Okay, sorry, I should have said you're gadget challenged. I do use this stuff all the time, I don't always use all the components, which is where my problem of keeping track of what widget goes with which gadget comes from. Mark get a Squeezebox for streaming music throughout the house and outside. The wireless Squeezebox can also be hard wired. I absolutely LOVE mine. Not only do they stream internet radio and your music collection but you can sign up for Pandora which essentially allows you to create your own streaming stations based on what music you like. If you are so inclined, the source code is available for the Squeezebox so you can modify them but they have so many features built in you don't really need to. They can also be integrated into a server. I'm not too worried about any of this becoming obsolete very soon. Too few people are aware of this technology and what it can do. I've even read on techdirt and /. people stating you need your computer turned on and running at all times in order to use VOIP and stream music. Funny, VOIP and my Squeezebox work fine with my computer torn apart while doing surgery on it. I guess they've never heard of a router or ethernet adapters. The issue, as I see it, is the cellphone industry is now claiming to be "wireless", which it is, but it's not the same as wireless computing and that confuses the average person. And the streaming internet/music industry has people confused by stating these products use regular radio frequencies, which it does, but most people don't realize they aren't talking about analog devices. Until the masses better understand what's available and the potential, the technology/gadgets won't advance that fast (or not before what I already have wears out). It absolutely floors me that people still buy analog stereo equipment. Now that's obsolete. I only use headphones outside when I'm too lazy to drag a set of speakers outside, since I haven't gotten around to buying wireless speakers yet. For the record, I don't even own a cellphone but I'm anxiously awaiting wifi VOIP technology to advance a little further. Since I already use WISP and VOIP. Kevin, sometimes I just get tired of listening to myself think. There is some very cool new music out there that a person would never know about if it weren't for internet music.

i am a big fan of canon i had a sony point & shoot and wounld never buy sony again from yahoo shopping couldn't get the link to work Digital cameras Some big-camera features come in strikingly small packages from ConsumerReports.org November 2006 More than 30 percent of U.S. households have yet to switch from film, and millions more are seeking a second, or even third digital camera, so this should be a hot holiday season for digitals. Manufacturers are responding by crowding more capabilities into smaller, lighter, more stylish models. And they're adding special twists such as water resistance, large-type icons for the eyesight challenged, and--in one case--even a slimming feature that claims to take 10 pounds off your subject's image. This guide, along with the Ratings, can help you find the right camera. Noteworthy cameras examines three new models that arrived too late for us to fully test and rate in this report. Match the size to your needs Virtually all digital cameras take decent pictures these days. In choosing one, first decide if your priority is small size or extra photographic power and flexibility. A few models strive to offer it all, but none do so without compromise. Small cameras continue to shrink and grow sleeker, and many have an LCD large enough to dominate the camera's rear side, even as their resolution keeps growing. Five megapixels is already considered minimal resolution, and 7 or 8 is offered by a small but growing band. Other features trickling down from large models to a few small ones include zoom ranges larger than 3x, image stabilization, and manual controls. One familiar feature may soon be on the endangered list: the optical viewfinder. Meanwhile, larger and more powerful cameras keep gaining new capabilities and, in some cases, growing cheaper. Some advanced compacts--cameras that offer extensive controls and higher-than-entry-level resolution while retaining the convenience of a built-in lens--rival some SLRs and weigh nearly as much. Resolution now runs between 8 and 10 megapixels, and the ability to save images as a RAW file is standard. (A RAW file contains the captured image before it has been processed by the camera's built-in software and gives you maximum flexibility in controlling things such as sharpness and color balance.) More super-zooms, with optical zoom ranges 10x or greater, feature optical or mechanical image stabilizers. Most of these cameras are bulky and weigh a pound or more. However, innovative designs make a couple of models smaller and much lighter than the rest, heralding a new day for this type of camera. SLRs, once limited to those on champagne budgets, are increasing in resolution and coming down in price; several are now available for less than $1,000. Recently, three manufacturers--Sony, Nikon, and Canon--all introduced 10-megapixel models in that price range, thereby upping the ante in the growing competition for serious photographers. CR's take. Compacts are the mainstream cameras, with the capabilities most people need, for as little as $200 for a fine performer. Choose a subcompact if you're willing to pay extra, and can accept a few compromises, to be able to carry it in your pocket. Get an