*****************************************************************************
dvd player:     Apex AD2600 Progressive-scan DVD player
*****************************************************************************
troubleshooting ad-2500 and ad-2600 no picture scrolling b/w .
repost from january 13 , 2004 with a better fit title .
does your apex dvd player only play dvd audio without video ? 
or does it play audio and video but scrolling in black and white ?
before you try to return the player or waste hours calling apex tech support , or run the player over with your car , try these simple troubleshooting ideas first .
no picture :
hopefully you still have the remote control .
if you tossed it out the window , you need to fetch it .
using the remote control , press the i/p button located on the bottom right corner of the remote .
the i/p button switches the tv display between interlace and progressive .
if this doesnt bring back the picture , try pressing this button without playing a dvd .
if you dont get video back , now you can run the player over with your car !
picture scrolling in b/w :
you need the remote control for this so you better get it from your dog before he burries it in the backyard .
press the p/n button located on the bottom right corner of the remote .
the p/n button switches your dvd players video output signal between pal and ntsc .
by pressing p/n , you should be able to get a good picture on the screen .
for other problems go to http : //www.apexdigitalinc.com/support.asp 
i hope i have helped you continue to enjoy the apex dvd player with these troubleshooting tips .
i have done some research and experimenting with the remote when my apex ad-2500 seemed to have lost its video signal .
im a more happier person after discovering the i/p button !
the button was probably accidentally pushed to cause the black screen in the first place . 
but , if you 're looking for my opinion of the apex dvd player , i love it !
it practically plays almost everything you give it .
i 've had the player for about 2 years now and it still performs nicely with the exception of an occasional wwhhhrrr sound from the motor .
for the price it is a well spent investment !
i would recommend buying one .
 incredibe price / performance .
i 've owned 6 or 7 dvd players since 1998 .
this is by far the nicest one , in so many ways . 
it 's very sleek looking with a very good front panel button layout , and it has a great feature set .
<cs-1>
its fast-forward and rewind work much more smoothly and consistently than those of other models i 've had . 
</cs-1>
1_its 2_models 3_fast-forward 3_rewind (more)
it plays alternate video formats ( vcds , svcds , cvds ) very well .
and amazon.com has it for such a great price -- how can you go wrong ?
i 've bought one for the den and will buy a 2nd one for the bedroom .
strengths are well listed by other reviewers .
what got me to buy was the reviewer that said it would play dvd-rs fill of files ( e .
, mp3s ) .
it sure does !
that 's a rare and valuable feature .
<cs-1>
i have a dvd burner on my computer and a zillion mp3s , and it 's a lot nicer to access them 4.5 gb at a time ( dvd-r ) than 0.7 gb at a time ( cd-r ) ! 
</cs-1>
 1_4.5 gb 2_0.7 gb (nicer)
another nice thing is that the unit has both optical and coax digital audio outputs , though the latter was not mentioned in the literature i 'd scanned before buying . 
saved me from having to buy an expensive optical cable , as i already had a coax cable .
at double-speed ( 2x forward speed ) , it still plays mp3s with sound -- they are pitch-corrected and smooth , but twice as fast !
i wish it would do the same for movies , but that 's one rare / cool feature you will have to forgo . 
weaknesses are minor : the feel and layout of the remote control are only so-so ; it does n't show the complete filenames of mp3s with really long names ; you must cycle through every zoom setting ( 2x , 3x , 4x , 1/2x , etc . 
) before getting back to normal size [ sorry if i 'm just ignorant of a way to get back to 1x quickly ] . 
if you 're a bargain hunter and you want a great feature set for a rock-bottom price , i highly recommend this model .
<cs-1>
update : the finish is more `` mirror `` than silver -- and i like it ! 
</cs-1>
1_mirror 2_silver 3_finish (more)
 doesnt play new disney movies .
many of our disney movies do n't play on this dvd player .
i spoke to a rep .
at apex and was told that a new format is being used and we wont be able to view any disney movies made in the last couple months . 
 poor quality - problem with dual-layer dvd 's .
player has a problem with dual-layer dvd 's such as alias season 1 and season 2 .
for the money , get a better quality player .
player works and looks great - if you can get the dvd 's to play .
<cs-1>
i know the saying is `` you get what you pay for `` but at this stage of game dvd players must have better quality than this - there is no excuse . 
</cs-1>
 1_dvd players 3_quality 2_this (better)
will never purchase apex again .
customer service and technical support are overloaded and nonresponsive - tells you about the quality of their products and their willingness to stand behind them .
pass this player up , and never believe the reviews on a product right before christmas ! 
 has destroyed several of my dvds and cds .
for the first few weeks , this player was everything i expected it to be , an affordable multi-format dvd player with a stylish slim case as advertised . 
then my dvds would stop playing in the middle , or not even be read at all . 
new cds almost always began skipping after a few plays . 
i thought it was just the player , but then i started checking the discs to find that the apex 2600 is actually ruining my media .
there are funny little ridges on the dvd that look like the slice of a tree trunk !
this player is not worth any price and i recommend that you do n't purchase it .
i intend to contact the company , but from what i 've read .
i just got screwed out of fifty bucks .
apex does n't answer the phone .
* sigh .
 their customer service sucks .
no way to contact their customer service .
very bad quality .
 great value .
i bought this apex 2600 dvd player for myself at christmas because it got good reviews as a good value for the money on a variety of different sites . 
i took it to my father 's house to play a tom jones concert dvd and he loved the player so much i gave it to him .
now i need to buy myself another one !
have used it frequently and have had no problems .
i always research electronics online before i buy because even within the same company , some models are better than others .
i liked this one enough to buy another . 
my dad also has an apex tv and it was another great value for the money .
great quality picture and features .
 2 out of three ai n't good .
thought i 'd weigh in here with my stats .
i 've bought 3 apex dvd players now .
they play just about everything , but # 2 and # 3 died very shortly after getting them . 
i am back to using # 1 .
nice machines , but i consider their quality pretty low now .
 buy a better known brand name .
this item broke just two weeks after i gave it to my kids for christmas . 
the door would not close .
i tried to contact apex to return it ( i missed the amazon return period ) and it took 3 months to get through to their customer service dept .
i am still trying to resolve it four months later .
 piece of crap ..
it looks great - and is loaded with features .
unfortunately it turns out to be the `` disposable `` type .
have had problems since the first day
- not playing some dvds and then finally after less than 60 days , it just would not recognize anything i pop in it .
save money on the long run - buy something decent once instead of buying cheap every month .
 i 've had no problems .
the apex 2600 has been a steady performer for me .
i bought mine in december of 2003 , and have had no real problems with it .
it does tend to run quite hot and should be given lots of room for air circulation .
it did also seem to have a strong `` new electronics `` smell for some time .
the only thing i did experience was a problem of the player freezing while playing , which i was able to clear by opening it up and blowing it out with `` canned air .
``
this problem vanished after the first month , so i assume it was a temporary dust issue .
the two main reasons i had for getting this model were the range of disks types played and the recommendation of a friend .
( he had owned two apex dvd players , and was pleased with both of them . 
the fact that this model would play jpeg slideshows was a big plus for me as a visual artist , and i discovered by accident ( it is not mentioned anywhere in the literature ) that it will play mpeg1 files on a regular cd-r data disk without vcd formatting .
the remote is okay , but i am not a fan of remotes with tiny buttons .
i especially like the more commonly used buttons , such as play , pause , and stop , to be larger and conveniently placed .
while it is true that it will stand on end , it is also easy to knock over that way .
i also did n't like the way it displayed information way down into the screen when you are in zoom mode . 
the zoom goes up and down in magnification , which is nice , but there is always a display of the zoom size about one-quarter of the way down from the top of the screen that interferes with viewing at most settings .
having spent considerable time with professional video gear , i find onscreen displays annoying .
i have not used the progressive scan feature .
this model has come down in price since i purchased mine .
while it seems like some people have had trouble with theirs , mine has run well , and i would recommend it if you are considering a dvd player purchase . 
any possible problems should be weighed against the bang-for-the-buck factor , along with the fact that companies like apex seldom have good after-sale support .
while i would like to give it 3.5 stars instead of 4 , i gave it a 4 because it has run well for me during the time i have owned it . 
 do not buy this piece of junk .
i purchased this unit 3 months back and i think the unit knew when my warrenty expires .
it is more than 90 days and it does not show the picture no matter what i do . 
i can only hear the sound . 
i changed video cables , tried connecting to tv on input1 and input2 but no help .
i think you get what you pay for stands true .
 nice paperweight .
i have had this player for 3 months and have been able to see a total of 6 dvd 's , after the frustration and aggrivation of getting the player to do it 's job . 
i have tried many times to get a hold of apex who does n't seem to answer their emails and telephone number is constantly busy as ( i believe ) the one lonely customer service rep is probably extremely overworked .
as i emailed to the the customer service department , the only thing this player has done consistantly is use enought electricity to keep the red led burning .
do yourself a favor and save your money to get something of better quality , or at least works .
 worst piece of electronics i ever bought . 
if i could give this a negative rating , i would .
i am surprised amazon still carries this after all of the continued problems .
wo n't play a lot of discs .
i can only confirm what other customers have said - crap !
some movies it played yesterday , it wo n't play today .
it wo n't play 80 % of my movies , which are all store boughten . 
tech support from apex is literally - nonexistent .
amazon , do your customers a big favor , do n't carry this item , and give them refunds !
there should have been a recall on this product .
fair warning - do not buy .
i repeat - do n't wast your money .
 do n't buy !
<cs-4>
i bought 2 of this model for christmas presents and neither one of them work ! 
</cs-4>
it is embarassing getting phone calls from family members telling you that the dvd player you gave them less that 3 months ago is no longer working .
one stopped working in february and the other in march .
amazon has been working with me to refund my money , but they reminded me that i have past the 30 day return policy and this was a courtesy return .
i have had great experience with amazon , but i will probably not buy electronics any more from them to avoid any future return problems .
 we had problems .
the dvd player does not work properly .
the player usually plays dvd 's , but has occasional problems such as : 1 ) not recognizing a dvd 2 ) stopping a particular point in a movie every time we played it 3 ) not being able to access certain special features on a rental dvd .
this has happened with several different dvd 's and occasionally if we keep trying something , it will work when it did not work one time before .
after we discovered the problems , we tried to contact apex ( fkor 3 months ) , but we never got in touch with them.the customer support telephone number is always busy , and they do not answer their web customer support . 
 ok if you have a 2nd dvd player .
i have had this dvd player for about 3 months now .
nothing has broken on it , and it plays all the dvds i have . 
unfortunately it can 't play all of the dvd . 
i have several tv shows on dvd so they are divided by episode .
on 2 dvds so far it refuses to play certain episodes with no problems on the others on the dvd .
luckily i also have a ps2 which can play those episodes the player can 't .
unfortunately i bought a player because the ps2 could n't play all my dvds , and now the player can 't play everything . 
 another person who had problem with picture after one use . 
i purchased this as a christmas gift for my husband .
we tried it out christmas night and it worked great .
even viewed cds full of jpgs .
we did n't get to use it again for over a month ( sad , i know ) .
but when we went to use it again , there was sound but no picture .
we saw reviews that said the same thing , and also saw here that their customer service stinks . 
though we were past the deadline for returns ( by a few days ) , i contacted amazon right away and pleaded for help .
they authorized my late return , and hopefully they are giving apex heck .
i hate apex but love amazon , and i tell everyone .
do not buy this player .
who knows how many uses you 'll get out of it before it craps out , but it probably will . 
 frustrating just hope you never lose / break the remote for this player !
we 've purchased 3 universal remotes so far-all claiming to work `` apex `` dvd players and none worked .
called customer service and basically was told to either keep buying univ .
remotes to try or buy the replacement remote for $ 23 ( which is almost half of what i paid for the whole player ) . 
if anybody knows of a remote to work this-i 'd love to hear from you !
( on here of course ) also , a couple dvd 's would n't play and they were new ones !
 poor customer service .
i had to return the remote on this product because it appeared to be defective .
it took over 2 months and repeated follow-up to get it replaced .
the customer service dept did not list a toll free number and it was a real hassle to get through on their regular line .
i would not be inclined to purchase an apex product again .
 a piece of junk .
door broke after a month .
unit took forever since the begiining to recognize and play discs .
3 months of use and it no longer recognizes anything .
forget about it .
it 's money down the drain .
<cs-1>
get cheaper panasonics or toshibas or even sonys . 
</cs-1>
 1_panasonics 1_toshibas 1_sonys (cheaper)
 to quote bart : `` craptacular `` .
well , it was nice while it lasted .
after @ 3 months , it stoppped playing higher number scenes on dvds .
as an engineer , i am embarrassed for the engineering profession when such crap is released for sale .
 poor quality .
only used for 3 month before it 's down !
i had hoped this was bought from walmart so that i could return it !
it sends discoutinous signals to tv , so the tv has the pictures for one moment and has only the white noise for the other moment .
the other thing i do n't like about this 2600 is that it makes the color look over saturated .
maybe it 's good for tvs with not so good color settings , but not good for my tv that already has very vibrant pictures .
 returned after failing to play dvds .
i purchased the ad2600 after feeling comfortable with the reviews i read here on amazon .
as soon as i lifted the unit out of the box , i questioned my judgement .
the entire unit was poorly crafted .
there were sharp screw tips on the underside of the unit coming from inside that were obviously used to anchor the internal control board .
after hooking the thing up , i found that it would only played less than 50 % of the dvds i put in it .
most of the dvds i was trying were fairly new and were in great condition .
the dvd player just would't recognize them .
it would spin , read , spin some more and then show on the display that there was no disc .
i ended up sending the unit back to amazon .
 apex ad2600 .
this dvd player plays raw mpeg2 and mpeg1 videos , jpeg , wma , cdr / cdrw / dvdr / dvdrw , and of course plays dvd movies from uk .
i love the aiff , progressive scan feature .
now it would have gotten 5 stars had this baby come with features to upgrade the firmware and was able to play divx or avi videos .
but for $ 49.99 go get one !
features and looks this dvd player is overpriced had it come with sony or one of the other top brand names .
 customer service nonexistant .
i have not even used my new dvd player and already i am disapointed !
i have been trying for over a week to contact apex .
they will not respond to my emails ( promised turnaround time is 24 hours ) and the phone line is constantly busy .
all i am looking for is a rebate form !
 what a buy ..
i accually did n't buy the apex ad-2600 from amazon but , the reviews i found here helped me purchase it .
i have owned an apex ad-3201 for close to 3 years now and i love that deck .
because of it 's hidden features ( no macrovision , non-regional ) i keep this baby around to watch non-american region dvd 's .
however , the ad-2600 does n't have this feature ( for now ) .
the cool thing about the ad-2600 it plays alot of different file like mp3 , wma cds , jpeg and kodak picture cds , dvd 's , dvd - / + r 's . 
it 's not a listed feature but , the one thing that sold the unit is that it plays mpeg video .
i find this to be a great feature .
<cs-2>
i 've tried playing all of these discs and they all play great . 
</cs-2>
1_all of these discs 3_play (all)
for the money apex machines have good features .
you can 't find the mpeg playback on high priced units .
it 's low profile , space saving design looks nice .
i find the apex ad-2600 to be a great buy .
 avoid apex dvd players - even if they 're free !
i received this dvd player free with the purchase of a palm tungsten e from officemax .
now i know why - they are pieces of junk .
less than a month later the screen freezes and eventually shows `` no disc .
``
this is the second apex dvd player i 've had - and the last . 
my first player ( model ad-500a ) went into the trash about 6 months after i bought it .
same story as everybody else when trying to get service from apex - nothing .
pay a few more bucks and get something else - it 'll be worth it in the long run . 
 best player for the buck .
i was surprised to find that not only could this dvd player play mpeg2 format which allowed me to stack 2 movies on a dvd , but it also was able to play vob files which i created with smart ripper . 
the aff feature did a great job converting the letterbox to fill 3/4 of the screen and the image still looked normal .
loved the slim design .
 black and white only after 1 month of use .
this unit was working fine for the 1st month and a half and then the color signal disappeared . 
apex has still not responded to my email describing the problem after almost a week and their customer service line is always busy . 
 most bang for the buck .
<cs-3>
i recieved my 2600 4 days ago and feel that this may be the best $ 50 i have ever spent . 
</cs-3>
1_2600 3_$50 spent (best)
it plays all my back-ups , + or - , and everything else i have put in it without a hick up .
audio is excellent .
well worth the money .
 for the price , an excellent buy .
after having bought and been disappointed in another brand of dvd player , i purchased the apex ad2600 from amazon and first of all i should say it was delivered much more quickly than i had expected .
( good going , amazon ) .
i am very pleased with the apex ad2600.it plays just about anything you put in the drawer .
so far i 've played regular dvd 's , backup dvd-r 's , mp3 cd 's , and regular cd 's .
i have not yet tried the photo show capability , but i 'm thinking that will probably work well too , based on the success with the above mentioned disks .
i do want to mention too that it is certainly worthwhile to read the instruction manual that comes with the unit .
the comments i 've read about having problems with this dvd player all seem to stem from pushing the incorrect buttons on the dvd remote.for instance , pushing the button to play pal ( european type ) movies , when an ntsc ( usa type ) movie disk is in the disk tray .
so , if you read the instructions well , you should n't have any problems with this dvd unit .
i can 't speak to its long-term reliability , as i 've only had the apex ad2600 for a little over a week at this point . 
but , it seems to work so well now , that i do n't anticipate any problems with it .
bottom line for me is that for the price i do n't think you can go wrong at all by purchasing this dvd player . 
 excellent second dvd , or first dvd for hdtv ready tv . 
wow !
simple to use and hook up .
comes with standard rca jacks for output , along with s-video output ( s-video cable not included , must be purchased seperately ) and also component video outputs .
the progressive scan option can be turned off easily by a button on the remote control which is one of the simplest and easiest remote controls i have ever seen or used .
i also own an `` apex ad 1201 `` dvd player and have had no problems with it since i purchased it almost 1 1/2 years ago .
