Horses for courses
Some time back, but .........
Did all my twin training, as a very low hours PPL, on the PA39 (non turbo) version of the Twin Com. It was my aircraft, and due to my very low hours at the start, it was a handful, but great fun, and (VERY important) with the right instructor, it is NOT a problem to fly accurately, but it has to be flown. The circuit at a small GA field can be 'interesting' as the best speed with the TC is around the 110 - 120 kts, ( due to the single engine blue line speed of 105 Kts) so if there are 3 or 4 Cessna 150's in the circuit, that calls for some careful planning, and more than a little changing of the order, and keeping the options open until shure of getting in adds some spice to getting rid of 30+ Kts of airspeed on very short final.
Went on to do IMC & night and then did a load of hour building/business flying (250 Hrs over a couple of years) all over the place in Europe, and for that, it was perfect, fast cruise, economical, and with De Ice and a reasonable panel, it would go pretty much anywhere I wanted, and when I wanted.
At the end of the training, and yes, we did a LOT more than the book says is needed for a twin, night & IMC rating, I was comfortable, and safe flying it single crew, at night, sometimes IFR on sectors of up to 3 Hrs 30 if needed, but a lot of that was down to an instructor that insisted that I fly it to IR standard, even though I couldn't do the IR initially as I didn't have enough P1 time, so had to stick to IMC rules for a while.
Did some flying in an Aztec during that training period, due to an annual getting in the way. Instructor's comments 'You're used to the TC, which is a bit like a Ferrari. This is the Land Rover of the range, and he wasn't far wrong. Big tank of an aircraft in comparison, much more expensive to operate, but would go places that the TC wasn't really suited to, like short grass strips and the like.
Flew Seneca 1 & 2 in the States when doing some more business trips, and then did my CPL/IR ratings in an old Seneca 1. It wasn't hard to fly in all fairness, but it was again, more expensive, slower than the TC, but capable of carrying a lot more weight.
As a real fun go places reasonably fast and economically airplane, with a relatively light load, the TC was great. Despite the comments above, the TC can be landed 'nicely', a trickle of power, nail the speed, and it's not dramatic. Get the speed wrong, either way, and it can be 'interesting'. Trimming is critical, ( electric trim is almost an essential for workload reduction, especially for single engine work) and the all moving elevator means that it's incredibly sensitive in pitch.
You won't carry 4 adults and bags very far, even with tip tanks, but at 160 Kts or better, that may not be a problem. Even 2 adults and 2 children with bags may require a bit of care with the w & B, and it's not going to work with full tanks. One or 2 up, the only restriction worth considering is the bladder endurance, mine with full tanks and tips filled was good for nearly 11 hours if it was set up correctly in the cruise. The handling is very different 2 up to 6 up, the instructor demonstrated that to me by getting me to do a (short) trip with it loaded on one occasion, and it makes a huge difference to the handling, as the C of G is much more aft. Worth doing if you're getting a TC.
The Aztec is a work horse, and the one I flew wasn't going to set the world on fire speed wise.
The Seneca is sort of between the 2. The rudder/aileron couple can cause problems if you don't keep your feet firmly on the rudder pedals when cruising, in that it can cause some very uncomfortable fish tailing for the people in the back row if there's a bit of unstable air causing the aircraft to twitch, unless it's blocked, the rudder couple upsets things as the ailerons are used to correct the course. Other than that, it's a genuine enough slightly larger twin that can haul 6 adults a reasonable distance without having to keep stopping for fuel.
Hope that helps a little
Steve