I know everyone will hate me for saying this, and I know you specifically want to use Linux, but I'm going to suggest it anyway...
I use an old Compaq 466 P.O.S. running Windows 98 and Winamp3. I have it on my network, rip the music on my Slackware or XP box and just copy it over. I have a keyboad with the "play, stop, pause, etc." hotkeys painted on it and I also use VNC to control it when my main system is on. The system is on pretty much 24/7 and it has worked well for me...
It's simple for everyday use (just smack the Bill Gates picture on the side to bring it out of standby and hit 'X') but has easy access to the full winamp EQ, volume controls etc... I don't have to see a windows logo, start menu or anything, just the winamp interface (main screen, EQ, playlist editor, Media library).
What's the difference between a network cable going to your TV and a phone cable going to your TV? I would assume that most people would have a phone (and therefore a phone line) in the same room as their TV but far fewer people would have a computer\router\switch etc. Mabey I'm missing the point, but that alone seems like a strange reason to choose one over the other, especially if the other costs substantially less.
CBC's (Canada eh?) coverage is pretty decent this year. My Satellite has a "CBC sports plus" feature which gives real time news, medal charts and schedules for the whole Olympics. There is also a "multiscreen olympics" channel that shows the main English and French CBC coverage (we have had to resort to watching some things in French but you still get to see it...) as well as TSN and another network all on one screen. We also get most of the American coverage too.
I think that Doom III also will be successful on it's own merit, not just the reputation of it's predecessors. the first two iterations of Doom were so long ago that many of the new generation of gamers don't even know they existed! It may be similar to the previous games but the hardware and technology are so different, there's no way it can be 'unoriginal'.
I know I won't buy Doom III because of Doom or Doom II, I'll buy it because it looks great (both graphically and gameplay-wise - though it still could tank in the gameplay department...)
Slashdot Mirror
But will it run Doom3 on super high quality settings?
I know everyone will hate me for saying this, and I know you specifically want to use Linux, but I'm going to suggest it anyway...
I use an old Compaq 466 P.O.S. running Windows 98 and Winamp3. I have it on my network, rip the music on my Slackware or XP box and just copy it over. I have a keyboad with the "play, stop, pause, etc." hotkeys painted on it and I also use VNC to control it when my main system is on. The system is on pretty much 24/7 and it has worked well for me...
It's simple for everyday use (just smack the Bill Gates picture on the side to bring it out of standby and hit 'X') but has easy access to the full winamp EQ, volume controls etc... I don't have to see a windows logo, start menu or anything, just the winamp interface (main screen, EQ, playlist editor, Media library).
What's the difference between a network cable going to your TV and a phone cable going to your TV? I would assume that most people would have a phone (and therefore a phone line) in the same room as their TV but far fewer people would have a computer\router\switch etc. Mabey I'm missing the point, but that alone seems like a strange reason to choose one over the other, especially if the other costs substantially less.
Thank you, I agree, since the main Mozilla.org page has no mention of it...
CBC's (Canada eh?) coverage is pretty decent this year. My Satellite has a "CBC sports plus" feature which gives real time news, medal charts and schedules for the whole Olympics. There is also a "multiscreen olympics" channel that shows the main English and French CBC coverage (we have had to resort to watching some things in French but you still get to see it...) as well as TSN and another network all on one screen. We also get most of the American coverage too.
I think that Doom III also will be successful on it's own merit, not just the reputation of it's predecessors. the first two iterations of Doom were so long ago that many of the new generation of gamers don't even know they existed! It may be similar to the previous games but the hardware and technology are so different, there's no way it can be 'unoriginal'. I know I won't buy Doom III because of Doom or Doom II, I'll buy it because it looks great (both graphically and gameplay-wise - though it still could tank in the gameplay department...)