<cs-4>
one big difference between the 1201 and the 2600 models is that the 2600 model is virtually silent . 
</cs-4>
<cs-2>
and does n't need to be placed in a cabinet like the 1201 does . 
</cs-2>
2_1201 3_placed in a cabinet (like)
friends of mine who own apex tv sets are also all very pleased . 
i would not hesitate to purchase this if you are uncertain of the brand name .
consider it for a future gift too !
 save your money .
this dvd play is basicly junk .
it wo n't play all of my movies .
keeps coming up with no disk errors .
i tried called apex cust service , no help .
do n't waste your money .
mine was 2 weeks old and i chucked it in the trash , where it belongs .
this is the 4 apex player that i have bought .
<cs-1>
you might think you are saving money by buying an apex but in the long run you will spend more . 
</cs-1>
1_long run 3_spend (more)
each of the 4 lasted less than six months .
you can get a pretty good progressive scan sony or toshiba now for 68 bucks just about anywhere .
spend the money its well worth it .
 what a dvd player !
<cs-3>
this is the best dvd player i 've purchased . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_dvd player (best)
i 've owned a panasonic and sony dvd and this one outperforms in function and image quality and most of all , access speed .
for those of you who has problems with this player , i 'd suggest checking the owners manual to get the right setting so that you are not displaying the wrong mode and have no picture , etc .
this player has worked flawlessly for me and at this price , you can 't go wrong .
80 % of the features on here you will not get by spending $ 100 on a sony or panasonic .
having said that , this is what you do .
`` add to cart `` !
'' check out `` !
'' enjoy `` !
 apex ad2600 known capadabilty problem .
i have sent my ad2600 back to apex because it wo n't play certain disney and other dvd movies ( no disc message ) .
they sent me a new ad2600 with the same problem .
i call apex customer service and they told me that there is a known problem with the model playing disney and other movies and that it is not there problem so i 'm stuck with a new dvd player that wo n't play my kids disney movies .
 value for money !
i bought this dvd player mainly because my old sharp dvd player could not play most of the dvds from the store that i rent from and i had to watch them using my pc 's dvd-rom player .
well , this apex dvd player turned out great !
it plays basically every media i 've tested so far , even an old vcd that i ripped years ago and the rental dvd that could n't be played on my old $ 200 sharp player !
i have to say i 'm also pretty impressed by the user interface for playing jpeg , mp3 and mpeg files stored on cd-rs / dvds .
it 's almost like having a media player / file manager built into the dvd player . 
<cs-1>
i did not want to have high expectations for this apex player because of the price but it is definitely working out much better than what i would expect from an expensive high-end player . 
</cs-1>
 1_apex player 3_working out (better)
what more can you ask for from a $ 40 dvd player ? 
i guess i 'm just lucky to get a good working unit !
hope the unit lasts as i 've only had it for 3 days . 
and the slim form-factor together with the mirror-like front panel sure makes the player look cool and pricey !
one bad thing though , i find the remote-control a bit flimsy and i predict it will most probably ' die ' before the player does .
finally , amazon 's free shipping is really getting good , it took only 3 working days for the player to reach me ! 
 poor quality dvd player .
i purchased two of these players for christmas gifts , and both were bad . 
the first one would n't work from the start .
the second lasted about two weeks before the video went out ! 
amazon.com promptly refunded my money for the first one , because a replacement was not available ( thanks amazon.com ! 
i am still trying to resolve the problem with the second one .
i have tried several times to contact apex digital through their on-line support site and their telephone line , but they wo n't answer my emails and their telephone line is always busy .
i will never buy another apex digital product !
 you get what you paid for .
for the most part this is a good dvd player .
but about 25 % of dvd 's i 've played on ithave a problem , when watching a movie the picture will freeze , but the dvd still plays , and eventualy the picture kicks back in after skipping a few moments . 
usually i just skip to the next chapter to avoid it .
annoying .
 no picture and / or no sound , try i/p button on the remote .
we have had this product for over a month and yesterday it stopped working .
it is connected to an old television set via composite video and analog audio outputs .
there was neither picture nor sound .
connecting the same outputs to a video card in my computer , there was sound but still no picture .
the trouble shooting section in the user 's manual , suggesting correct and secure connections , does n't help .
i searched on the internet and found one tip which solved our problem : press i/p button on the remote control .
it makes the dvd player to switch between interlace mode and progressive scan mode .
obviously there is no composite video output and different analog audio signals at progressive scan mode .
we are overall pleased with product .
i would have rated it five stars but for the poor manual .
 people with video issue 's .
i think most of you people complaining about no video is due to you hitting the wrong button either the p/n = pal / ntsc or the i/p is set to progressive scan .
another stupid move .
 buyer beware .
i purchased this as a christmas gift on 12-4 - 03 .
it worked from 12-26 to 1-9 at which time the picture failed completely ( see other negative reviews-my unit was n't the only one this happened to . 
i tried calling the support number for a week , several times a day , and always got a busy signal .
i also registered the unit online and posted two messages to the apex support person ( there can 't possibly be more than one !
neither message was answered ( they ask for 24 hours before replying - i 've been waiting 27 days . 
i finally returned the unit to the company along with copies of my messages and return info .
let me quote a customer service rep from one of the authorized apex service locations in my state ( they only service apex tv 's , not dvd players ) :
'' you can send it in , but i would n't count on ever seeing it or a replacement again .
 barely worked .
it only read the dvds 10 % of the time , otherwise i would get a no disc screen . 
i got this dvd player as a gift and had to send it back .
amazon was supposed to send me another one , but did n't and sent me a gift certificate instead ( i 'm guessing because the price has gone up on this unit since december ) .
 has problems reading some dvds .
good :
progressive scan player for a relatively low price ( although the better known manufacturers like toshiba , pioneer , and panasonic are now offering lower-priced progressive scan players as well ) .
seems to read most dvds fine , and reads quietly ( i had a pioneer player that had fairly loud disc spin noise ) .
also , i have not had trouble reading svcds that i created and vbr mp3 cds ( my old apex ad-1200 had trouble with these ) .
output through component connections looks very good , on my non-hd tv .
bad :
i 've had this player for several months and it reads most discs , but it would not recognize several discs that were clean and read on other players ( from friends season 2 ) .
it would just spin up and stop , and display `` no disc `` .
my other gripe is the incredibly crappy remote , which is worse than other , cheaper apex units .
for some reason they made the navigation buttons all one button , a ring around the enter / play button .
you have to press the buttons hard and frequently i end up pressing enter when i meant to scroll .
also , for some reason the picture looks washed out on s-video , with lots of color bleeding , compared to a component connection ( should not be much of a perceptible difference on a 27 `` tv ) .
 pretty good .
ok this is our first dvd player so what do i know .
i checked out the amazon reviews and i 'm pleased to say mine worked , works , fine right out of the box .
i like the auto fit feature = you can stretch widescreen dvd 's to normal .
lot 's of other features that i need to find out about .
looks ok - very shiny chrome and mirrors .
things that i 'd prefer different - there 's a red light that shines when it 's turned off !
and the remote is cheap and cheasy - not sure how long it 'll last , but for 50 bucks what the heck !
 plays pancakes .
this thing plays everything i feed it .
compusa , memorex , fuji .
plays them all .
i ordered 2 .
 great dvd player .
i wanted a dvd player that had basic features and would be able to play dvd - r format disc 's that i had made myself .
when i 1st tried it i found that it had no problem playing the more expensive dvd - r media disc 's that other players would play but to my surprise was able to play cheep media that i had burned that i could n't get to work before in anything but the dvd burner itself that i had made the disc with .
easy to use , small form factor , and looks good to boot .
very happy !
 customer service is non-existent ! !
i wish i could give negative stars !
i bought this dvd player in november .
i have an apex ad600 for a few years now which still works great today .
i figured with a great first product and with this one having more features than the 600 i would buy one .
what a mistake !
after about an hour it starts skipping like the dvd 's are dirty . 
i 've tried several dvd 's and even new ones do the same thing . 
i have ice age and it keeps telling me no disc .
i 've tried someone elses and the same thing happens . 
i tried e-mailing apex and they come back saying undeliverable .
i 've tried leaving questions on their site never to have them answered .
i just want to at least try an exchange but you can 't get through to their number , it 's always busy . 
that makes sense though , with all the substandard products they make . 
do not buy this product or any apex product unless you are looking to be frustrated and lose money !
 keep shopping , do n't stop here .
i bought this as a gift for my sister .
it has never worked .
i 've attempted to connect this unit to several different tvs , using a multitude of connection methods , and i still can 't get a video signal from the machine .
i highly regret trying to save a few $ with this purchase .
 worst customer service on record .
purchased the ad-2600 about a month ago and have had numerous problems with it .
the most recent is that it will stop responding to the on/off button .
the light goes from red to green but no display or any operation whatsoever .
i end up unplugging it from the wall for a few hours and when i try again it will work fine.at least until this problem arises again . 
i 've registered this unit at www.apexdigialinc.com and listed the problem .
they claim to respond in a 24 hour period yet it 's been 2 weeks without a reply .
i 've sent 10 e-mails to their customer service department requesting an ra with no response .
i 've called the service number and if it 's not busy , it rings forever then eventually dumps you .
once i actually got to an answering machine and left a message .
still no response .
i will never purchase anything from this company ever again and have logged my complaint with the bbb .
 good price , bad product .
i bought this player as a christmas present for my wife .
3/4 way through the first disk we played on it ( naturally on 31 days after purchase ) the dvd player froze .
now it will not load any disk or just says that there is no disk .
have tried to contact apex via e-mail ( customerservice @ apexdigital.com ) , but the e-mail address is not valid .
have tried calling ( 866-4apexgo ) , but can 't get through .
this product sucks , the customer service from apex sucks .
i should n't have been cheap , should have bought a toshiba .
 stay away from it .
i bought this product from amazon .
after using it for just a month , i could not play any dvd .
i can only hear the sound but no picture ! 
their customer ( www.apexdigitalinc.com ) service is very poor .
no contact phone number , only eamil contact which did not respond me . 
 problems .
i bought this player during a christmas sale at an excellent price .
however , i should have followed my instincts :
you get what you pay for .
one of the dvd 's i received as a christmas present kept freezing . 
some dvd 's i rented would not play .
now , i suddenly have no picture .
i will say this .
when the player was working it was great , but .
 the second apex - at least it 's prettier than the last .
the physical appearance of this apex compared to one previous ( ad1100w ) is most appreciated .
the prior one looked and felt lightweight , cheesy , and assembled by the oppressed :
i purchased it for it 's easy ability to accept cd-r hacks .
i used it lightly , and it lasted just over one year ( forgot to kill the power one day , and now it only plays dvds ) .
back to the 2600 :
1 .
it does n't smell like burning plastic when you open the drive .
2 .
<cs-3>
without a doubt the finest looking apex dvd player that i 've seen . 
</cs-3>
3_looking apex dvd player (finest)
3 .
excellent picture quality - on par with my pioneer , panasonic , and jvc players .
4 .
<cs-1>
remote : you can stand it on end ( harder to lose ) , and it 's far better designed than the 1100s .
</cs-1>
1_it 2_1100 3_designed (better)
<cs-1>
anyway , the initial impression is much better than when i opened the box on the 1100 over a year ago - you can telll that apex is trying harder to improve their product . 
</cs-1>
 3_impression 1_apex 3_product (better)

i 'd have given it 5 stars , but i 'm waiting to see if this one holds up to more frequent use than the last one :
with progressive scan , i expect it to play play play - and give my old pioneer a rest .
 does not play dvds with extra features ..
first of all , i bought this dvd as a christmas present for my girlfriend and i am somewhat disappointed .
<cs-4>
unlike some of the other people who received a `` lemon `` , my dvd player came in perfect working condition . 
</cs-4>
as a whole , the dvd player has a sleek design and works fine .
what disappointed me is the fact that it does not seem to read certain dvds .
for example , i tried playing my new `` pirates of the carribean `` extra features dvd , but this dvd player can not read it .
at first i thought it is only a isolated incident , but i was proven wrong when the player would not read my `` alias `` dvds as well .
this player seems to work fine with everything else .
<cs-1>
so i do n't understand why it would not work with dvds that seem to have more features in them . 
</cs-1>
1_dvds 3_features (more)
because of this , i am disappointed and would not recommend this product .
 apex you can trust .
i had apex regular ( non-progressive ) dvd-player for two years .
had no problem with it .
now , i thought it 's time to upgrade .
so , i bought apex ad-2600 in november ' 03 from amazon .
it 's running great for all the dvds i have and rented . 
i have a dvd burner .
run [ +3 ] , dvd media [ +2 ] # apex ad-2600 runs all the dvd media including dvd + r/rw and dvd-r / rw ( unlike sony or panasonic - one supports only + r/rw and another supports - r/rw ) .
<cs-3>
i think , apex is the best dvd player you can get for the price . 
</cs-3>
1_apex 3_dvd player (best)
some of my friends had well branded dvd-players but they keep complaining that sometime it stucks and sucks !
most of them are already switched to apex and they are happy .
if you are skeptical about trying apex .
take my words and give it a try .
hopefully you wo n't regret .
goodluck !
 a great discovery !
i bought this to replace an expensive ( $ 300 + ) onkyo dvd player that quit after only 3 years !
this has so many capabilities that you 'll always have room for new technologies as they evolve .
i use this with a home theater system and it 's amazing how it sounds , the picture clarity is unmatched !
so much packed in a small case and very affordable !
 sucks .
worked for two weeks .
after two weeks the picture kept freezing .
spend the extra 20 $ and buy a name brand dvd player .
apex sucks !
only the cheap and poor would buy one .
 video failed after 3 weeks .
unit worked great for 3 weeks then video output failed .
 quirky ?
i got one of these to serve as a second dvd player in my house .
it 's a compact , attractive machine and was easy to set up .
basic usage is easy , but the remote has a lot of buttons that i have n't used .
so far , we 've only used this player a few times to watch movies and it has worked fine .
the picture is clear , bright and sharp and the sound is good .
again , though , it has only been used sparingly . 
the catch is that , while it plays movies just fine , it has refused to read second discs with the movie `` extras `` on them on the two occaisions when i tried to do that .
it 's not a big deal for me .
i simply watched the extra features on another player .
had this been my only dvd player , though , it would have been a real problem .
as it is , i 'm keeping the machine .
it works well enough ( so far ) for me to be satisfied with it , and it 's possible that i 'm missing something .
<cs-2>
but i would expect that , since my movie discs have all played with no problem , the extras discs would , too , without any additional tweaking . 
</cs-2>
1_movie discs 2_extras discs 3_played (all)
i 'm giving this player cautious recommendation .
there are a lot of things i like about it .
be advised , however , that you may encounter problems .
 apex ad-2600 working so far .
received apex dvd and the picture was great when set up with s connector .
the remote is a little hard to understand .
<cs-2>
my jpeg pictures are viewable ( not so sharp and vivid ) on my 27 `` screen but seem not as clear as when i view them on my 17 `` monitor . 
</cs-2>
1_27 `` screen 2_17 `` monitor 3_jpeg pictures are viewable (as clear as)
so far the dvd works so i hope it does n't break down like the reviews i 've read .
prior to christmas , it seems the reviews were very good but after that it seems the reviews went bad ! 
i would n't gotten this dvd based on the reviews i read after christmas . 
 great player ...
when it worked !
video output stopped workin .
this was an awesome player , before the video output no longer worked ( after about 3 weeks ) .
i might have gotten a lemon , but this is not the first report of video output failure on this machine . 
i am returning it , and again in the market for a multiformat dvd , svcd , vcd , mp3 , etc .
player .
what a disappointment !
 quit in 10 days .
i bought the apex ad-2600 dvd player for the family for christmas .
set up was easy and we enjoyed it for just over a week .
there was occasionally a lip-sync issue ( the lips were n't moving in time to the dialogue ) .
but after 10 days , the sound worked , but the video quit working .
amazon was wonderful about picking it up the next day and paying for the return shipping .
perhaps this experience will teach me not to buy `` off `` brands .
 read the manual ! !
i 'm editing my review , because now i wish i read the manual before returning the player i bought for my girlfriend .
the button on the remote to switch from pal to ntsc was undoubtedly my problem .
now i may buy two !
( my orignal review is below : )
great feature list , poor reliability .
output went black and white only via both s-video and composite connections , and with no v-hold .
thankfully amazon has free return shipping !
 retraction : said mine had silver plate : it does have display .
retraction : said mine had silver plate : it does have display .
it works great .
i should have looked at it harder .
 great by for the price .
i purchased two apex 2600 for christmas presents .
so far we have only hooked up one of them .
<cs-2>
the unit seems to play all formats that i have put in it ( jpeg , kodak pic 's and dvd-r ) i have read other reviews and some good and soom not so good , but my feeling at this time is `` two thumbs up `` ! 
</cs-2>
1_jpeg 1_kodak pic 's 1_dvd-r 3_play (all)
( i guess only time will tell ? ) 
p.s the remote control does seem to get confused at times and doesnt respond but it may be just operator error ?
 does n't play my alias season 1 dvds .
what the hell is wrong with this thing .
i bought this thing because it plays everything .
this is the third apex dvd i bought .
the first one was the 705 which i hacked successfully to play all region dvds and disable macrovision .