advanced compact if you want lots of control over exposure and the image but prefer a built-in lens. Go for a super-zoom if you want to shoot closeups of distant subjects. Spring for an SLR if you must have it all, are willing to lug around that much weight, and can afford separate lenses. For more specifics see Types. Don't overspend on resolution Most new cameras now offer at least 5 megapixels of resolution, though a few older, 4-megapixel models may linger in stores. Buying more than 5 megapixels costs less than it used to, but you'll still pay $30 to $50 per additional megapixel for a basic compact camera and a bit more for a higher-resolution subcompact. More megapixels usually translate into more picture detail. But beyond 5 megapixels, you're unlikely to see the difference unless you crop images heavily or make poster-size prints. Even with the 8x10 prints we use for our tests, high resolution doesn't assure high overall print quality, since other factors, such as lens quality, affect the score. With small cameras, high resolution can impose trade-offs in picture quality, especially in low-light conditions. Our Ratings illustrate this: Only a third of the highest-resolution (7- or 8-megapixel) subcompacts produced excellent prints, compared with more than half the 5-megapixel models. And while a few subcompact cameras now offer ISO settings of 800 for handheld shooting in dim light, the resulting shots are often grainy and noticeably worse than those from SLRs at similar or even higher ISO settings and the best (expensive) point-and-shoots. CR's take. A 5-megapixel camera should provide all the resolution most people need. If you often crop or blow up your images into posters, get at least 7 megapixels. If you're attracted to a particular subcompact or compact because of its high ISO settings, check our Ratings or make sure you can return it at no cost if its handheld low-light performance is disappointing. If you need both high resolution (greater than 5 megapixels) and impeccable quality, focus on the advanced compacts and SLRs that had excellent print or image quality in our tests. Weigh zoom range trade-offs Another feature to consider carefully is a zoom range that's greater than the 3x found on most cameras. (A zoom lens' range is the ratio of its highest, telephoto focal length to its lowest, wide-angle length. For example, a zoom lens that's considered equivalent to a film camera's 35-mm to 105-mm lens has a range of 3x.) The wider the range, the greater the flexibility you have for composing shots. A few compacts and subcompacts now feature ranges as high as 5x, enough to make a distant figure fill the frame. Through innovative design, a few super-zoom cameras, such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 and Nikon Coolpix S4, even manage to squeeze a 10x zoom into a package just a couple of ounces heavier than many basic compacts and a little bigger (or pricier) than many subcompacts. Most super-zooms are double or triple the weight of smaller cameras and cost hundreds more than the best values in compacts. (The same applies, of course, to SLRs that accept any lens.) Super-zooms also have lenses that tend to bring less light into the sensor and be less sharp. CR's take. Despite recent advances in zoom technology, you shouldn't pay extra--financially or in terms of size and weight--for a zoom range greater than 3x unless you often shoot distant subjects, such as wildlife and sporting events, or need a very wide-angle lens for landscapes or group portraits. Consider reliability Overall, digital cameras have been among the most reliable products in our subscriber surveys. Fewer than 10 percent of those purchased between 2003 and 2006 had ever been repaired or had a serious problem. That said, our latest survey (see Brand repair history) found small differences in reliability between point-and-shoot cameras and same-brand SLRs. And reliability by brand differs somewhat and might help you fine-tune your buying decision. Olympus has been among the more repair-prone brands of SLR. CR's take. It doesn't pay to buy an extended warranty for a digital camera. Check whether your credit card provides coverage. Such plans, often found on gold and platinum cards, may lengthen the original warranty by up to one year. Choose your time and place Camera prices don't fluctuate seasonally, but most new models reach the market during two periods--March through May and September through November. During those times, many older models are replaced by more capable ones that often cost about the same. You can often find street prices, availability dates, in-stock status, and return policies at the Web sites of online retailers and electronics stores. In the latest subscriber survey conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center, online retailers fared well in our Ratings, but if you want personal service, you might want to consider shopping in brick-and-mortar stores. CR's take. To catch the wave of the latest models, buy between May and August or November and February. During these periods, older models may be discounted before they disappear. (You can tell that a camera isn't long for this world if the manufacturer offers a limited-time rebate.) Scrutinize too-good-to-be-true offers. Some dealers use them to unload refurbished cameras. If you're comfortable with refurbished and the price is right, fine. But remember that the latest model, even without a steep discount, may be as good a value because it has more capabilities.

