Scott Elliott Birch said:

(Scott Elliott Birch) wrote in message . com...
Hi,

Is anybody running Reason 2.0 on a 2GHz (or thereabouts) Celeron
laptop? Is it feasible? I'm wondering whether to buy a Celeron
lappie or something faster. Also what audio I/O would you recommend,
whether it be just to support Reason or any sequencer or audio
software package I may upgrade to in the future?

Scott


Is there anybody out there who will answer my question? I'm not
interested in the bizarre replies I got that constitute the present
thread.

I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to produce
the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Scott Elliott Birch said:

(Scott Elliott Birch) wrote in message
. com...
Hi,

Is anybody running Reason 2.0 on a 2GHz (or thereabouts) Celeron
laptop? Is it feasible? I'm wondering whether to buy a Celeron
lappie or something faster. Also what audio I/O would you recommend,
whether it be just to support Reason or any sequencer or audio
software package I may upgrade to in the future?

Scott


Is there anybody out there who will answer my question? I'm not
interested in the bizarre replies I got that constitute the present
thread.

I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to produce
the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group.

Boy, that's a weird response. I guess it shows that Middius is generally
screwed in the head, not just screwed in the head about me.

It's a valid audio question related to production. Since Middius doesn't
even get audio reproduction, it stands to reason that an audio production
question would be over his head, squared.

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:33:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Scott Elliott Birch said:

(Scott Elliott Birch) wrote in message
. com...
Hi,

Is anybody running Reason 2.0 on a 2GHz (or thereabouts) Celeron
laptop? Is it feasible? I'm wondering whether to buy a Celeron
lappie or something faster. Also what audio I/O would you recommend,
whether it be just to support Reason or any sequencer or audio
software package I may upgrade to in the future?

Scott


Is there anybody out there who will answer my question? I'm not
interested in the bizarre replies I got that constitute the present
thread.

I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to produce
the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group.

Boy, that's a weird response. I guess it shows that Middius is generally
screwed in the head, not just screwed in the head about me.

Hmmmm, since he said the same thing that you did, in different words,
I guess that makes *you* screwed in the head as well.

guffaw!

It's a valid audio question related to production. Since Middius doesn't
even get audio reproduction, it stands to reason that an audio production
question would be over his head, squared.

I didn't see *you* answering the question either. If it's "It's a
valid audio question related to production", why did you chastise the
author by writing, "Regrettably, you're asking a perfectly reasonable
question on the wrong Usenet group. This group (when it's not a
playground for perverts which is much of the time) is more about
reproduction of music, not production of music. Reason is a music
synthesis program, so let me suggest that you ask your
question on alt.music.4-track". That's the same thing that Mr. Middius
said, you know.

You should be scared that you're on the same page as George. Either
that, or you're just terminally confused this morning and don't know
enough to be scared.

To answer the question from a specs standpoint, here are the
requirements for Reason 2.5 (I assume that it's the same or similar
for 2.0):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System requirements
Here's what you need to be able to run Reason 2.5:

Windows
Intel Pentium 2 or better + 233 MHz or faster + 64 Megabytes of RAM +
CD-ROM drive, Windows 98, ME, 2000 or XP (or later) + 256 color
monitor (or better), 800x600 or larger + A 16 bit Windows compatible
audio card, preferably with an ASIO or DirectX driver + Microsoft
DirectX (if supported by the card) + A MIDI interface and a MIDI
keyboard (or similar).

Seems to me that a 2 Ghz processor would be just fine. Just make sure
you have plenty of RAM - probably 128. Also, you might want to look at
an external display and the other requirements like DirectX drivers,
MIDI interfaces, etc.

It might not be hands-on experience, but it seems that, provided you
have enough RAM and can meet the other requirements, a Celeron 2gig
processor would be plenty.

Can't help you with the other question, because I don't have any
laptop experience. As far as MIDI goes, I use an external breakout box
from Midiman called the Midisport 2X2, which has 2 ins and 2 outs.
They make larger ones as well. I think I paid about $60 for it. My
sound card is already MIDI capable of course, and i assume that you
will have at least a 16 bit MIDI capable sound card as well.

Good luck!

PS, you can upgrade to 2.5 for free at the Propellerheads website.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:33:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Scott Elliott Birch said:

(Scott Elliott Birch) wrote in message
. com...
Hi,

Is anybody running Reason 2.0 on a 2GHz (or thereabouts) Celeron
laptop? Is it feasible? I'm wondering whether to buy a Celeron
lappie or something faster. Also what audio I/O would you
recommend, whether it be just to support Reason or any sequencer
or audio software package I may upgrade to in the future?

Scott


Is there anybody out there who will answer my question? I'm not
interested in the bizarre replies I got that constitute the present
thread.

I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to produce
the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group.

Boy, that's a weird response. I guess it shows that Middius is
generally screwed in the head, not just screwed in the head about me.

Hmmmm, since he said the same thing that you did, in different words,
I guess that makes *you* screwed in the head as well.