<cs-1>
the second one was the 2500 which i think is better than the 2600 because it has more features such as karoake which i do use sometimes for parties .
</cs-1>
1_2500 2_2600 3_features 3_karoake (better)
but heck it plays my alias dvds .
what the heck is up with the 2600 .
it suppose to play everything .
wrong !
by the way my alias dvds are legit too not no bootleg from the internet .
i 'm sending this pup back to amazon and looking for the 2500 on ebay .
you should too .
forget about the sleek looks if it can 't play some of your real dvds .
 only lasted a month !
i bought the 2600 because it plays everything !
well , within 45 days the video output quit working ( both rca & optic ) .
so now it still plays everything , you just can 't see it !
 a frustrating christmas .
we ordered two apex ad-2600 's for our family for christmas - finally decided to join the rest of the world and watch dvd 's - well .
the first one we installed did n't work , and our kids were devastated to say the least .
the second one is up and running .
it seems to be working fine , but we 've not used it all that much .
i am returning the broken one today .
i will not be ordering another one to replace it .
update : january 27th 2004 - the second one crapped out only after a week - dont buy this product !
 disappointing - get what you pay for .
the player looked good right out of the box , offering lots of features and good styling .
i immediately had problems getting the player to recognize two of my favorite dvds .
after `` loading `` for what seemed like a very long time , the display indicated `` no disk `` . 
after multilple tries , one of the disks was finally recognized but video was poor and features not available .
only one disk played through to completion successfully .
at $ 49 .
i guess you get what you pay for .
i 'd recommend against this unit .
 this dvd player ruined christmas - twice !
i ordered two of these puppies for christmas gifts .
when we tried to hook up the first one , it was broken - the motor would not eject discs or close the door .
strike 1 .
when i tried to install the second dvd player in my brothers house , that one didn `` t work either !
imagine my shock - and absolute instant disdain for any products made by apex .
the 2nd dvd player had a faulty power supply which caused to occasionally not turn on .
do not recommend .
 let the countdown begin apex .
<cs-3>
what can i say , i bought the ad600 2 years ago and it was probly the best dvd player ever , quality design , stable , plus it uses a standard ide interface so you can use an old dvd drive from your computer if the player dies . 
</cs-3>
1_ad600 3_dvd player (best)
in the last month i bought the apex ad-1600 and the ad-1220 . 
and have returned both .
the ad-1600 did n't work corectly from the start and the ad-1220 lasted about a week and a half before it started to act up .
my recommendation is to wait on buying one from this company as they will surely get sent a message of many returned dvd players after christmas 2003 .
i hoping they will then begin building quality dvd players again , as i do like them .
it really does n't make any cents $ $ to build a great reputation then destroy it from lack a research and testing in one season .
amazon is awaesome !
they refunded my $ $ $ so fast and paid for the shipping back .
what more could you ask for . 
<cs-4>
 price vs performance . 
</cs-4>
for the price , it 's a very nice dvd player .
the front door is miss aligned on my unit and you have to manually life it up just so slightly for the door to close , a very annoying thing after ahwile .
it does play a wide range of formats as advertised which is very nice .
and so far have not had any problems with dvds not being able to play .
recommended to anyone looking to purchase a low priced dvd player and not expecting any bells or whistles from a brand name one like sony .
 my first dvd player and i 'm well satisfied ! 
i finally joined the 21st century and bought this dvd player .
i knew nothing about dvds before this but with this machine i figured it all out very quickly .
i only wanted something to play dvds on but this machine has all these other features that i probably will never use but it 's nice to know that there 're there .
the machine is very light and slim and fits nicely into my tv stand .
i 've had no problems at all so far and i 'm very happy .
i applied a $ 25 amazon gift voucher i got for christmas so i only ended up paying $ 29 for this machine . 
even if i had paid full price i would have considered this a good deal .
 when it works , it 's great , when it does n't it 's frustrating .
bought the apex ad-2600 from amazon in 12/03 mainly on price , $ 49.99 - $ 10 rebate = $ 39.99 .
that was a mistake .
we tried the `` finding nemo `` dvd and when we got to ~ chapter 28 , the frames started to freeze for no reason .
cleaned the dvd , tried again , no luck .
i pulled out our old non-progressive scan toshiba , hooked it back-up and the `` finding nemo `` dvd works fine .
i agree with previous posts that you get what you pay for .
i can 't rate it one star only because when it does work it 's pretty good .
only owned it about two weeks so i expect we 're looking at getting another progressive scan dvd player of higher quality very soon .
 i will give it one more try ! 
i purchased the ad 2600 from another company last month and was very satisfied with my purchase , until last night .
i was watching pirates of the caribbean and decided to watch the extras disc .
the player kept displaying `` no disc `` , so i tried the disc in another machine and sure as @ # * !
it worked .
i even went as far as calling the technical support number on the disc .
the person i talked to suggested i take the dvd player back and swap it out with another .
the other company is currently `` out of stock `` so i ordered another from amazon and will be taking the original back to the competitor today .
hopefully the replacement from amazon will work just fine .
if not i will avoid apex products in the future .
besides the one problem , this machine is amazing !
it plays everything , even vcd 's .
if only it played stand alone avi files . 
if no problems occur with replacement unit i will keep the 4 star rating .
if problem occurs again i will repost my new rating .
 well worth the money .
i will never use all the `` whistles and bells `` this machine is capable of .
but for what i do use it is perfect .
i was , however .
somewhat disappointed that i could not `` hook up `` to my sony multi brand remote commander .
small problem .
 apex and remote control .
hi , many people are saying , `` you get what you pay for , i guess .
``
well that is not true .
you could have paid more and got a lot less .
i paid $ 49 and now it 's $ 125 !
you have to ask yourself , `` how much money is dissapointment worth ? ``
because , you will be dissapointed .
then you can say , `` my dissapointment only cost $ 39 .
``
<cs-1>
i think a $ 39 dissapointment is better then a $ 125 dissapointment ! 
</cs-1>
1_$ 29 2_$ 125 3_dissapointment (better)
so , without further adoo .
1 ) frame freezes and the family yells , `` dad ! somethings wrong with the dvd player ! come quick ! ``
2 ) the remote works , but then it does not work , and you are left standing there thinking you are doing something wrong .
3 ) you must press the play button and hold it for a couple of seconds otherwise it will not work and you will think the whole unit is broken .
4 ) it did play my jpeg photos but wow , trying to figure it out was really something !
5 ) this apex model 2600 will not work with my universal remote control .
i dare you to surf the net and find the code .
you will be told goldstar codes work , and you will be told zenith codes will work , and radio shack will give you apex codes but they will not work .
<cs-2>
finally you will read a post somewhere that all codes are useless for the apex 2600 . 
</cs-2>
1_all codes (all)
and then you will start to belive them .
if this is your fist dvd player .
save yourself some aggrivation .
 keep your receipt .
bought two ad2600 's for christmas .
one still works fine , the other quit after one day .
owner 's manual has substandard troubleshooting guide .
apex 's website is down and they wo n't answer their phone .
 isacc l .
fisher was wrong .
the dvd player is fine .
to get back to the menu of the dvd you have to press `` menu `` on the remote while the dvd is playing .
if the dvd is stopped , it will display `` playback only `` . 
little inconveinent , but unlike other players i only paid 40 $ .
 fantastic dvd player for the price .
i purchased one of these to replace an ailing dvd player that 's a few years old .
of course , i was hesitant given the price , but i 've been extremely impressed since receiving it , and bought a second one as a christmas present for my parents .
the picture is perfect , although i 'm not watching on an hdtv .
it seems to be a little slow when identifying a new disc that 's inserted - maybe 10 seconds of wait .
also , if you 're an audiophile , you 'll want to get your own cables because the supplied ones are thin and short .
<cs-3>
but , dollar for dollar , this dvd player is probably the best out there . 
</cs-3>
1_this dvd player (best)
 lots of sound but no picture !
i bought this for my dad for christmas .
when i hooked it up it only produced sound - a cd played fine , but with a dvd i only got the audio - no picture ! 
let 's face it - when you want to watch a movie you want to see a picture . 
as i travelled internationally and did n't want to haul it back on a plane with me it was an expensive addition to the recycling bin .
had to buy my dad a different dvd player locally ( panasonic ) which worked just fine . 
save your cash - go for a brand that actually cares about their reputation .
 looks great , works like crap .
bought one for $ 49.99 .
seemed like a good deal , but this pos frequently can not recognize dvds and music cds -- takes a long time loading and then concludes , `` no disc `` . 
sent mine back .
i 'd look elsewhere .
 awkward remote ; flimsy build quality .
granted , i have only used this dvd player for about 2 hours setting it up for my mom for christmas , but that was long enough for me to find problems with this dvd player .
first , the player did not allow me to access the menus of dvds .
when i hit `` menu `` it told me , `` playback only .
``
i actually had to re-open the drawer and close it to get back to the dvd menu .
this is extemely lame .
the remote is flimsy-feeling and awkward to use .
in addition , it only seems to work if you 're about five feet away from the player , although that may have been just the batteries that came with it .
the player does seem to play dvds adequately enough .
it also has an optical out , which it should .
i think for about $ 40 more , you can probably find a much better dvd player than this though .
 a very embarassing gift .
i purchased the apex 2600 after reading good reviews of it , both here and in other places . 
after less than 24 hours it turned out to be a huge disappointment , for myself and for my parents , for whom it was a gift .
it played only one out of three dvd 's without problems , the other two being afflicted by a number of glitches .
both of the problem dvd 's would repeatedly freeze during playback , while the counter on the player kept going .
one also exhibited extremely slow speed when going to the menu .
these problems were consistent , and also not present on another dvd player .
the dvd door would scratch the top of the disc every time it closed . 
there were a few attractive features , such as the small size and the layout of the remote .
all in all , trying to save some money on this player resulted in me shelling a great deal more when i purchased a much nicer dvd vcr combo player to make up for blazing crappiness of this very embarassing gift .
 great - for the first three hours .
i was impressed by this very inexpensive player.for the first three hours , and then it died . 
i was told that it is no longer available , so there must be something really wrong with it .
 you get what you pay for .
i looked into buying an inexpensive dvd player that had more than the standard set of features and this item seemed to be the best in that category .
i just hooked it up and everything seemed to be going fine .
there are a couple of quirks that were a bit annoying like having to actually press the power button before the tray will open ( my prev .
machine did it automatically ) , and the fact that the external display is too small and too faded to read from any significant distance .
still , i was willing to overlook those things as this unit looks sleek and has a myriad of features !
so i pop-in my first dvd and start to watch .
i get to chapter 34 and everything freezes !
ok , that happens , so i try to skip the chapter .
nothing !
i try navigating to a chapter past 34 via the menu and it would n't do it !
i try navigating using the player 's built in menu , and it still would n't work !
my next thought was that the dvd must be damaged .
upon inspection i did find a small scratch on the surface and figured that to be the cause .
i decided to check one more thing though and plugged in my 3-year - old unit again just to see . 
the dvd played without flaw through the chapter in question .
i then played it through my ps2 and there was no problem there either .
guess where this unit is headed ?
yup , right back for a refund !
<cs-1>
 more trouble than it 's worth times 10 . 
</cs-1>
1_trouble 2_worth (more)
i was so excited about the price and reviews of this dvd player .
i am even a bit technology oriented , so i thought it would be a breeze to set this up .
unfortunately , the player would not read any of my region one dvds .
even though they were not damaged in any way .
i called apex 's support number numerous times but it just kept ringing . 
i hope that amazon will let me trade it for a different , more trusted brand of dvd player .
 value for money .
<cs-3>
this is probably one of the few dvd players at $ 40 that can play almost everything you throw at it . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_play almost everything (one of the few)
1_
the plus points are -
1 .
price
2 .
ability to play most discs - i tried dvd , vcd , dvd-r , audio cd and it played all
3 .
good looks
the downside -
1 .
the build quality shows why its so cheap - small scratches on the base plate , something that you would n't see on a sony and an overall plasticky feel
2 .
remote buttons are small and closely spaced , especially with the menu buttons .
if these otherwise minor issues can be fixed , i would rate this a 5 star machine .
 great cheap buy !
this is wonderful to have for your first dvd player . 
i brought it for my sister in college and she loves it !
<cs-3>
apex is the best cheap quality brand for dvd players . 
</cs-3>
1_apex 3_cheap quality brand (best)
also , very light and portable .
 apex 2600 .
the one i purchased for a frend as a gift will not read any dvd disc .
it will read and play all cd audio disc . 
guess i will return it for an exchange and hope for the best with the new one .
so far not going to get a good review .
a disipointed customer .
 hit and miss .
i have shopped with amazon before and have been very happy with their performance thus far . 
i received the apex ad-2600 before i expected . 
that is where my satisfaction ends .
i bought the apex ad-2600 because of the ability to play jpegs and it seemed like it was the most bang for the buck .
however , it has failed to deliver on quality .
it does not only have difficulty playing jpegs , it even has trouble properly playing dvd movies . 
on several different occasions it has displayed `` no disc `` with a disc inside . 
after reading several other reviews this appears to be relatively common .
i read in consumer reports that apex is a reliable brand , but with my experience and reading the other reviews , i think i will be doing a little more homework before considering another apex product .
i am returning mine for a replacement , but if i receive another ad-2600 with the same or similar problems i will not only return it for a refund , but never buy another apex product in the future .
i guess you get what you pay for .
 the ad2600 had false silver plate instead of play display .
the 2600 had false silver plate instead of play display .
the case had ad2600 .
bait and switch .
picture on web site clearly has the play display pictured , yet false silver plate .
what is up .
clearly a large lawsuit if i were so inclined .
i feel that once i contact amazon that they will get to the bottom of this .
 moderately impressed .
i just got it today and have tried to verify the claims of other reviewers .
no go on most formats .
it plays original dvds and cds and plays mp3s and jpegs .
however , it does not play windows media and i can not get it to play any of my divx rips .
i guess that i can not complain since it does not actually claim to play vcd / svcd formats , but others say they can .
also , it was only $ 39.99 ( after rebate ) with free shipping and no tax so overall it is a decent player .
good quality video .
 apex ad-2600 compatability .
bought this player after reading the reviews here which identify it as reading most formats including dvd + rw 's and vcd 's .
can 't say whether i rec 'd an `` updated `` model but it will not read dvd + rw 's or vcd 's for me .
<cs-4>
it did play a dvd-r which was unplayable in my older philips machine . 
</cs-4>
i do n't have a dvd + r to try
so .
mixed bag i guess but the price was right .
 great budget player .
this is the third apex product i 've bought and they continue to impress for the price .
it goes nicely with my apex 27 `` in my bedroom .
<cs-3>
the build quality feels solid , it does n't shake or whine while playing discs , and the picture and sound is top notch ( both dts and dd5.1 sound good ) . 
</cs-3>
1_it 3_picture (top notch)
<cs-1>
i paid twenty dollars more than the current price , and even then it was a steal . 
</cs-1>
2_current price 3_paid (more)
 fantastic bargain !
hooray !
think you need to pay a fortune for a good qulaity dvd player ?
well , not with this one .
it looks really sleek and stylish , and does everything it claims .
i tried as bunch of different formats to see if it would play and it did . 
i am very pleased with this product and the price to match and have n't had any problems .
there are really easy directions for setup and fiddling around with the picture , zoom etc .
so sit back , relax and brag to all your friends who paid a mountain of money for a dvd player that can 't do half the things this one can , and for a fraction of the price !
only problem , if you think it 's going to be delivered in the 24hrs amazon claims , do n't hold your breath .
otherwise it 'll get there the day you get back from the hospital !
 value value value .
noiseless , lightweight and oh yeah .
works great !
silverish color really adds a special touch .
who cares if it does n't have multiple slots ?
it plays just about any format ( check before you buy if it plays yours . 
if you watch dvds once in a while like i do , get this ! 
apex is made in usa and is one of the underrated brands out there .
if you watch one dvd per weekm its yours .
however , i do n't know the dvd 's performance on a heavy load of every-day viewing .
either way , can 't go wrong with this price .
 plays anything .
i am really impressed by this dvd player .
if it can fit in the drive bay , this dvd player will play it .
for instance , i made several back-ups of my dvd movies using dvd-r ( w ) and + r ( w ) and it plays the dvds .
no matter the format .
awesome !
*****************************************************************************
Amazon review	 digital camera: Canon G3
*****************************************************************************
 excellent picture quality / color
i recently purchased the canon powershot g3 and am extremely satisfied with the purchase .
the camera is very easy to use , in fact on a recent trip this past week i was asked to take a picture of a vacationing elderly group .
after i took their picture with their camera , they offered to take a picture of us .
i just told them , press halfway , wait for the box to turn green and press the rest of the way .
they fired away and the picture turned out quite nicely .
( as all of my pictures have thusfar ) .
a few of my work constituants owned the g2 and highly recommended the canon for picture quality .
i 'm easily enlarging pictures to 8 1/2 x 11 with no visable loss in picture quality and not even using the best possible setting as yet ( super fine ) . 
ensure you get a larger flash , 128 or 256 , some are selling with the larger flash , 32mb will do in a pinch but you 'll quickly want a larger flash card as with any of the 4mp cameras .
bottom line , well made camera , easy to use , very flexible and powerful features to include the ability to use external flash and lense / filters choices .
i 'd highly recommend this camera for anyone who is looking for excellent quality pictures and a combination of ease of use and the flexibility to get advanced with many options to adjust if you like .
great job canon !
 cool toy
yep .
