiing anything other than man-made snow, and the slalom footprint and shorter turn radius is better throughout the day, even after the snow gets cut up and piled up or as it turns soft and slushy.? As someone else mentioned, for western conditions the ski cuts into the softer snow surface enough that there isn't much difference in feel 'narrow east' vs. 'wider west' (it only requires a 6mm deeper carve track).? If I run into fresh snow conditions, then the iM77 is better (with very little downside when I usually don't).