Except you are either lying or unbelievably stupid, Weil.

I pointed him in the direction of a well-known audio-related newsgroup,
alt.music.4-track.

Now Weil, if you want to claim that alt.music.4-track is not audio-related,
I'll just let the nice people who lurk here check things out for themselves
and laugh their butts off at you when they find out that alt-music.4-track
is very clearly audio-related.

But of course Weil, they're already laughing their butts off at you after
"Thine Deville" cut you off at the knees last night.

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:52:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:33:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Scott Elliott Birch said:

(Scott Elliott Birch) wrote in message
. com...
Hi,

Is anybody running Reason 2.0 on a 2GHz (or thereabouts) Celeron
laptop? Is it feasible? I'm wondering whether to buy a Celeron
lappie or something faster. Also what audio I/O would you
recommend, whether it be just to support Reason or any sequencer
or audio software package I may upgrade to in the future?

Scott


Is there anybody out there who will answer my question? I'm not
interested in the bizarre replies I got that constitute the present
thread.

I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to produce
the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group.

Boy, that's a weird response. I guess it shows that Middius is
generally screwed in the head, not just screwed in the head about me.

Hmmmm, since he said the same thing that you did, in different words,
I guess that makes *you* screwed in the head as well.

Except you are either lying or unbelievably stupid, Weil.

I pointed him in the direction of a well-known audio-related newsgroup,
alt.music.4-track.

Nice deceptive editing. Why did you feel the need to delete the
pertinent quote?

Here, let me put it back in:

Regrettably, you're asking a perfectly reasonable question on the wrong Usenet group.
This group (when it's not a playground for perverts which is much of the time)
is more about reproduction of music, not production of music.

Reason is a music synthesis program, so let me suggest
that you ask your question on alt.music.4-track.

Now, that's basically the same thing that Mr. Middius said, only he
didn't give a possible place to reask the question.

Now Weil, if you want to claim that alt.music.4-track is not audio-related,
I'll just let the nice people who lurk here check things out for themselves
and laugh their butts off at you when they find out that alt-music.4-track
is very clearly audio-related.

Well, so would any of the music related newsgroups. So?

If you want to fixate on his use of the word "audio", feel free.
Basically, he said that this was the wrong place to ask the question
and that's exactly what *he* said.

I'd argue that one of *your* stomping grounds, rec.audio.pro might be
an even *better* place to ask the question.

Of course, I attempted to answer his question, which trumps you. You
didn't even bother. As usual, you just turned this thread into your
own personal ****ing ground.

But of course Weil, they're already laughing their butts off at you after
"Thine Deville" cut you off at the knees last night.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

As usual.

Nice try but you lose.

Again.

Not only because you are wrong, but you also used deceptive editing to
try to win points. Bad boy, Mr. Krueger.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:15:07 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

If you want to fixate on his use of the word "audio", feel free.
Basically, he said that this was the wrong place to ask the question
and that's exactly what *he* said.

....should read, "...exactly what *you* said".

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:52:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:33:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Scott Elliott Birch said:

(Scott Elliott Birch) wrote in message
om...

Is anybody running Reason 2.0 on a 2GHz (or thereabouts) Celeron
laptop? Is it feasible? I'm wondering whether to buy a Celeron
lappie or something faster. Also what audio I/O would you
recommend, whether it be just to support Reason or any sequencer
or audio software package I may upgrade to in the future?

Is there anybody out there who will answer my question? I'm not
interested in the bizarre replies I got that constitute the
present thread.

I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to
produce the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group.

Boy, that's a weird response. I guess it shows that Middius is
generally screwed in the head, not just screwed in the head about
me.

Hmmmm, since he said the same thing that you did, in different
words, I guess that makes *you* screwed in the head as well.

Except you are either lying or unbelievably stupid, Weil.

I pointed him in the direction of a well-known audio-related
newsgroup, alt.music.4-track.

Nice deceptive editing. Why did you feel the need to delete the
pertinent quote?

A desire for brevity.

Here, let me put it back in:

Be my guest, as the pertient quotes demolish your claims, Weil.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Regrettably, you're asking a perfectly reasonable question on the
wrong Usenet group. This group (when it's not a playground for
perverts which is much of the time) is more about reproduction of
music, not production of music.

Reason is a music synthesis program, so let me suggest
that you ask your question on alt.music.4-track.

Now, that's basically the same thing that Mr. Middius said, only he
didn't give a possible place to reask the question.

Weil, are you really so stupid that you can't see the difference between:

The Middius blow-off:

" I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to
produce the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group."

This is a completely bogus answer composed of 3 completely bogus sentences:

Bogus Middius sentence number one:

"I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio* newsgroups."

It's an audio question that as I show below, can be answered on an
audio-related newsgroup, specifically alt.music.4-track .

Bogus Middius sentence number two:

"Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to produce the answer."

In fact alt.music.4-track is a reasonably well-behaved group and can, based
on my years of experience there be expected to produce an answer.

Bogus Middius sentence number three:

"You should look for a more pertinent group."