<cs-3>
this is my first digital camera , and what a ' toy ' it is ! 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_first digital camera (first)
i am a software engineer and am very keen into technical details of everything i buy , i spend around 3 months before buying the digital camera ; and i must say , g3 worth every single cent i spent on it . 
just a little overview , powershot g3 is the flagship of canon 's powershot series and its an slr-like camera , its 4 megapixel and ( alsmost ) full manual control gives the pictures a touch of brilliance . 
whether you are a novice or an expert , its ease of use and functionality goes together .
+ you can have different kind of lens if you want + flashes , etc . 
as its 4mp , you might need bigger storage to store high quality images and recording movies ( you can record 3 minutes of video ) .
i am using kingston 512mb cf which works great and is very fast .
a good choice could be cf type ii , microdrives that can store around 1 gb of images .
some things that i did n't like ( but hey . 
nothing is perfect ) .
* main dial is not backlit .
* lens visible in optical viewfinder .
( well thats only for old-school die-hard optical viewfinder fans ) use lcd instead which is brilliant and you can twist around too .
overall i 'm happy with my toy .
 canon g3 ? incredible camera
i did extensive research comparing different 4 and 5 megapixel cameras .
a couple of online camera review sites were extremely helpful , as they provided complete exhaustive reviews of nearly every camera made , plus provided a great number of high resolution sample images to compare amongst the models . 
following my research , i decided on the g3 .
in a word , `` awesome `` is how i would describe this camera .
i wo n't go into the details here , as the online sites ( stevesdigicams , dpreviews ) go into great depth in their reviews , but i am very pleased with the features , the speed , the picture quality , the flexibility , the automation , and the functional conveniences this camera offers .
with the automatic settings , i really have n't taken a bad picture yet .
and with the panoramic `` stitch `` mode , it guides you through stitching together multiple pictures to build a seamless panoramic image .
i am absolutely in awe of this camera , canon put enormous quality into the g3 .
do n't walk , run and buy this camera if you have the budget , i guarantee you will not be disappointed .
 great camera
i bought my canon g3 about a month ago and i have to say i am very satisfied .
i have taken hundreds of photos with it and i continue to be amazed by their quality .
the g3 is loaded with many useful features , and unlike many smaller digital cameras , it is easy to hold steady when using slower shutter speeds .
flaws ?
the lens is visible in the viewfinder when the lens is set to the wide angle , but since i use the lcd most of the time , this is not really much of a bother to me .
still i am a little suprised that canon did not correct this design flaw before releasing the camera .
despite this minor disappointment , i highly recommend the canon g3 anyone who is serious about digital photography .
 have n't had practice but i 'm already in love with it
i have only had this camera for one full day and i have to say that it is wonderful .
the photo quality is amazing and i know i 'm going to have fun with all the features .
i 've figured out most of its features on my own already ( because i have used digital cameras before , so i know things like symbols ) .
i 'm one of those people that can only concentrate on one screen at a time so i 've been having trouble paying attention to the little display panel on top , but that does n't stop me from loving this camera .
the reason i rated it a four is because of that darn diopter adjustment dial .
its very small and hard to turn so you can 't get an accurate adjustment ( for those of you who do n't know what a diopter adjustment is , it is to adjust the focus of the viewfinder to your eyesight .
<cs-1>
i am going to have so much fun with this camera and when i learn more i will post a more accurate review . 
</cs-1>
1_post 3_accurate review (more)
 excellent for the semi-serious amateur
positives
1 ) slr like programming and exposure control gives you latitude to be creative , yet its progam and auto exposure settings provide excellent photos if you do n't want to bother with the settings .
excellent range of metering options as well .
it 's great to switch to spot metering and actually see it working on the lcd screen .
2 ) 4mp is about right for the target market of this camera ( semi-serious amateur photographer )
3 ) 4x zoom is nice
4 ) the great thing about digital , in general , is that you can generally see the results of your exposure settings on the lcd screen before you take the picture , not two weeks later when you get the film developed .
5 ) its focusing system is also very flexible .
you can move the focus range to almost anywhere in the scene with the push of a button , and it has an on-screen manual focus mode that would be really helpful if shooting a scene that is tough to automatically focus .
negatives
1 ) quite bulky ( it 's about the same size as my minolta vectis s-1 aps slr ) and uses a heavy battery , although not very solid as it is contructed mostly of plastic ( unlike canon 's elph line )
2 ) not very ergonomical - you 'll find even for a point-and-shoot lens )
4 ) the viewfinder is borderuer lcd scoying .
 fantastic digital camera
the camera has a wonderful set of features .
the lcd screen pulls out and rotates in any direction for easy pictures .
you can even take a picture of yourself while looking at the lcd .
the optical zoom works great and the 14x digital zoom is a very nice addition although pictures at the highest digital zoom are a little blurry .
the highest optical zoom pictures are perfect . 
i have not yet seen any of the usual problems with digital pictures ( purple fringing , etc ) so i am very pleased .
the canon computer software used to download , sort , upload and manage your digital pictures on the computer is very nice and very easy to use .
the only two minor issues i have with the camera are the lens cap ( it is not very snug and can come off too easily ) and the lens itself ( it partially obstructs the view through the viewfinder but not views through the lcd ) . 
the menus are easy to navigate and the buttons are easy to use .
it is a fantastic camera and well worth the price .
<cs-3>
 the best of everything 
</cs-3>
(best)
<cs-3>
recent price drops have made the g3 the best bargain in digital cameras currently available . 
</cs-3>
1_g3 3_bargain in digital cameras (best)
advanced photobugs will find more creative control than imaginable .
newbies will find the full auto setting will give them perfect pictures right out of the box .
4 megapixels is enough for anybody and the photo quality is awesome .
do n't get fooled by the 5 megapixel marketing hype .
unless you want to print murals , you do n't need it .
those used to 35mm cameras will find the g3 very comfortable and friendly to use .
anyone looking for more than `` point and shoot `` can make a huge step up for a moderate price difference .
the extended zoom range and faster lense put it at the top of it 's class .
i expect the g3 will please me for years to come .
 pure class & quality - a work of craftmanship
<cs-1>
i recommend unreservedly the powershot g3 to any potential buyer looking for a first-class digital camera at a reasonable price - there is no better camera out there - period ! 
</cs-1>
 1_powershot g3 3_camera (recommend)
it gives great pictures , the controls are easy to use , the battery lasts forever on one single charge , the software is very user-friendly and it is beautiful in it chrome casing .
i began taking pics as soon as i got this camera and am amazed at the quality of photos i have took simply by using the auto mode .
absolutely breathtaking .
i was considering the olympus camedia c-5050 but was convinced to buy the g3 after visiting a store and holding it in my hands and trying it out . 
the olympus is a bit clumsy-looking and the user-interface not as friendly as the canon , but one of the features that sold me on the g3 was the battery life - no other camera out there gives you the type of battery life as the canon g3 .
i would recommend a larger compact-flash card , at least 128 mb .
i bought a 512 mb card by simpletech and it works great with my canon .
 great camera
what else can you say about a camera that works for both of you ?
i make photographs at work , and so wanted a camera good enough to compare with what i use professionally .
at the same time , i wanted my wife to not be intimidated by knobs and buttons .
i recieved the camera , inserted a larger cf card , charged the battery , and handed it to my wife .
i showed her how to turn it on , where the lens zoom lever is , and she loves it !
this camera has canon 's great colorimetry , plus what you see in the lcd is what you get .
the prints are beautiful !
and you get about 120 images on a 256mb card at highest quality .
<cs-1>
i tried out some other brands in the stores , and was disappointed by the battery life of the other company ; plus what you see in the lcd ( no optical finder ) is n't what you get - not even for color ; the output was less than i expected . 
</cs-1>
2_brands 3_output (less)
although canon 's batteries are proprietary , they last a really long time , recharge fairly quickly in the camera , plus if you want ' more power ' , you can even find a knockoff charger and spare batteries right here on amazon .
 if you love an slr 35mm but need to go digital
this is a great camera for you !
the canon g3 gives tons of control for photo buffs but still has an `` auto `` mode that makes it very easy for the novice to use .
i can hand this to anyone and know they will take some great photos !
i love having the option to manually control the f-stop , shutter speed and even focus . 
i was able to take great photos of the 4th of july fire works , and got some amazing shots of the kids playing with sparklers .
warning - i did read the manual !
but if you 've used a slr 35mm camera , the controls are very intuitive !
once i read the manual i was able to point and shoot without having to fumble around trying to figure out where the controls are located .
with a quick spin of the dial you can select shutter priority ( for high speed subjects ) , aperture priority ( for focal length ) or full program mode where the camera selects both for ideal photo quality . 
the manual mode is easy to use with fast access for the selection of shutter speed and aperture without having to fumble through menu options . 
it does n't do you any good if a camera has all the features but you can 't access them quickly when you need them ! 
this camera also has a great feel and weight to it .
you feel like you are holding something of substance , not some cheap plastic toy .
the more i work with it , the more i love it !
i would recomend that you purchase a lexar media cf for the camera as the sandisk card that comes packaged is too small and too slow !
i did n't think i would find this quality and ease of use for under $ 1500 - i 'm thrilled with my purchase !
 outstanding camera
<cs-3>
this is my first digital camera , and i am very pleased with it . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_first digital camera (first)
i do not know a whole lot about photography , but i am happy to know that this camera can always perform , even as i grow in skill and knowledge .
seriously , this thing has everything that a pro or expert amateur could want .
but at the same time , it takes wonderful pictures very easily in `` auto `` mode , so that even an average joe like me can use it !
four megapixels is great .
i know there are five mp cameras out there , but this thing does just fine for me .
if you want , check out the canon website and they have some sample images , taken by this camera , for you to download .
if you are looking for a very simple point and shoot camera , this is probably not what you are looking for .
if you are looking for an outstanding camera that can take you from simple to complex , this is it .
it is a very amazing product .
i highly recommend it .
 love my new g 3
just received this camera two days ago and already love the features it has .
takes excellent photos .
night mode is clear as day .
i have not played with all the features yet , but the camera is easy to use once you get used to it . 
the only drawback is the viewfinder is slightly blocked by the lens . 
however , using the lcd seems to eliminate this minor problem .
<cs-3>
overall it is the best camera on the market . 
</cs-3>
1_it 3_best camera
i give it 10 stars !
 noise level
<cs-1>
this camera has significantly more noise at iso 100 than the nikon 4500 . 
</cs-1>
 1_camera 3_noise at iso 100 2_nikon 4500 (more)
 the pictures are brillient
i just bought the camera a few days ago .
before i `` get used to it `` , here are my first feelings :
a ) the picture quality ( color and sharpness of focusing ) are so great , it completely eliminated my doubt about digital imaging -- - how could one eat rice one grain at a time : - ) )
b ) the lens cover is surely loose , i already accidently finger-printed the len a few times , and au lens tigt and cause potential damage .
i wish canon would work out some way for that issue .
the zooming lever is shaky , i hope it does not operate mechanically , otherwise you 'll feel uneasy .
 great gadget
i bought this last week through amazon .
got a great deal from a reputable seller .
i love this camera .
i am still trying to figure out the may options it has .
took hundreds of pictures and they were great .
great colors , pictures and white balance .
has 4x optical zoom which is higher than any other in the same price range .
it is generally overpriced a little bit but you get what you are paying for .
 ok for a digital camera
maybe it is my lack of experience , but i found shots with this camera very disappointing .
it was ( i sold it after a few months ) too expensive for the shots that i got .
sure it had all the features , but when i tried to shoot a girl 's basketball game it just wa n't up to the task . 
i do n't think i was asking too much .
any film zoom p and s would have given superior results with a minimal effort .
and with the 500 you save you could print the results for the life of the camera .
i found that low light situations combined with any sort of action left this camera in the dust .
i wanted it to shoot concerts as well .
that meant even less light and just as much action . 
sure , i adjusted the film speed to 400 .
the grain was terrible .
next time i set it at 100 and used the flash .
well flash photos are never great , and there was still a lot of noise .
when i took outdoor photos with plenty of light and the objects were n't moving , the photos were awesome .
the camera was a marvel .
getting the printer to help output them was another tale .
overall i think that you need to consider what you wa n't to do .
for simple point and shoot photography , consider a cheaper digital . 
you do n't need the extra resolution or the cost .
then again a one time use camera may do just as well .
if you shoot in lots of light and desire high quality , this will be your camera .
it is versatile and seems to be one of the best .
me , i am going with a leica minilux ( the g3 was replacing mine which was stolen ) .
sure .
<cs-1>
it is less versatile , but i am never disappointed with the output . 
</cs-1>
1_it 3_versatile (less)
 within its limitations
i am a long-time user of highly responsive film slrs and professional quality external flash equipment , just so you know my bias .
i have been watching the development of digicams for years , waiting to make my first move .
what i really want is a $ 1 , 500 digital slr with a full frame sensor that will take my nikon lenses .
i figure that is at least three years off , and i am getting impatient .
hence i decided to spring for a point-and-shoot digicam that that would have features that would let me get around their inherent limitations .
<cs-1>
i chose the g3 because of its reputation for very high quality , clean images . 
</cs-1>
1_g3 3_high quality 3_clean images (chose)
the two limitations i knew i would have to deal with are the very long lag time before it focus-locks ( even in bright light ) , and the unsatisfactory light quality of the built-in flash .
as of this writing , technology has not solved the focus-lock lag time problem for point-and-shoot digicams and anyone who is satisfied with it simply has never used a modern film slr .
at least once youve got focus lock , the shutter release lag time for the g3 is about 1/10 of a second , which from what ive read , is better than just about anything else available .
what makes the focus-lock lag time something i can live with is the extreme depth of field obtainable with these point and shoot digicams at f8 .
once i get focus lock , i can then wait until my restless subject ( a pet or a child ) strikes an amusing pose and then fire the shutter with some reasonable probability of getting my subject still in focus .
now what about the flash problem ?
relative to what i can easily achieve with external flash on my nikon slr , the internal flash on the g3 produces harsh , flat images with ugly hot spots .
fortunately , the g3 has a hot shoe that can take an external flash , and fortunately for me , i already owned a one of the highest quality external flashes that money can buy : the metz 60 ct-4 .
i cant use my nikon external flash on a canon camera , but i can use my metz , with the proper metz module and extension cord connected between the g3 and the 60 ct-4 .
for those who have this metz flash ( or the 45cl-3 ) and would like to get the absolute ultimate quality out of this g3 , the metz module you need is the sca 3102 and the connector cord is the sca 3000c . 
in order for this to work , you have to set the camera to manual mode and set the shutter speed and f-stop yourself .
contrary to what ive read elsewhere , the g3 does sync at 1/250 of a second with third-party flashes , just as it does with the dedicated flashes from canon .
you also have to set the g3 to second shutter sync , which is what youd want to do most of the time anyhow .
then just forget about all the controls you have on the metz flash head itself and the sca 3102 control panel , because they are all ignored .
the g3 completely takes over controlling the duration of the metz flash , and most of the time , the exposure is spot on and when it isnt , its because youve exceeded the range of the metz flash itself .
this might happen if you get too close to the subject and you are not bounce-flashing , or if you are bounce flashing and the walls are simply too far away .
unfortunately , the neutral density filters for the metz flash are no longer available , so the first problem cant easily be solved . 
the second problem is solved by more direct lighting from the metz ( with the attendant shadows unfortunately ) . 
but once youve got your exposure within an acceptable range , the g3 is shown to produce utterly stunning images that i can hardly get with my nikon f100 film camera .
the 60 ct-4 flash head can actually be reversed 180 degrees and then tilted , enabling you to bounce the flash off the walls behind you .
the results are shadow-free images that look as if theyve been exposed with the gentlest natural light you could imagine . 
now there is one more complaint i have about the g3 and that is the software that comes with it for processing raw images ( i only shoot in raw image mode and the first thing i did was replace the 32 mbyte cf with a 512 mbyte cf , which gives me 130 raw images , as opposed to 7 !
the canon software for raw images does not present you with a raw image at all , but the raw image after it has been processed by all the image-affecting settings in the camera . 
i believe this is enabled by a second file that comes out of the camera that stores all this information .
maybe if you delete those files before you looked at them with the software , youd see the true , raw image that the camera actually produces . 
i didnt wait to experiment .
instead , i bought the adobe photoshop camera raw plug-in .
what this plug-in reveals is the truly stunning quality of the raw g3 hardware .
without any tweaking at all , if the exposure is accurate , the colors are as realistic as ive ever seen produced by film , and this is a raw image !
the adobe camera raw plug-in shows once again that hardware is miles ahead of software .
what the g3 raw image software gives you is a fantasy world designed to please the uncritical .
what the photoshop plug-in gives you is reality , and then if you want fantasy , you can use photoshop to create it .
but at least youre starting with the most photorealistic images ive ever seen from a camera .
i am stunned and amazed at the quality of the raw images i am getting from this g3 ( in conjunction with my professional flash system ) , and can easily put up with the cameras limitations , because ive never seen anything better within its resolution limits . 
 knock your socks off great
i 've had this for 3 months now , and i am pleased with my decision .
this is the perfect camera for a photo hobbiest who wants to have easy point and shoot ability as well . 
my girlfriend loved using this camera so much as a point and shoot that i had to pry it out of her hands most of the time .
battery life , the drawback to most digital cameras , to quote k .
reeves .
whoa .
manual functionality is excellent , downloading pictures is quick and a breeze , and the quality is astounding .
<cs-3>
i did a good month 's worth of research before buying this over other similar priced digital cameras , and this is the best buy for the buck .
</cs-3>
1_this 3_buy (over)
<cs-3>
not perfect ( yes , the viewfinder can get obstructed in instances.but the lcd works well enough in those instances ) , not the cheapest 4.0 mp , but the best 4.0 mp . 
