| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
"Scott Elliott Birch" wrote in message
om Is anybody running Reason 2.0 on a 2GHz (or thereabouts) Celeron laptop? 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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
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. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
"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. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
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! |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
PS, you can upgrade to 2.5 for free at the Propellerheads website.
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
"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. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
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. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
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". |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
"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. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
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... |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
dave weil said to ****-for-Brains: I'll bet you're sorry that you originally invoked my name in this thread. Maybe you've learned something... I think Krooger learned never to be embarrassed, no matter how stupid he appears, some time before he brought his act to Usenet. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
"dave weil" wrote in message
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? Your so-called answer is irrelevant at this time, Weil. The question was answered this morning. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who asked it is so frustrated with RAO that he's unlikely to ever make the mistake of coming here again. If he reads the Middius POS reply, he'll be doubly frustrated. Take your time... Wasting much more time with this is not indicated. The subject was proabably closed in the original author's mind someplace around 6 am EDT this morning. I'll bet you're sorry that you originally invoked my name in this thread. Maybe you've learned something... I'm happy to stand on my answer given that it was timely and predated any other answers. Given that you took the better part of a day to write just one post, with an obvious axe to grind proves only how desperate for attention you are, Weil. I've given you more than enough attention to keep your wounded little ego stoked for weeks Weil. So, this will be my last post to this thread unless something really interesting comes up. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 16:27:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: around 6 am EDT this morning. Thank heavens it wasn't 6am this evening. That would have confused me, Arnii. Nate* died. -- Thine * Obligatory dead-Nate mention. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Silliest Sights Imaginable
dave weil said to ****-for-Brains: You're not claiming that *you* answered the question are you? If so, you're nuts. And your point would be...... ? ;-) *I'm* the only one who actually addressed the question. I didn't send him somewhere else, but I addressed his question about processor speed. The five silliest sights I've seen in the past year: 5. Trent Lott insisting he didn't say anything at all racist. 4. In traffic court, a defendant saying he's not guilty of ignoring a stop sign because he stopped at the same sign the week before. 3. Larry Ellison proclaiming he wants to buy Peoplesoft for "synergy". 2. President Shrub saying we have to invade Iraq RIGHT AWAY because they're about to use WMD on us. 1. Arnii Krooger doing his "debating trade" dance. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
Paul Dormer said: What has this got to do with Nate? Maybe I inadvertently brought him into the discussion by saying the same thing Turdy said. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Repost: Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop.
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 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Reason 2.0 on a Celeron 2GHz laptop. | General | |||
Linear Mode