This sentence directly contradicts sentence number three which claims that
no audio-related group could reasonably be expected to produce an answer.
Further, it provides neither insight into how such a group might be found,
nor the name of an actual group where the desired assistance might be found.

Krueger's sympathetic and clear assistance:

"Regrettably, you're asking a perfectly reasonable question on the
wrong Usenet group. This group (when it's not a playground for
perverts which is much of the time) is more about reproduction of
music, not production of music. Reason is a music synthesis program, so let
me suggest
that you ask your question on alt.music.4-track."

I correctly point out that his problem is not that his question can't be
answered on an audio group, but rather that he's regrettably picked a group
that is dominated by perverts such as Weil and Middius. Furthermore, I point
out why rec.audio.opinion would be a bad choice even if the perverts such as
Weil and Middius weren't trashing the place day in, and day out. Finally, I
point him exactly at a far more orderly group that frequently has
discussions in his area of interest, namely alt.music.4-track.

So here's the question Weil. Are you really so blind as to think that the
Middius answer was as appropriate or helpful as mine? Or, are you just
trolling for attention, again.

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:48:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:52:42 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:33:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Scott Elliott Birch said:

(Scott Elliott Birch) wrote in message
om...

Is anybody running Reason 2.0 on a 2GHz (or thereabouts) Celeron
laptop? Is it feasible? I'm wondering whether to buy a Celeron
lappie or something faster. Also what audio I/O would you
recommend, whether it be just to support Reason or any sequencer
or audio software package I may upgrade to in the future?

Is there anybody out there who will answer my question? I'm not
interested in the bizarre replies I got that constitute the
present thread.

I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to
produce the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group.

Boy, that's a weird response. I guess it shows that Middius is
generally screwed in the head, not just screwed in the head about
me.

Hmmmm, since he said the same thing that you did, in different
words, I guess that makes *you* screwed in the head as well.

Except you are either lying or unbelievably stupid, Weil.

I pointed him in the direction of a well-known audio-related
newsgroup, alt.music.4-track.

Nice deceptive editing. Why did you feel the need to delete the
pertinent quote?

A desire for brevity.

Here, let me put it back in:

Be my guest, as the pertient quotes demolish your claims, Weil.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Regrettably, you're asking a perfectly reasonable question on the
wrong Usenet group. This group (when it's not a playground for
perverts which is much of the time) is more about reproduction of
music, not production of music.

Reason is a music synthesis program, so let me suggest
that you ask your question on alt.music.4-track.

Now, that's basically the same thing that Mr. Middius said, only he
didn't give a possible place to reask the question.

Weil, are you really so stupid that you can't see the difference between:

The Middius blow-off:

" I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio*
newsgroups. Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to
produce the answer. You should look for a more pertinent group."

This is a completely bogus answer composed of 3 completely bogus sentences:

Bogus Middius sentence number one:

"I'm wondering why you would pose such a question on *audio* newsgroups."

It's an audio question that as I show below, can be answered on an
audio-related newsgroup, specifically alt.music.4-track .

Bogus Middius sentence number two:

"Even a well-behaved group would be unlikely to produce the answer."

In fact alt.music.4-track is a reasonably well-behaved group and can, based
on my years of experience there be expected to produce an answer.

Bogus Middius sentence number three:

"You should look for a more pertinent group."

This sentence directly contradicts sentence number three which claims that
no audio-related group could reasonably be expected to produce an answer.
Further, it provides neither insight into how such a group might be found,
nor the name of an actual group where the desired assistance might be found.

Krueger's sympathetic and clear assistance:

"Regrettably, you're asking a perfectly reasonable question on the
wrong Usenet group. This group (when it's not a playground for
perverts which is much of the time) is more about reproduction of
music, not production of music. Reason is a music synthesis program, so let
me suggest
that you ask your question on alt.music.4-track."

I correctly point out that his problem is not that his question can't be
answered on an audio group, but rather that he's regrettably picked a group
that is dominated by perverts such as Weil and Middius. Furthermore, I point
out why rec.audio.opinion would be a bad choice even if the perverts such as
Weil and Middius weren't trashing the place day in, and day out. Finally, I
point him exactly at a far more orderly group that frequently has
discussions in his area of interest, namely alt.music.4-track.

So here's the question Weil. Are you really so blind as to think that the
Middius answer was as appropriate or helpful as mine? Or, are you just
trolling for attention, again.

So, do you think that *your* 'answer" was as appropriate or as helpful
as *mine*, considering that I actually addressed the question
directly?

Take your time...

I'll bet you're sorry that you originally invoked my name in this
thread. Maybe you've learned something...

Turdy blathers and bleats:

"...the pertient [sick sic] quotes demolish your claims..."

Those "pertient" quotes can be deadly, I will note.

"I correctly point out that his problem is not that his question can't be
answered on an audio group...that is dominated by perverts..."

Turdy states a fact. He's a perv deluxe. Documented.

LN

--
"I = ER is a fact" - A. Dimbulb Krooger