</cs-3>
3_4. mp (cheapest)
if you do n't believe me on that , check the consumer reports review as well as the many digital camera review sites out there .
or save time and just do it , you wo n't regret it .
 great digital camera
after reading the very positive review of this camera in a leading consumer magazine , i decided to head here , to amazon , to read through the online reviews .
the objections of the naysayers almost caused me to purchase a different camera , but , in the end , i figured i 'd give the g3 a try . 
i 'm very glad i did .
the service from the supplier was exceptional .
the camera arrived on time and in perfect condition .
having used it for more than a month , i can say that it consistently produces topnotch photos .
recently , i attended a `` flyball `` competition
-- an event that involves dogs running and jumping hurdles .
by cocking the shutter to the halfway position and getting the settings ready to shoot , i was able to produce excellent stopaction photos -- contrary to what other reviewers experienced .
the camera is a dream to operate in automode , but also gives tremendous flexibility in aperture priority , shutter priority , and manual modes .
in the coastal redwood forests i was able to use these additional features along with the macro-focussing option to shoot wonderful close-up photos of the trilliums and other flowers in bloom . 
about the only legitimate criticsm from the online reviews is that fact that the lens really does obstruct the viewfinder .
this effect is increased when one buys and uses a telephoto doubler .
but who cares ?
i always shoot using the lcd panel .
i can 't write enough positive things about this great little camera !
 canon never ceases to amaze
being a great fan of the g2 i set out with g3 with a somewhat negative expectation , difficult as it is to improve drastically on something already as ' perfect ' as the powershot g2 .
but canon never fails to amaze .
some of the great gains over g2 --
1 .
<cs-1>
the ability to selectively switch to raw format during record review gives you incredible more post-processing flexibility . 
</cs-1>
1_switch to raw format 3_post-processing flexibility (more)
2 .
battery life is over 4.5 hours , compared to about 2.5 hours for the g2 or the 2 hours for most nikons .
3 .
the remote capture and fileviewer software bundled for photo capture is mind-blowing .
<cs-1><cs-2><cs-2>
looks sort of like picasa software ( google it if you dont know ) in the interface and is as easy to install and operate as g2 's , but more intuitive . 
</cs-1></cs-2></cs-2>
2_g2 3_intuitive (more)
2_picasa software 3_looks (like)
2_g2 3_install 3_operate (as easy)
4 .
the shape of this device is a little squarer , without losing the weight which means better balance and less shaking while clicking .
a big plus in my book .
5 .
the 1/200 sec , f5.6 + nd filter for highly exposed ( or very brightly lit ) environments .
the light auto-correction is awesome .
you could take a picture of a stone glinting in the sun and still avoid the shining glaze and get the contours right .
6 .
the g2 's `` color effect `` exposure mode has now been removed , the replacement is a selectable `` effect func `` menu option available in all exposure modes .
there are six default settings ( off , vivid , sepia , neutral , low sharpening , b & w ) as well as a ' custom effect ' that allows you to control sharpening , contrast and saturation . 
7 .
a new photostich software for stiching your pics into a panoramic view .
i can of course buy such a tool off the shelves separately but helps if it comes with my camera .
( looks quite neat too suggesting that canon may have , er , canonized it a bit ) .
8 .
perhaps inspired by the canon 's factory white-correction settings ( which were found lacking and had to be altered by a user before the white edges from buildings etc could be cleaned out ) , the g3 has much sharper white offsets .
in english , this means that even straight out of the box , you 'll be amazed at the pics you end up taking .
9 .
in dim lit environs the g2 could easily outperform any other camera , and thankfully g3 maintains this rep .
<cs-1>
personally i believe it even outperforms the g2 in terms of less haze and astonishingly real colors . 
</cs-1>
1_it 2_g2 3_haze 3_colors (outperforms)
<cs-3>
overall , the g3 delivers what must be considered the best image quality of any current > 4 megapixel digicams , from a detail , tonal balance and color response point of view .
</cs-3>
1_g3 3_image quality (best)
there 's really very little about g3 images to criticize .
short of the eos range from canon or the d100s from nikon ( both slrs ) . 
<cs-3>
this is quite simply the best you can ask for . 
</cs-3>
1_this (best)
 love the g2
i love my g2 so thought i would upgrade .
big mistake .
the g3 had problems focusing in low light and would not take the picture when the shutter was pressed but after the shutter had been released a few seconds .
got way too many blurry pictures .
i have returned the g3 ( actually i tried two of them ) and have my g2 !
 awesome pro-sumer camera
when shopping for digital cameras i looked at the nikon cp5700 , olympus c5050 , nikon cp5000 , and the canon g3 .
yes , all cameras except g3 were 5mp but i was looking for a lot more than just megapixel power .
not only was i was shopping for a camera that would suit my casual and artistic photographic needs , i had to keep in mind that my fiance wanted to use this camera as well . 
her main focus was having a camera that is easy to understand and use .
the nikon 's are great cameras .
+ they have great optics ( cp5700 has great optical zoom ) and features , not to mention take great pictures .
- the drawbacks were that they were not user friendly for the casual photographer , the lcd screen is a little too small , cp5000 does not take photos in raw format .
olympus c5050 is a very solid camera with a metal body .
+ takes sharp 5mp photo 's , has great features and relatively easy to use .
- i did n't care much for the tilting lcd screen , it seemed very limited and not very usefull .
photos had some artifacts and noise .
my fiance just did n't like the way it felt in her hands . 
we also looked at the fuji fps602 .
<cs-2>
nice camera but does n't take as sharp as pictures i thought they would , and again . 
/cs-2>
1_camera 3_pictures
fiance did n't like the feel .
the canon g3 .
4mp , 4x optical zoom , takes absolutely beautiful photos with detail that challenges all of the above 5mp cameras , easy to understand and use ( has a great swivel lcd screen ) , a lot of features and add-on options , comes with great software ( not to be overlooked ) , and last but by far not least , received my fiance 's stamp of approval ( two thumbs up ! )
a lot of research went into digital camera 's before i made this purchase , and hands down , the g3 had everything i needed plus more .
the other cameras were great and i 'm sure many people will beg to differ from my observations , but to each his / her own . 
i have no buyers remorse with this baby , and i never will .
always remember , cameras do n't take great pictures , people do !
 upgraded from g2 and not looking back
the powershot g3 is a great camera .
why ?
because it can help a so-so photographer take spectacular photos !
4 megapixels is plenty for all but pros , and you will not be disappointed with the results of this camera . 
it 's slightly lighter than the g2 and packed with even more features .
make sure you get a big compactflash card ( it comes with a 32mb ) -- the 512mb cards are pretty [ inexpensive ] here on amazon.com and can hold about 500 photos at a time !
 the catch
the catch with the canon g3 camera , ( and perhaps all of digital cameras ) is that its unresponsiveness will cause you to miss precious shots . 
prior to the purchase , none of my digital camera friends mentioned the delay between pressing the shutter button and the camera taking the picture .
no one told me , but i wanted to tell you .
<cs-2>
this is not the same thing as a film camera . 
</cs-2>
1_this 2_film camera (same)
and while it is cool and fun and has no film processing costs .
they have n't got all the bugs worked out just yet . 
most of the time , my g3 is a well-behaved camera .
but once in a while , i run up against it 's major flaw :
it sometimes takes the picture at some indefinite period of time after you press the shutter button .
i am not talking milliseconds .
picture this :
your child is going to do a cannonball off the diving board , so you compose the shot and wait for your moment .
when it arrives , you press the shutter release .
splash !
the moment passes , and then your new g3 camera takes the shot .
perhaps there is a way around this delay .
some feature i could turn on or off , or some attachment i could get .
yes , i push the button down halfway first to avoid the autofocus delay .
yes , i have red-eye off , and yes , i 've tried adding a flash .
but after trying many adjustments , the camera remains unresponsive when compared to any film-based camera .
i own another canon - an eos ( 35mm film ) camera .
it focuses in a snap .
dim or bright , it would never take a picture after the birthday candles had blown out , after the tae kwon do kick broke the board .
canon 's g3 does it consistently .
it feels slow to focus , and unbearably slow to shoot .
i challenge anyone ( who is not in direct sun at the beach at noon ) to say it is fast and responsive .
and so i must ask , what are cameras for ?
what task do they perform ?
cameras capture moments .
they stop time .
because once the moment is gone , it is not coming back .
the dive , the kick , the blow-out-the-candles moments are , to me , the reason for cameras .
<cs-2><cs-4>
a 35mm film camera captures the moments you want , while these digital cameras ( my friends now inform me ) all seem to capture the moment immediately following the one you asked to capture . 
</cs-2></cs-4>
1_these digital cameras 3_capture moment (all)
not all the time , but often enough to be a real problem .
like i said , when the moment is gone , it is gone . 
so buy the g3 .
buy it for fun , for lack of processing , because you want to use iphoto , or whatever .
but do not assume , as i did , that the g3 has the same ability as [ your current film camera ] to stop the moment you choose .
from a dime store disposable to a top of the line eos , all film cameras share this ability to capture the moment you tell them to .
unfortunately , this digital moment-capturing device called the g3 sometimes captures the moment after the one you wanted . 
 100 % happy
<cs-3>
this is my first digital camera and i could n't be happier . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_digital camera (first)
i have but plan on selling my rebel ti and all of the equipment with it .
i love the quality of the pictures .
they look fantastic .
<cs-1>
i can take better pictures with this then my rebel ti with a good lens . 
</cs-1>
1_this 2_ti 3_pictures (better)
<cs-1>
it 's just easier for me since i can make on the fly adjustments . 
</cs-1>
1_it 3_fly adjustments (easier)
<cs-3>
 the best 4mp out there 
</cs-3>
3_4mp (best)
<cs-3>
the canon g3 is perhaps the best 4mp camera out there . 
</cs-3>
1_canon g3 3_4mp camera (best)
i 've tried the sony s85 with the carl zeiss lens , but the pictures were too digital .
with canon , you get pictures that appear to be photos , not still camcorder shots .
i love the eos based controls and easy menus .
i do n't need to go into exhustive review of this camera .
many before me have done that already . 
i agree with the positive reviews .
but there are two things i do n't like about the camera that were not mentioned in any previous reviews .
1 ) the included lens cap is very loose on the camera .
though the instruction booklet says that the camera should display `` lens `` when the cap and the camera are both on , the camera lens extends out and simply takes the lens cap off by itself .
i 'm concerned that with the easily removed lens cap , i may damage the lens .
very cheaply made .
2 ) the body construction - buttons , casing , etc , are too plastic .
<cs-1>
the g2 was better in this respect . 
</cs-1>
1_g2 (better)
it had a heavier and more sturdy casing .
despite these grieps , i still recommend the camera .
 love it more and more
i used a canon powershot s20 for about 2.5 years and loved it !
there were a few flaws that i learned to deal with and took thousands of pictures around the world , losing a few that i really regretted .
i finally decided to upgrade , and started my research .
canon was an obvious choice , but i did not want to limit my decision , so started researching all brands that would take my microdrives .
i researched , held , tested , and observed 3 different brands .
<cs-1>
needless to say , the canon won , hands down . 
</cs-1>
1_canon (won)
this camera performs like i can not believe !
i bought it for my trip to beunos aires , and also used it at the iguazu falls , and could not have asked for more perfect performance !
it was too new to have learned much about the advanced features , so i generally used the auto mode .
this camera is worth every penny , and i highly recommend it !
another point of note : the battery life is incredible !
i did not have a backup battery , and had no need for one .
i did have ability to charge it every night , so do n't know how long it would have actually gone before dying .
this camera will stay with me for years !
<cs-3>
 the last digital camera i 'll buy
</cs-3>
3_buy (last)
i 've been looking to buy a digital camera for a long time and v = finally decided that now was the time .
after a lot of research , i decided on the g3 .
am i ever glad that i decided on this camera !
i 've only had it a week , but so far , everything about this camera is making me happy .
forget the fact that it 'll probably take me a year to figure out all the features this camera has to offer .
i 've been able to change modes on this thing without even looking at the manual .
very intuitive menus are a big plus on this camera .
i charged it up the day i got it , took a bunch of pictures and i do n't think the battery indicator has budged from fully charged .
the standard battery include with the g3 is a camcorder battery that will allow me to take pictures all day without worrying about charging .
i was worried about this after seeing a friend change batteries on his olympus after about 20-30 pictures .
the optical zoom is awesome , and the viewfinder reflects the settings of the zoom .
one little minor flaw with this camera is that the lens is visible in the viewfinder , but does not detract from the image at all .
as i said , this is the last digital camera i 'll buy , and if you are in the market one , my advice is to buy the best thing you can afford and keep it forever .
<cs-1><cs-4>
these things may get a lot better in the future , but from what i 've seen in the last few years , the technology for digital cameras is n't advancing at the pace of pc 's , phones and hard drives .
</cs-1></cs-4>
1_these things (better)
<cs-3>
the best 4 megapixel/4x optical zoom camera available and fairly easy to use . 
</cs-3>
3_4 megapixel/4x optical zoom camera (best)
highly recommended .
for more info on digital cameras , go to dpreviews .
 boxy ? no -- gorgeous
you can read the other reviews for specs and performance opinions .
i was perfectly happy with my g2 , so why did i trade up to the g3 ?
because this camera is beautiful .
the g2 was slightly curvy with a champagne finish -- very homely .
<cs-2>
the g3 looks like a work of art ! 
</cs-2>
1_g3 2_work of art 3_looks (like)
<cs-1>
its silver magnesium finish is stunning , and the sharp lines and excellent grip are better than any other camera i 've seen . 
</cs-1>
1_its 2_other camera 3_lines 3_grip (better)
the little digital elphs were the best-designed , most-elegant cameras until the g3 came along and squashed them .
<cs-1>
 very good choice in it 's price range 
</cs-1>
3_price (choice)
<cs-3>
this is my first digital camera . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_digital camera (first)
i am very pleased with it so far .
i wanted something that is able to take high quality photos but not be so bulky that i would wind up leaving it at home all the time .
this seemed like a really good compromise . 
<cs-4>
i compared it to the olympus c5050z , the sony dcs-f 717 and the nikon 5700 . 
</cs-4>
based on the cameras features and about dozen online reviews , this one seemed like the best all round deal .
it is not perfect though .
here are the shortcomings i have noticed so far :
it would have been a much easier choice if this were 5mp camera .
you can see the lens barrel in the view-finder .
( i knew this before hand , and it is not that bad ) there is no tiff format .
that would be a nice compromise between jpeg and raw .
to save a picture as raw , you have to have the display on , this seems like a waste of battery power .
it seems to me that after the focus and metering are complete there is quite a lag before the shutter ?
trips .
<cs-3>
( again this is my first digital camera and maybe that is just how they all are . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_digital camera (first)
for those of you using a mac in os x+ there is no twain utility to download your pics directly into photoshop .
it is very simple to import via iphoto 2 and then move them to photoshop .
i have not spent much time with the included software , so i do n't know what to say about it other than it seems ok .
i am quite happy with the camera .
it comes with a clearly written manual and the learning curve is not too too steep .
yes , i recommend it over the competition .
<cs-3>
 best of the best
</cs-3>
(best)
best camera ever .
from the image quality , color , function , i can say almost everything .
this camera has a cool stitch pictures feature , to find out more just log on to canon 's website . 
<cs-1>
i had an olympus digital camera before and it was nothing compared to this .
</cs-1>
1_this 2_olympus digital camera ()
for those of you who already bought this camera , i suggest you buy a hi-ti dye-sub photo printer .
 you 'll take more pics 
i do n't write many reviews but i 'm compelled to do so with this camera .
<cs-3>
first and foremost , it will take better pic 's than most film camera 's .
</cs-3>
1_it 3_pic 's (better)
save them on computer and print out just the ones who want .
duplicates are a no brainer and cheap .
no more wasted time and money developing rolls of pic 's for just a couple of keepers .
<cs-3>
crop and enlarge the best at practically no extra cost or time . 
</cs-3>
(best)
the technology is finally here folks , to make your photo life easier . 
a great new use for that underutilized computer .
a digital camera will stay at home if its a hassle to use .
poor quality pics , short battery life , slow time consuming uploads and printing will ruin the digital camera experience and keep you buying film .
this camera has none of these flaws and will be something you 'll use all the time .
my wife shuns all new technology and compained when i brought this home , but now she 's forever asking for the digital camera . 
and i let my kids shoot as many pics as they want , let them review them on the camera and just print the good ones ( which are not many ) .
get the canon 850 printer and an ex flash .
in short , i have a new slr with an expensive lens and several film point and shoots .
i have n't used any of them since i got the g3 .
unless your a professional , now you will need only one camera . 
this one .
 excellent camera
i spent a lot of time comparing different cameras , and i realized that there is not such thing as the best digital camera .
you can always spend more money to get a better one . 
<cs-3>
however , for a $ 600 - $ 800 budget , i think this camera is an excellent choice . 
</cs-3>
1_this camera 3_choice (excellent)
it has a beautiful design , lots of features , very easy to use , very configurable and customizable , and the battery duration is amazing !
also , the display is `` hinged `` and it can be placed in a myriad of positions , or to protect it against any damage .
excellent idea !
one bad thing is that it comes with a pitiful 32mb compactflash card , and for most purposes , it is not enough .
however , it seems that this is the general rule for most digital cameras .
<cs-1>
another good thing is that this camera seems to introduce much less noise in dark places than others i 've seen . 
</cs-1>
1_this camera 2_others 3_noise in dark places (much less)
 cannon
i have owned this camera for a short time and would n't give it up for anything .
it surpasses my greatest expectations in a 4mp camera ..
 powerful product
bought this product about a month ago and have used it in a variety of situations .
in general it is easy to use and well laid out .