I also just got a Casio EXILIM (14MP, which is kind of silly). I'm really happy with it, for what it is. It was $79.00 on WOOT, and takes nice pix and video. If you're not a purist, it has some built in image processing that can handle much more challenging lighting really well. But you have to realize what you're getting: these will have smaller apertures, noisier sensors, smaller zooms, won't deal well with low light, and have small flashes located right near the lens. But under the right conditions, they can do quite well. (One issue with the Casio: It takes a special Casio battery, rather than the AA or AAA batteries that I have all over the place. But their battery lasts a couple of days. ) By way of background: I'm a major (D)SLR guy, with a big canon rig and lots of Canon lenses. Our living room is decorated with lots of my landscape and wildlife (full disclosure: some from the zoo, of course) and other shots. I love photography. I got the Casio because I wanted something that I can always stick in my pocket. The best camera is the one that you have with you when you need to get the shot :) Remember: Subject, lighting, and technique beat out equipment every time. We also have a Canon S3-IS, which is a higher-quality point-and-shoot. Under the right conditions, it can take pix that are really close to anything I can shoot with the DSLR. It's newer siblings are great cameras too (like the SX30 IS). It's kinda big, though, for a point-and-shoot. I think of cameras in this class as "crossovers" -- big enough lenses and sensors for very good pictures, but small enough to not require a big dedicated bag. If you want the best P&S picture quality, lots of zoom range, and don't mind paying a bit more in $ and size, the Lumix or Canon "crossovers" always seem to be the best bets to me. If you want a simple hand-held P&S, there are lots of options, including Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and Casio... and lots of sites with high-quality reviews: www.steves-digicams.com, www.dpreview.com/ are good.

First, thank you to all of you for going thru this decision process with me. Thank you Zitro Joe and Alisande. I read Ken's website and checked out the Best Buy pixel comparison. Good information. I have looked at many comparison photos and info on the internet and I do like the extra pixels for viewing and zooming in on the computer monitor. However, I just need to get closer to my subject when I want that kind of detail. I am now deciding between the Nikon D5000 with two kit lenses (18-55 mm + 55-200mm) and the Nikon 90 with one kit lens (17-105 mm). I am told the 17-105mm has better optics. I really like the grip and feel of the D90. I fits in my hand better and feels more balanced. My only problem is the extra weight. I am wonder how important the weight is for any of you. The D90 with the lens on is 10 oz heavier than the D5000 with the 18-55 mm lens, and 8 oz heavier than the D5000 with the 55-200 lens. I am not planning to take it on long trips just short outings. I have some aches and pains in my neck and shoulders, but there is a hand strap available (that I would use with either camera) instead of a neck strap. The other things I like about the D90 besides the grip and feel are: Better viewfinder Larger monitor Depth of field preview Stronger build Better optics in the lens A little better in low light? One nicer kit lenses What I like about the D5000: Lighter weight Built-in protection for the LCD screen because it flips around There is no question that I would choose the D90 over the D5000. I am just concerned about the weight of the camera. The salesman points out that if it is too heavy I will be less inclined to take it with me. Is this true of any of you? Does the weight cause you to leave it behind? Thank you again.