<cs-2>
for `` cool factor '' buffs it looks and feels like a small plastic brick brick and does n't have any wow factor . 
</cs-2>
1_it 2_small plastic brick brick 3_looks 3_feels (like)
it makes up for this by being extremely easy to use with well laid out controls that can be learned quickly .
the g3 has most if not all of the features that you would want from a semi-pro / pro slr with a good range of manual options for those who know something about photography . 
in the hands of someone who does n't , it will yield good results on idiot program / auto mode .
my wife , who has never used a camera before , picked it up and soon got the hang of the fact that if you do n't like what you have created you just delete and try again .
<cs-1>
the photos she took are better than the results i got from my nikon slr and range of lenses ! 
</cs-1>
 3_photos 2_nikon slr 2_range of lenses (better)
this is a big plus for those who a shifting to digital and the g3 's large mobile screen helps with this .
negative points :
the included memory card is too small .
go out and get a 256meg card , it 's worth the expense .
it is made of plastic .
for those who are used to brass cameras that can be dropped , picking up a camera like the g3 is an unnerving experience . 
this is by no means unique to this model , i 'm sure .
the zoom lens unit feels fragile and it is worth buying a good camera bag if you are going put to carry it round a lot .
this is not a handbag camera .
while light , it will not easily go in small handbags or pockets .
the function lever - the one which switches between capture and view mode feels fragile .
flash - as with all built-in flashes in small cameras , you get overilluminated main subjects with depth being lost . 
the g3 has a shoe which will take other powerful ( and expensive ) canon flashes that will allow bounce and reflected flash photography .
the strap is horrible and gets in the way of parts of the camera you need access to .
if you can afford this camera , you can afford to get a better strap elsewhere - a very minor quibble .
good points :
the functionality on this camera is mind-blowing .
canon have packed a lot in here and the options and controls are easy to use and logically laid out .
learning how to use it will not take very long .
the image quality is excellent .
messing around with images in photoshop ( a supplied software package ) and printing them on a good printer , yielded excellent results .
unless you are making posters , a g3 is more than good enough . 
range of functions - as indicated above - it has something for everyone : point and shoot power plus advanced functions for those who are serious about photography .
<cs-3>
please note that this is the first digital camera i have owned or used . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_digital camera I owned (first)
a lot of my opinions are more relevant for those who are switching from film . 
i did extensive research before chosing the g3 but there 's nothing like picking one up and playing with it first .
 best camera i 've used
<cs-3>
this is by far the finest camera in its price and category i have ever used . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_camera in price and category (finest)
<cs-3>
it is also one of the few electronic items that works right out of the box . 
</cs-3>
1_it 3_works right out of box (one of the few)
the macro works great for medical photographs and the auto mode is terrific for point and shoot .
 this camera is closest to perfect than any otherdigicam 
<cs-3>
this camera is closest to perfect than any other digicam that is 4-5 megapixel . 
</cs-3>
1_this camera  (closest)
beats that sony f717 ; its archrival .
i 'm glad canon decided to keep the 4mp resolution and improved upon it with new technology ;
i can 't fit all that resolution ( 4mp = 2272x 1704 resol . 
) in my 19in flat monitor ( 1200x1024 resol .
) anyways .
please go to read dpreview.com and you 'll get the complete story .
my story is based on personal usage .
yes there is a corner lens barrel distortion ( i do n't like it too but no harm done since i always use the camea lcd screen to see exactly what i 'm going to get ) in the viewfinder when you do n't zoom ( when you zoom the lens distortion goes away ) , canon knows this and engineered it that way to minimize the parallax phenomenon ; that is what lmost exactly ot the picture . 
moving the viewfinder elsewhere on the camera will remove the lens distortion but increase the parallax phenomenon .
the distortion is not a flaw .
as with taking digital pictures , i notice other people including myself have errors on their compactflash which results in certain shots being partially taken or lost - this is an issue that seems to effect compactflash and other digicam brand .
i 've have n't heard about a diagnos or fix for this .
in terms of the shots taken , this camera is insanely great !
the pictures are fabulous and their is a ( short ) learning curve to it ; there are tons of features i have n't even gotten to .
in terms of the important accessories , i got myself an the extra litium battery .
based on my used , 1 full charge was enough for at least 255 shots .
i also got myself a 512mb viking compact flash ( enough for 255 shots at full 4mp resolution and max picture quality ) and a used $ 250 3lb subnotebook with usb connection and tons of hard drive space for long trips so i can verify what i 've taken and that subnotebook also saves me from having to buy extra compactflash .
the compact flash is delicate and i hate to swap it in fear on the connetions ( camera and cf ) bending ( can lead to cf erros ) or losing it . 
anyways , canon has improved upon the g2 with this g3 .
it 's a winner .
i 've been pleased with the picture quality and durability in snow , car , boat and wind .
my only suggestion is to get a lens protector to help protect the shooting lens ( the lens coating will wear out after so many clean wipes ) and i 'm getting the those ( 52 mm adapter and uv lens filter ) at lensmateonline.com .
<cs-1><cs-3>
they got the best lens adapter for the g3-better than canon 's . 
</cs-1></cs-3>
 1_g3 lens adapter 2_canon (better)
1_they 3_lens adapter (best)
that 's what i did and hopes this helps .
 canon g3 review / response / recommendation
the camera 's a work of art / science -- that 's understood .
it takes great pictures , operates quickly , and feels solid .
to address two previous somewhat negative reviews : ( 1 ) yes , the lens barrel does obstruct part of the lower left corner in the lens viewfinder ; however , the lcd viewfinder is rather stunning and i find myself rarely using the lens viewfinder .
<cs-4>
( 2 ) there are , actually , several differences between the g2 and g3 , such as differences in continuous shooting , the optical lens , the control layout , playback zoom , image processing , and so on . 
</cs-4>
 beware
you see , i can 't rank the product since the merchant that amazon is collaborating with ( j and r camera .
) to bring us consumers better choices never sent me the product .
although you may think you 're dealing with amazon , you 're dealing with some second rate store that you 've never heard of .
after charging my card for the camera and for expedited shipping , 5 business days later , they still had n't shipped the product .
i called them twice and both times they said it is `` about to ship `` . 
one of the calls was on a saturday and when i pressed the guy a bit , he said , `` actually we do n't ship on saturdays `` . 
so why lie about it ?
so i finally gave them a deadline which they said they could meet .
although they accepted that they will ship on mon - 6 jan , they still did n't ship it .
they said it is in stock , but they are `` too busy `` .
they were n't busy enough to charge the credit card , though !
although i tried contacting amazon to see if they can do anything , the replies i got were inept as if they had n't taken time to read the complaint .
i cancelled the order .
hope to get my refund in a timely manner .
thanks for nothing , amazon !
 major design flaw
this camera has a major design flaw .
when you look through the viewfinder ( not the lcd ) the bottom left corner of the picture ( about 15 % ) is blocked by the lens .
i called the canon technical service center to see if i had a defective camera .
after about a minute of trying to tell me that most people use the lcd and not the view finder , they finally admitted , it was a design flaw in the camera .
everything else about the camera is great .
if you strictly use the lcd and not the view finder , i highly recommend the camera .
however for me , i occasionally use the view finder and trying to frame in a picture with the lens blocking the view is too much .
i 'm sending mine back and am waiting for the problem to be corrected .
 i love it more the longer i own it 
<cs-1>
i 've been using a powershot s330 for nearly a year , and wanted to upgrade to a 4 or 5 megapixel camera with a longer zoom , more adjustability , a hot shoe for an external flash , and a remote control . 
</cs-1>
 2_powershot s330 1_5 megapixel camera 3_zoom 3_adjustability (longer, more)
<cs-1>
i looked at both the nikon coolpix 5700 and the canon g3 , and decided on the g3 due both to ergonomics ( much more comfortable to hold and use ) and the price . 
</cs-1>
1_canon g3 2_nikon coolpix 5700 3_comfortable to hold and use (more)
i 've had the camera for about two weeks and shot hundreds of pictures so far .
and so far , i 've been very pleased .
there 's a noticeable difference in the quality of a 4 megapixel image versus the 2 megapixels of the s330 , especially if you want to crop and enlarge the pictures .
<cs-1>
the larger lens of the g3 gives better picture quality in low light , and the 4-times optical zooms gets you just that much closer . 
</cs-1>
 1_g3 3_lens 3_picture quality (better)
the moveable lcd screen is great .
you can take pictures with the camera held above your head , way down , or beside you with no problem , allowing you to position the camera for the best shot without contorting yourself .
the tiny ( postage-stamp sized ) remote unit is wonderful : not only does it trigger the shutter , it can also be used to zoom and review pictures .
i also purchased a good sturdy tripod : the combination of the new camera , tripod and remote control enabled me to take some remarkable indoor , natural-light portraits i never would have attempted before .
the hot shoe flash attachment allowed me to buy and use a sophisticated flash unit :
<cs-1>
i chose the canon speedlite 420 .
</cs-1>
1_canon speedlite 420 (chose)
this has made the greatest difference in the quality of my photographs : the built-in flash on any of these cameras gives you flat photos , red-eye , and annoying shadows ; a good add-on flash unit can be bounced off the ceiling or wall for pleasing , almost-natural lighting .
i needed three batteries to keep myself going with the s330 , but the battery in the g3 is a real powerhouse :
i shot over 300 photos at my goddaughter 's birthday party without switching out to my backup battery .
the g3 has a different type of battery charging system from the smaller canon cameras : the battery needs to be charged while in the camera , but the charging system also enables you to use the camera while plugged in without running down the battery .
i have yet to try using all of the adjustment options : shutter priority , aperature priority , light metering adjustments , etc .
, but all controls are well thought out and and the manual is relatively clear .
you can use this camera right out of the box on the automatic setting , or slowly get comfortable with the manual settings and what they can do .
negatives ?
i 've been bothered by blown-out highlights on the s330 , and the g3 seems to do only slightly better .
( i 'm starting to think that this may just be one of the weaknesses of all digital photography at this level .
the on-off button feels somewhat flimsy , and has an awkward , tiny little lock-out button that needs to be depressed to turn on the camera .
and the body / construction in general has quite a bit of plastic , a disappointment after the stainless steel heft of the s330 . 
i bought a 512 mb card , which seems to hold about 400 photos at the highest resolution . 
i was worried that 4 megapixel photos would download more slowly , but there 's no difference in working with the files .
i have a 120 gb remote drive i use to store my digital images :
i can imagine that they 'd fill up my ibook 's internal memory pretty quickly .
at the same time i purchased this camera i also bought adobe 's photoshop elments 2.0 software , and can 't praise it highly enough . 
if you 're investing in a camera at this level , buy this software !
and as i said in my review of the s330 , all of these digital cameras are easier to use with apple computers .
the bottom line : if you 're serious about your digital photography , or been bitten with the bug after using a digital point-and-shoot , this may be just the camera for you . 
but make sure to buy a tripod and separate flash unit at the same time : you 'll see the difference in your photos immediately .
added 2-24 .
<cs-1>
i 've now had the camera for two months and i 'm even more pleased with it . 
</cs-1>
3_pleased 1_the camera for two months (more)
i wound up buying a gray card and use it all the time with the custom white-balance setting . 
it helps avoid the problem of a color cast on the pictures , especially in mixed-light settings .
if you do n't have a gray card , you can use a plain white piece of paper .
i also discovered the exposure-bracket setting , which enables you to take three exposures with one press of the shutter : the first at the camera-determined exposure , then one lighter and one darker .
especially useful with portraits and difficult-to-meter situations .
i did buy the telephoto lens ( and the required extension ) .
very easy to use .
i 'll probably also get the wide-angle now , too .
<cs-3>
very comfortable camera , easy to use , and the best digital photos you 're going to get at this price . 
</cs-3>
1_camera 3_digital photos (best)
<cs-3>
 best non-slr digital camera under 5 megapixels 
</cs-3> 
3_non-slr digital camera (best)
i 've been using the g3 for about six weeks and it has proven itself to be all that it 's advertised .
<cs-1>
after doing a hands-on comparison between the nikon coolpix 5700 and sony dsc-f 717 ( both of which lack the quality , feel , or features of the g3 ) , i ultimately chose the g3 because of its outstanding image quality ( resolution and coloration are superior ) . 
</cs-1>
1_g3 2_nikon coolpix 5700 2_sony dsc-f 717 3_image quality 3_resolution 3_coloration (superior)
it beats the competition in almost every area including battery life , enthusiast features , external flash capabilities , available storage types , image formats , and more .
this is a camera you will need to study and use in order to fully exploit its many features .
it can be a point-and-shoot camera , but if you do not intend to `` get into `` it 's finer features , i 'd suggest a less enthusiast featured choice .
<cs-3>
all-in-all , i believe this is arguably the best non-slr digital camera on the market . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_non-slr digital camera (best)
<cs-3>
 the best so far 
</cs-3>
(best)
<cs-1>
the canon g3 improves in almost all ways on the g1 and g2 before it , and in fact beats the nikon coolpix 5000 in performance ( picture quality and battery life ) -- which is amazing because the 5000 is a 5 megapixel camera and the canon is a 4 megapixel camera .
</cs-1>
1_canon g3 2_nikon coolpix 5000 3_performance (beats)
1_canon g3 2_g1 2_g2 (improves)
<cs-1><cs-1>
canon 's optics are better and i believe their processing algorithms are also better .
</cs-1></cs-1>
 1_canon 3_processing algorithms (better)
1_canon  3_optics (better)
<cs-3>
simply , the canon g3 is the best digital camera out there today at this price point . 
</cs-3>
1_canon g3 3_digital camera (best)
the canon allows you to change lenses , and it accepts the ibm microdrive ( type ii compact flash ) , so you can have up to 1 gigabyte of storage .
for me on the fine resolution setting ( not maximum but very close ) this adds up to over 1000 images with the 1 gig card .
<cs-1><cs-3>
the battery life of this camera is twice that of the nikon 5000 and is better than anything else i 've seen . 
</cs-1></cs-3>
1_this camera 2_nikon 5000 3_battery life (twice)
1_this camera 3_battery life (better)
the only minor nits i have with the camera are it is fairly boxy looking , it needs a wrist strap instead of a neck strap , and it is a bit slow between shots . 
<cs-3>
even with these shortcomings , i still think it is the best digital camera available under $ 1200 . 
</cs-3>
1_it 3_digital camera (best)
<cs-1>
 great camera but g2 will do the same for less 
</cs-1>
 2_camera 1_g2 (less)
definetely a great camera .
proven canon built quality and lens .
feels solid in hand .
rather heavy for point and shoot but a great camera for semi pros .
*****************************************************************************
Amazon review mp3 player:     Creative Labs Nomad Jukebox Zen Xtra 40GB
*****************************************************************************
 a quick update to the new zen nx ?
this is an edited review , now that i have had time to use the device .
while , there are flaws with the machine , the xtra gets five stars because of its affordability .
it is the most bang-for-the-buck out there .
<cs-1><cs-2>
like it 's predecessor , the quickly revised nx , this player boasts a decent size and weight , a relatively-intuitive navigational system that categorizes based on id3 tags , and excellent sound ( widely known to be better than ipod - not surprising considering the number of years creative has been in the audio peripheral business ) . 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_this player 2_ipod 3_sound ()
1_this player 2_predecessor 3_decent size and weight (like)
<cs-1>
the xtra improves upon the zen nx with a larger , now-blue backlit screen , which is infinitely better . 
</cs-1>
1_xtra 2_zen nx 3_screen (better)
further , the xtra doubles the maximum filecount capacity to 16000 mp3 .
this is especially useful for those who listen mostly to pop music and store all those short ditties .
<cs-1>
when compared to the ipod the zen xtra falls short , but only by a bit .
</cs-1>
1_zen 2_ipod ()
yes the ipod is smaller , but not $ 200 worth , which is the premium you 'll pay for an equivalent capacity model .
yes , the ipod looks in tune with the carefully articulated urban-hipster persona thats become popular as of late , but sure-as-hell is n't worth the $ 200 premium ( unless you are just dying to match your music player with that volkswagen beetle and urban outfitters wardrobe ) .
for me , i 'll save that cash for another purchase .
 get this player !
before i decided to get this player , i did my research .
i looked up the ipod , the dell jukebox , and the samsung napster player .
i chose this one because from what i read , it was the best deal for the money .
another reason i got it is because you can put wma files on it .
that takes up half the space of mp3 's . 
that 's important because i have a lot of music .
the software is great .
you can sort your music by artist , title , album , or genre , and you can play music based on those categories .
transfering is easy , the software makes everythig pretty easy .
even the battery life is great - it advertises 14 hours , it 's actually a little less but still good . 
only 1 problem , no accessories ...
yet .
i hope it 's because it 's new and they are not out yet , but being without a remote is hard .
they player 's interface itself is also very easy to use .
can 't complain and i recommend it over all the other players , just hope that remote will come out soon .
get it , it 's woth every penny ! !
 kick a player
i was a little concerned to be the black sheep buying this player instead of the incredibly overpriced apple i-pod .
i 've had it for a week now , do n't regret the purchase one bit , and i never leave home without it .
if you have any doubts about this player , well do n't .
pros :
<cs-1>
software is easy to use ( although redhat software is better , but costs money ) 
</cs-1>
 2_software 1_redhat software (better)
<cs-1>
much cheaper than i-pod good looking player ( beautiful blue back-lit screen ) if you 've read about the player , some have complained about the lack of a viewing hole for the face when the case is on , but this is good because the face does n't get damaged / scratched fast transfer rate 
</cs-1>
 2_i-pod (cheaper)
no issues as of yet
cons :
you 're going to need to buy new headphones , the stock ones suck
hopefully , this player will out sell the ridculously over-hyped i-pod .
if you want to be a poser and follow the herd , mooooooh , then buy the i-pod .
otherwise , be smart , save the cash .
 the sound is the thing !
for me the sound of the music is what is important .
the zen xtra sounds great with good headphone and well recored mp3s .
navigation is a bit tricky and takes getting used to but the included pdf instructions cover the operation pretty well .
<cs-2>
at 8 ounces it is pretty light but not as light as the ipod . 
</cs-2>
1_it 2_ipod 3_light (as light as)
the battery is replaceable ( a real plus ) and there is a leather case ( another real plus ) .
i suppose that you could jog with it but it seems to be made for the enjoyment of music .
so far the software for the pc works easily .
by the way , it looks nice also .
 an ipod killer :
this thing kicks mighty apple butt !
i would have given this thing 4.5 stars but since i can 't , i 'll be sweet and give it the full 5 stars .
it 's worth it .
i personally do n't like apple or their business practices ( screwing resellers , customers and employees left and right ) so i shopped around for something else . 
after finally stumbling upon this zen nx player , i knew i had found what i was looking for .
my two main requirements were longer battery life and lower price : i found both .
this thing lasted well over 14 hours when i played it straight for the first time .
<cs-1>
the zen nx is $ 100 cheaper than the ipod of the same size , so you have to wonder just how much apple 's markup is anyway !
</cs-1>
1_zen nx 2_ipod (cheaper)
the sound is excellent , but a tip : get a real pair of headphones .
you wo n't appreciate the quality this thing has to offer unless you are using a good set of cans .
the controls are on the side instead of on the front , which i like , because that 's where my thumb is when i hold the thing ! 
<cs-1>
the scroll wheel is a big improvement over the ipod touchpad .
</cs-1>
1_scroll wheel 2_ipod touchpad (improvement)
<cs-1>
it could be a little bit bigger , but it 's easy to get used to . 
</cs-1>
1_it (bigger)
<cs-1>
the screen may be a little smaller , but it is very readable and does n't come in the overused blue . 
</cs-1>
3_screen 1_it (smaller)
it does n't have firewire , not a real complaint since most windows users do n't generally have firewire cards themselves .
( i would have appreciated having a firewire plug , however )
the included leather pouch is a big plus : it actually protects the unit well , something a lot of ' carrying cases ' fail to do with other audio devices .
<cs-1>
other plusses : changable battery , loads of presets for environments , decent construction , still quite small and light despite being slightly bigger than an ipod . 
</cs-1>
2_ipod (bigger)
( did i mention you can actually change the battery ? hello ? apple ? are you listening ? )
i probably would have liked to have a player in something other than silver / metallic ...
like the battery adapters on their usb thumbdrive ( muvo nx ) mp3 player models . 
since the front plate is removable to access the battery compartment , aftermarket alternate covers would not be difficult or expensive to make . 
<cs-1>
overall : small , sounds great , and less expensive than apple 's overpriced ipod ! 
</cs-1>
2_ipod 3_expensive (less)
( batteries last longer too ! )
<cs-1>
 way better than a i-pod !
</cs-1>
2_i-pod (better)
i shopped around for a month looking for a good mp3 player , and all i heard was how good the i-pod was .
after messing with it at a store i noticed how bad the i-pod was .
<cs-4>
it was marked up increadably high compared to other models ( almost $ 500 for a 30gb ) , and theres was nothing about it that made it worth that much money . 
</cs-4>
<cs-2>
the creative labs zen xtra has all the features the i-pod has and if you get if from amazon your only going to pay $ 300 for this great player .
</cs-2>
1_creative labs zen xtra 2_i-pod 3_features ()
<cs-3>
i 've had it for about 2 weeks and it 's the best player i 've seen , and used , ever . 
</cs-3>
1_it 3_player (best)
the music is easy to get to ( all of the menus are easy to understand despite what alot of i-pod owners say ) and if you know how to search for an artist by name online , then you can do the same with the zen .
the screen is very easy to read and the blue light is bright enough to read at night , but dim enough so it does n't blind you when you stare too long .
<cs-1>
all in all this a great player that blows the i-pod away , with easy to use and understand features , software that is simple to understand and use , and a great sound ( which is all that matters in a mp3 player ) . 
</cs-1>
2_i-pod 1_this  (blows)
just get some new headphones and your set .
 great product for a windows computer .
within 5 minutes i was able to transfer files .
it 's a very intuitive program .
i had no problems following their installation instructions .
the menus are very easy to navigate .
the only complaint i have is that when you push in the scroll wheel to select , you have to push straight in or it sticks .
the other controls are all very easy to use . 
it has several play options , one of the best is an option to shuffle , based on all or a certain playlist .
the only downside i see is that it does n't look like you can manage playlists from the nomad , it has to be done from the computer .
<cs-4>
unlike the ipod , this is fully windows compatible and can be used right out of the box . 
</cs-4>
for ipod you have to buy a cable and it is n't compatible with all windows pcs . (unlike)
<cs-1>
it also costs a lot less than the ipod . 
</cs-1>
1_it 2_ipod 3_costs (less)
the earbuds that come with it are n't that bad .
they 're pretty comfortable , stay in place and deliver a decent audio quality .
this is a good deal for music and data storage .
 the interfacing software is unacceptably bad .
one thing i should note is that i have only had this product for one day , so there are many options i have not explored .
the main problem with the nomad jukebox zen xtra 30 gb is the software .
on my relatively new computer ( p4 with windows xp and usb 2.0 ) , the os complained about the installation of the drivers .
despite the instructions insisting that the process was fairly automatic , i had to install the usb drivers and the nomad interface software manually .
the interface software itself , which should be user-friendly , was anything but easy-to-use .
with the nomad explorer software , songs should be drag-and-drop .
i have not yet tried the cd-ripping program .
the player itself has all sorts of problems . 
the face-plate , which pops out for the battery , pops open by itself every 10 minutes or so .
the player hangs up on file transfer every once-in-a-while , prompting a reset .
the scroll button is overly sensitive at times ; not sensitive enough at others .
depressing the scroll button ( for selecting ) is not always responsive .
the scroll bar problems make the task of creating playlists more frustrating . 
on the positive side , the sound of the player is pretty good , once you have everything configured .
i have n't had time to really push this player to the limit , but audio aspects on the nomad are satisfactory , as should be expected from creative labs .
overall , a very disappointing product .
the setup process for the nomad is infuriating , and the interface with the player is sub-par .
the player 's mechanics are also flawed .
although the sound-quality is good , it takes more than good sound on a portable-mp 3 player to result in a good product . 
 great player .
<cs-4>
i was trying to decide whether or not i should go with the 40 gb ipod or this 30 gb zen xtra .
</cs-4>
when it came down to it , the price on this player is hard to beat .
if you want the other accessories the ipod offer , maybe that 's where you should go ..
this is a great investment for someone like me who enjoys music and hates carrying multiple cds .
i just transfered over some 40 cds and have plenty of space left for me .
one beef is the scroll , it does n't work as well as i 'd like .
other than that this thing is great ...
enjoy !
 replaceable battery lets zennx keep running and running .
zennx 's replaceable battery was the deciding factor in my purchase of zennx over ipod .
all rechargeable batteries lose their holding power over time ( around 2 years ) .
apple 's solution - pay apple another $ 400 + for a new ipod ( less a paltry discount ) . 
<cs-2>
the zennx will keep running for the price of a replacement battery , just like any other battery-powered appliance . 
</cs-2>
1_zennx 2_other battery-powered applianc 3_running (like)
deficiencies with zennx are easily overcome with 3rd-party earphones ( $ 20 + ) and software ( $ 25 ) .
notmad by red chair software is an explorer-based program that enables simple drag-and-drop transfer of music files from pc to zennx .
the blue-screen display in the zennx xtra model is an improvement , but the toggle switch is still tricky .
zennx 's capacity / price ratio on the 30g model ( $ 10/gig ) ) trumps ipod 's 30g model ( $ 14/gig ) .
<cs-4>
choosing zennx is a no-brainer when factoring in the cost of a new $ 400 + ipod every few years versus the $ 50 cost of replacing zennx 's rechargeable battery . 
</cs-4>
zennx hopefully will gain market share and prompt arrogant apple to lower prices and enable consumers to replace the battery . 
update : apple recently announced that for $ 107 , it will replace the battery in ipods shipped to their factory .
lithium ion rechargeable batteries are good for 300-500 rechargings , so battery lifespan will vary according to your usage .
still , apple continues to squeeze dollars from consumers by not designing the battery to be replaceable .
 terrific mp3 player , great price .
i love my new nomad , its great !
now i dont have to lug around 80 cds if i dont know what i 'm going to want to listen to biking home .
<cs-2>
this thing , while looking pretty cool , is not as sexy as the ipod . 
</cs-2>
2_ipod 3_sexy (as sexy as)
for some this might be a problem , but for the price of a 30 gig ipod , you can get a 60gb nomad , the ipod simply pales in comparison .
the software is very easy to use , and within 30 minutes of opening my box , i was out and about listening to any one of my 80 cds .
the free ( i didnt know they still did that ) carrying case is really protective , and to me its the only accessory you need ( except good headphones ) .
<cs-2>
on the subject of headphones , this thing seems like a normal mp3 player when you use the headphones they give you in the box , but invest 30 dollars in a nice pair and the sound quality goes up through the roof ! 
</cs-2>
1_this thing 2_normal mp3 player (like)
if you want a sexy , cool , accessory-availible mp3 player , by all means , get an ipod for a hundred dollars more ( or one for the same price that holds 1/3 of the music ) . 
but if you want a great deal and a great mp3 player , get the nomad .
<cs-3>
best electronic i 've bought since i was born . 
</cs-3>
3_electronics (best)
flat out
 impressed !
i just sold my archos 20gb jukebox recorder after not being satisfied with it 's slow loading & difficult navigation , not to mention it froze quite a bit . 
i was in search of a new item to take it 's place as my new mp3 player / harddrive .
for an early christmas gift , i got a zen xtra 40 gb player .
i refused to go for an ipod , i am not going to spend all that money just for the apple name and because it is `` trendy `` to have that player .
this was the closest alternative and best buy for this type .
after receiving my zen xtra 40gb mp3 player ..
i will just say this :
i will never go back to my archos again ! !
so easy to set up , had some problems with my archos .
stayed up all night trying to figure out that thing . 
just easily drag and drop files into the nomad explorer and from there you easily alter id tags and sort your music according to your liking , by artist , song title , genre , etc .
not only is it functional and runs super smooth & fast , but it is also eye candy .
very sleek & stylish as well as the screen options and visuals it has .
<cs-2>
the leather case it comes with is pretty nice , similar to a pda style case and does hold and protect it perfectly . 
</cs-2>
1_it 2_pda style case 3_case (similar)
all the buttons & neccessary lil ' gadgets are on the sides of the player which is nice for when you are holding it in the palm of your hand .
the sound quality is also nice ...
after i hooked up my sony headphones instead of those factory earbuds it comes with .
lots of sound options , has an equalizer almost like winamp with the options .
navigation is so smooth and finding files is a cinch .
<cs-2>
also navigating while playing music is a plus unlike my previous player . 
</cs-2>
2_my previous player 3_navigating while playing music (unlike)
it was impossible to do so before . 
oh , and the screen saver feature is pretty sweet ^ _ ^
another plus in my book , no file limits !
i was limited to 999 files in a playlist with archos ' os , now i can have as many as i want . 
i have over 2000 files in my playlist at the moment and the random does a nice job mixing it up .
i am quite happy having over 10 gigs of music stored on this baby as well as a few gigs of media files in the data folder .
now i can transport files to friends house with ease .
<cs-4>
when plugged in , it does n't lag the computer like the archos did ... 
</cs-4>
unless you are doing a massive transfer of data in one load . (like)
<cs-1>
after playing with this little device , i do n't know why i would look at an ipod with the same space when it costs $ 500 and i got mine for a little more than half that price !
</cs-1>
1_this little device 2_ipod 3_price (more)
i really have no complaints over this unit .
i really do recommend this to anyone in need of a new player .
in fact , my boyfriend is now going to invest into one of these suckers as well ... 
now he realizes that this is the best choice over his current archos and the ipod he was eyeing .
 not able to install .
getting the program to install properly has been a living hell experience .
the cd just has too many problems with win xp . 
i am going to have to try an online download and see if that works .
also , the instruction manual is very bad .
 fantastic piece of machinery .
i have no complaints with this mp3 player .
getting files onto it is quick and painless .
then sorting the files is easy as pie .
and it holds sooooo much music and audio files .
my music demands are pretty intense and this handles those demands without problems .
also , the sound is wonderful ...
my only gripe were those aweful earphones that this came with . 
come on , at $ 300 they could at least put in a good pair of earphones .
sheesh ! !
the battery is nice .
i listened to it for several days before needing to recharge them . 
the lcd screen was very large and readable .
thank you !
my last mp3 player 's screen drove me nuts . 
a great buy .
compared to everything else in this category , this is most definately the best bang for the buck .
 not ipod competition .
<cs-4>
i think the whole zen line has been fairly innovative and reasonably priced , but it 's not really appropriate to compare the pricing of the zen line to the ipods ( although , the ipod is still way over priced ) . 
</cs-4>
you 're talking totally different hardware . 
all of the zens use a standard notebook drive .
<cs-1><cs-2>
this puts the zen in line with players like the rca jukebox and the whole line of archos players ( the newer ones are a bit better than the original archos jukeboxes ... 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_newer ones 2_arvchod jukeboxes (better)
1_zen 2_rca jukebox (like)
but i popped out the drive in my 20 gig jukebox recorder and put in a 60 gig drive and use it exclusively as a powered portable usb 2.0 drive ) .
the ipod uses a smaller ( and more expensive ) drive ( 1.8 `` ) .
the devices competing with the ipod are the iriver ihp 120 , the rio karma , and the philips hdd100 .
i should point out that the new rio karma is now down to about $ 280 and is reviewed readily as being as good as ( and better in some areas ) the ipod .
the 20 gig ipod still goes for just under $ 400 .
that 's a huge difference ...
especially in this price range .
i can 't believe people continue to pay those prices .
advertising pays off i guess ..
i doubt anyone has ever seen an add or commercial for any other mp3 player .
i gave the zen 5 stars because it 's excellent for the class that it is in and it 's not really appropriate to rate it based on players in a different class . 
my personal favorite is the karma ( i currently own a karma , a zen usb 2.0 , a philips hdd100 , and an upgraded 60 gig archos jukebox recorder ) .
i guess that 's why you so often see `` ipodders `` bashing every other player out there ( very often not knowing anything about them the whole `` i spent $ 120 more for something not any better and so should you ...
so i can feel better `` thing . 
<cs-4>
ipod vs nomad zen xtra 
</cs-4>
i originally purchase a 30 gb nomad zen xtra as a portable mp3 player . 
after fiddling around with it for a while , i notice a few dissapointments :
transfering - i could not get my songs to completely transfer via usb 1.1 or 2.0 .
it would only transfer 30 or so songs , and then come up with an error .
having 4000 or so mp3s , i never got more than 500 transfered . 
scroll button - the scroll wheel was a nice idea to keep less clutter , but the button would sometimes get stuck or keep scrolling . 
<cs-1>
size - bigger than the ipod 
</cs-1>
 3_size 2_ipod (bigger)
<cs-3>
software - music match jukebox is n't the greatest , the search funtion is n't fast even when accessing it with the hotkey shortcut . 
</cs-3>
1_software - music match jukebox (greatest)
after i went through the transer issue , i returned the zen xtra and purchased the 40 gig ipod .
song transfers were not an issue .
i transfered all 16 gigs in 15 minutes without any errors via firewire . 
<cs-1>
the navigion on it can be a little quirky , but still operates better than the zen 's did . 
</cs-1>
 1_it navigation 2_zen (better)
the ipod is also an attractable piece , being lightweight and small .
the casing scratches a little easy , but the glove cases work great to protect against this .
sound quality was the same between the two , but the zen did have more sound adjustments with the normal eax features .
i chose to keep the ipod and am very happy with the purchase .
<cs-1>
granted it is a little more than the zen , it is well worth it . 
</cs-1>
1_it 2_zen (more)
itunes is a versatile program and i have n't had any issues with the ipod itself .
 wonderful .
i love this player .
its great .
all i have to say is that i did freeze on me once , but it has n't done it since . 
i love this player and would probably go with creative labs again .
the software was great , as long as you have an adminstrative user account ( windows xp ) . 
i got every song i had downloaded to the player within a day or so .
it only took about 30 minutes to download everything , and that was about 950 songs .
anyway , this player is a great deal and i really love it .
 a good product .
first , the cons ...
a tad bulky ...
not the most asthetic looking player ...
and does n't support a folder stucture . 
the pro ...
<cs-1>
way less expensive than the ipod .
</cs-1>
2_ipod 3_expensive (less)
my opinions :
personally , i do n't understand all the complaints about the interface ..
i find it pretty easy to use ...
<cs-4>
and unlike the remote interface for the audigy 2 nx ( on the pc ) .. 
</cs-4>
it actually gives the option to clear the previous playlist when i want to play another list .
meaning i do n't have to manually clear the list , and then load the new list .
the cons are n't really a big deal to me ...
except one con that does annoy me is the way it stores files ...
no folder structure ...
and it 's based on the title of the songs ...
many of my songs where seperated into folders ( on the pc ) ...
and a few had same titles ...
so i had to change the titles to make sure that i did n't have any that might be the same as another . 
and man ...
i had to work to put my chinese songs on the player ...
because i had the actual chinese names of the songs as the title ..
and since the current language selection was english ( even though i think only the menu supports chinese , and not the track info ) ...
all it saw were `` ? `` s and even though the songs had different names in chinese ..
if it had the same number of `` ? `` s then it would ask if you want to overwrite another song that just had the same number of `` ? `` s . 
buyer beware ! sort your songs and adjust the titles accordingly ( maybe this applies to other players too , and not just the nomad , i do n't know ) .
i would 've still bought this drive even if i knew about this issue beforehand .
not counting the time i spent editing the songs ( i suppose i should 've done it anyway on my pc ) the transfer was pretty painless .
once you start sending files , it 'll continue until it 's done or it hits a song that has the same title as another song ...
at which point you can skip , skip all , replace , replace all , or cancel .
and go from there ...
if you chose one of the `` all `` options , then you do n't need to do anything until it 's done .
in two transfer batches ( first was english songs , then foreign languages ) , it did n't come up with any errors ( aside the duplicate name i mentioned ) . 
so i do n't know what the previous review that could n't do more than 30 songs is talking about .
of course , unlike that person i will mention that i upgraded the firmware to 1.23 . 
00 .
but i did transfer files before the upgrade without problem too . 
you should update the firmware before upgrading the drivers if you decide you need the newer drivers for the pc .
the mediasource itself was flaky ...
crashing my explorer twice within the first hour ( the crash did n't require a reboot ) ...
but after another reboot , it has n't crashed since .
did i mention i 've already dropped it once ?
that was n't pretty .
there 's a dent on the upper-back-right and lower-back-right corners ...
not too obvious unless you 're up close .
hehe , my bad .
that 's all for now .
 so far , it 's sweet .
bought the 30gb xtra a couple of weeks ago , and so far it has been excellent .
i still have over 19gb left , and already have over 200 cd 's on it .
i 'll have to borrow cd 's to rip from friends to even come close to filling the thing .
i 'm not sure why people have problems with either the interface of the nomad , or the software that comes with the unit .
both are very easy to learn & use , and intuitive enough for even a novice .
besides user error ( surprise , surprise ) , it 's hard to imagine people having trouble with either .
ripping & transferring tunes is basic , and pretty fast ( even on a 1.1 usb ) .
people also have complained about the case not having a window , but that 's not really a big deal to me either -- the case is sturdy and offers very good protection .
it 's easy enough to pop it open to see what song you 're listening to .
the sound quality is excellent ( and i 'm fussy with that stuff ) , the unit looks cool , screen is bright and easy to read , and the replaceable battery means a major advantage over the ipod ( besides the price , but everyone knows that ) .
you of course have some good customization options with the unit as well ( sound presets , navigating options , playlists , etc ) . 
i just put it on `` shuffle `` , sit back , and enjoy the eclectic mix that almost 3 , 000 tunes offer !
the only thing i 'm concerned about is the quality / longevity of the buttons on the thing .
my `` fast forward `` button works , but it takes a little extra pressure on it to make it go .
not an urgent issue , as it still works ..
all other buttons are pretty sensitive to touch and work well .
i 'll have to see if this becomes a problem down the road .
but i 've already emailed creative tech support about it , and gotten timely responses - they will fix it for me if necessary ..
we 'll see if i need them to .
<cs-1>
sure , it 's a little bigger than the ipod , but not by much . 
</cs-1>
1_it 2_ipod (bigger)
this is not the unit you should use if you go jogging anyway .
it still fits in the palm of your hand , and it 's not heavy .
i use mine at the office , in the car ( with a cassette adapter ) , and will be taking it on a flight back east for the holiday .
yes .
get better headphones .
rip your tunes at 192kb if you like , alhthough 128kb sounds just dandy , and you 'll get more tunes stored on it .
bottom line ...
great product , unbeatable price .
<cs-1>
i got mine for $ 160 less than the ipod 30gb ( got an extra $ 30 off for applying for an amazon visa ... 
</cs-1>
 1_mine 3_$ 160 2_ipod 30gb (less)
thanks amazon ! )
basic shipping was a bit slow , but that 's okay .
i got it now , and i 'm diggin ' it .
 nightmare .
awful , awful , awful .
unlike my 3 other mp3 players , this thing will only work properly if you have id3 tags on all of your tracks .
if you do n't have tags , it 'll lump all of your tracks into the same directory and they can not be searched via artist or album as the zen does not recognize folders .
it 's a shame , but mine is going back .
bummer as it has great sound quality .
 excellent product .
i just received my 40gb zen xtra yesterday and i 'm extremely pleased with it .
my brother bought an ipod this past summer and my dad bought the original zen around the same time ..
just before we all spent a couple weeks in an rv together .
the ipod is a neat piece of machinery but after screwing around with both of them i think the zen products are the way to go . 
so i requested and received a zen xtra as a christmas gift .
the setup and transfer process was cake for me .
i just used the explorer program to move my songs to my player .
i did have to put a little work into renaming some duplicate file names to get all my music on my zen xtra but it was n't a big problem . 
the explorer program did shut down a couple times while i was renaming titles and changing genres but i did n't have to reboot the computer or anything , just open up explorer again .
it 's been so long since i 've had a program not shut down on me in windows that i hardly even noticed that it happened .
that 's probably a bad thing .
the unit itself did lock up a few times and i had to hit the reset button but that was a fairly painless process as well .
it was always after it finished a process or something , so it did n't cause any file errors . 
now that i have all my music on it there has n't been any more problems .
the screen is large and bright and has all the info i need where i need it . 
i have n't tried setting up any playlists yet so i can 't comment on any problems there .
the eax mode that keeps the volume at the same level for any song will come in handy when i take my holiday plane rides .
the little jog dial seems weak and quirky and i hope i do n't figure out a way to break it .
the dial on the original zen was perfect and i wish it was on this model .
all in all though i 'm very happy with my new mp3 player .
<cs-1>
i 'll admit that i 'd own an ipod if i had money to burn , but for the money this is a much better buy . 
</cs-1>
1_this 3_buy (better)
highly recommended !
 fantasic product .
i purchased the nomad jukebox zen xtra 40gb and it is fantastic !
i have windows xp pro and when installing the enclosed software i did receive a message that there was a problem installing the driver .
this was quickly and easily fixed by going to the creative web site and downloaded then installed the updated driver .
i found using the supplied mediasource software very easy .
if you have always on internet or are logged into the internet you can use the feature that will download the album & song id information ( this is a free service ) with the click of a button .
ripping your songs and creating playlists could n't be any easier .
i found using mediasource to load your songs to the nomad jukebox to be much easier and faster than using windows explorer .
just highlight the songs you want to transfer from your playlist or music library then click one button and it 's done !
being a creative product the playback quality is unbeatable .
i use my own mid-priced headphones rather than the enclosed earbuds .
when i played back a symphony orchestra you would swear that you were seated dead center in front of the orchestra - it 's that good !
<cs-2>
the sound quality with jazz and pop music is equally superior . 
</cs-2>
1_sound quality 3_superior (equally)
actually using the nomad jukebox is easy and uncomplicated .
finding a particular song ( s ) or album on the nomad jukebox is fast and easy .
i like to play my music by album and the nomad jukebox plays the songs in the same order as the actual cd .
the high resolution screen is easy to read and has a backlight .
i can highly recommend this product because of its ease of use ( hardware and software ) , playback quality and value for the price .
 good value .
just bought one & i 've enjoyed it to date .
<cs-1>
nice palm sized unit , somewhat bigger then the ipod but not an issue if you 're not going to try & jog with it or something . 
</cs-1>
1_palm sized unit 2_ipod (bigger)
<cs-3>
all reviews i 've seen seem to indicate that the creative mp3 jukeboxes have the best sound quality of these 2nd generation jukeboxed ( ipod , archos , dell , samsung ) . 
</cs-3>
1_creative mp3 jukeboxes 3_sound quality (best)
the eax settings are somewhat superfluous but not really a negative .
i 've tried the belkin fm transmitter unit with it & it worked well when i set it on top of a portable radio , but was awful trying to use in the car which is somewhat of a disappointment .
dislikes
- the controls are much inferior to the simple ipod ones .
the black fly wheel feels pretty cheap & is uncomfortable to use .
the locations of various buttons on one side or the other is somewhat illogical
- included creative software is pretty poor .
red chair 's notmad explorer is great & recommended by about every reviewer to repleace the creative jukebox software .
note : this will add about $ 30 to the price to purchase , but worth it
likes
<cs-4>
- great value 40gb vs 10 gb ipod for the price 
</cs-4>
<cs-3>
- best in class sound 
</cs-3>
3_class sound (best)
- large easy readable screen
 depressingly poor quality .
after receiving the box from amazon , i proceeded with charging the unit for the specified 4 hours , after which i installed the software and connected the unit to my pc via usb 2.0 . 
the pc quickly picked up on it and attempted to install the software , which failed , as creative chose not to follow microsoft standards , whatever .
i then installed the software manually instead , after having to click past about 5 windows of `` please register with us so we can spam your inbox `` . 
at this time , i decided to turn the player on , and much to my surprise it comes with quite the little library of classical music , one of which is a childhood favorite , bach 's air .
i tried to play the song three times , with no success .
it would either not play the song at all , or skip wildly , no matter that the unit was resting on my desk .
well , maybe that particular song was just corrupt , so i tried to upload some of my own , after four attempts , at each one the unit locked up and required a reboot , i managed to upload an album , which albeit was surprisingly fast , however when attempting to create a playlist out of my newly uploaded songs , the nomad again froze up and refused to work . 
i made an additional five attempts at creating a playlist , before packing the unit up and heading over to amazon 's product return page .
needless to say , i would n't recommend anyone purchasing this product .
had there been strange noises , or obvious defects , i would have accepted a replacement , but this is clearly from a defective and inferior operating system and i for one do not intend on waiting for patches .
 wonderful .
charged my battery .
plugged it in .
installed software .
started ripping and transferring .
if you arent hooked up to cddb to get the album info i guess you have to manually input the stuff , but that little work will save you looking for songs .
i 've got 1200 songs on it now and about 4000 more to go .
working for 10 hours with it on `` shuffle `` totally rocks ! !
i love it ! !
 poor reliability .
i bought this only to have it break within a month . 
this product is too fragile for normal use .
 good player , but this technology is not yet great .
i received this as a gift .
i had no problems setting up the software and getting my favorite cd 's transferred .
however , the creative software is not real intuitive .
<cs-3>
the software is somewhat nice to look at , using it is not the easiest . 
</cs-3>
1_software 3_using it (easiest)
if you want to rename a cd title that you have already transferred , you will become frustrated quite quickly .
you are better off deleting it , re-ripping it with the new title and then transferring it to the player . 
transfers are surprisingly quick through usb 2.0 .
it is great sounding , even with the supplied earbuds .
i must have differing preferences than others here , as i prefer the supplied earbuds to the sony 's that i thought sounded good on other players .
i love the storage in this thing .
i have 100 of my cd 's transferred and have n't made a dent in the 30 gb drive .
i doubt i will use half of the storage capacity , but you never know . 
this is definitely opening up possibilities to obtaining mp3 's in which i would have never purchased the cd .
now my dissapointments .
the description of the warranty is buried on the supplied set up cd .
the warranty is 90 days .
this is ridiculous .
to me this alludes to the manufacturer 's confidence that the product will last for a year .
buy the re-seller 's extended warranty and save yourself a headache for the problems you will have later , after all it is a hard drive and it will die or have issues over time ( probably sooner than later ) .
the scroll wheel , to be blunt , sucks .
seems it is always difficult to press to make a selection .
the interface used could be better designed .
it is a little cumbersome to scroll through so many levels to get to the selection you want .
i am a software engineer and if i wrote an interface to my software that worked like this , there would be hell to pay , not to mention the ridicule from my peers . 
and the case , how did this ever make it out of quality control .
it is some protection for the unit , but for useability , forget it .
the screen is covered , so to make any new selections you have to open it .
the cut-outs for the controls is not thought out as there is too much material in the way to adequately access the controls , especially the scroll wheel .
there are no other aftermarket cases available for this model yet , so you have to live with it .
despite the things that i have listed so far , i could live with this item since it saves me from lugging a cd case to work , to the gym , in the car , etc .
however the main reason i am not satisfied with this product is the fact that it will lock up at odd times .
i have had it lock up after a transfer of music .
the files are there , but i could not access the player without removing the battery , waiting a short period and re-inserting the battery .
also have had it lock up when i shut it down to attend to a phone call .
left it set on my desk came back five minutes later and it just wanted to keep playing the same song over and over .
could not stop it , could not get out of the `` now playing `` screen .
again had to remove the battery .
there have been other occurrences of locking , but i will not bore you with the details .
quite simply , the firmware and / or the os that control this thing is not ready for prime time .
there have also been times that the unit has been turned off for some period of time , upon powering it up it starts on the `` now playing `` screen with a song or cd that i had been playing days before . 
i have n't quite figured this one out yet , but it is probably operator error .
now i have not owned other mp3 players as i was waiting until they matured , but since i received it as a gift i now have this one .
i would suspect that there are similar problems with all of the other brands as this is somewhat new technology .
and we all know about the rush to market on new products .
i have had this player for 2 weeks , i will be returning it for an exchange in the hopes that the locking problem and scroll wheel are problems with this particular unit .
while i am at the store i will definitely get the extended warranty as i have another day or so ( from the purchase date ) to obtain one .
<cs-4>
i know this unit will have problems in the future and the $ 40 for the 2 year `` no questions asked `` replacement warranty will be worth it , since creative will only warrant it for 90 days - which in itself is totally ridiculous !
</cs-4>
 excellent product .
this is my second creative labs mp3 player , and it is definitely a fine product .
first let me give you the bad things :
1 .
<cs-1><cs-1>
the size is a little bit bigger than the ipod , and it weighs a little bit more .
</cs-1></cs-1>
 3_size 2_i-pod 3_weighs (bigger)
3_weighs 1_it 2_ipod (more)
2 .
<cs-3>
the scroll button is n't the best , as it sometimes can be hard to select . 
</cs-3>
1_scroll button (best)
3 .
that 's pretty much all the negatives the positive things truly outnumber the negatives , and the negatives are n't that bad .
<cs-1>
first of all the player 's sound quality is superior to the ipod . 
</cs-1>
1_the playes 2_ipod 3_sound quality (superior)
the player 's software is very easy to use and very good .
<cs-1>
compared to musicmatch , the software has a better filing system and easier to use . 
</cs-1>
1_the software 2_musicmatch 3_filing system 3_use (better)
1_the software 2_musicmatch 3_use (easier)
<cs-1><cs-1>
to keep it short , this is cheaper , and in my opinion a better choice than an ipod . 
</cs-1></cs-1>
1_this 2_ipod 3_choice (better)
1_this 2_ipod (cheaper)
 difficulties with tags .
if you purchase this product , definitely rip your songs through windows media player .
otherwise , you 'll have to mess around a lot with filenames inside the ( decent ) nomad explorer , which is not fun at all . 
this thing seriously is a good player though .
 another electronics fan .
summary
overall i like the unit .
i gave it only 3 stars due to the fact that the 1st one broke when i dropped it from a fairly short distance ( less than 2 ft ) .
if it were not for that i would have given it 4 .
pros :
1 ) price / gb of storage
2 ) storage capacity
3 ) user replaceable battery
cons :
1 ) fragile ( i broke the 1st one within 10 days )
2 ) scroll button / switch
3 ) the case hides the display - you have to open it to see what you are doing .
features that would have been nice :
1 ) fm receiver - some models out there have this .
2 ) fm transmitter - so you can place the unit in your car and listen to the unit through your car stereo .
they sell an adapter unit to use with your car 's cassette deck .
but who wants the wires involved .
a short range fm transmitter would be much nicer .
i believe the napster mp3 player has this feature .
details :
do n't drop this unit :
i 've had the player for about a month now .
overall i like it .
as mentioned above i broke the player within the 1st 10 days .
i was sitting on a train and it fell off my lap and broke .
i think it fell right on the earphone plug when it fell ( murphy strikes again ) .
i was able to return it to the retailer where i bought it and got a replacement .
if you are going to need a player that is rugged this may not be the one for you .
i purchased the extended warranty ( something i almost never do ) when i returned the unit to get the replacement .
updating the unit 's firmware :
when i first purchased the unit i downloaded the firmware update that was available on their website . 
the upgrade went smoothly and was easy to do if you can follow directions .
i would recommend doing the upgrade to be sure you have the best chance at trouble free operation . 
storage :
the storage capacity is great .
i do n't think i will ever use the full 30gb .
i currently have ~ 1100 songs encoded mostly at 196 kpbs and i have n't even used 10gb of storage yet .
i 'm starting to listen to cd 's that i have n't listened to in years now that i have them all handy in one place .
for those out there that are not familiar with mp3 encoding , you can encode your cd 's at varying quality levels .
typically people use 96kbs to 320 kps .
the higher the number the better the quality ( less data compression is used ) and the larger the file size .
<cs-1>
if you decide to encode at 320 you will fit less on this device than someone who encodes at 128kps . 
</cs-1>
1_320 2_128kps 3_fit (less)
you should consider this when deciding what bit rate you want to use and how much you want to put on the player .
if you 're someone who wants to put 10 , 000 songs on this thing you may want to encode at the lower end ( typically 128 is considered close to cd quality ) .
price :
<cs-4>
the price compared to the ipod is great . 
</cs-4>
price , along with the replaceable battery ( which i understand apple charges a small fortune to replace - as well as the hassle of returning it ) were the two main factors on why i picked the nomad . 
one word of caution with regards to using the nomad with itunes .
i discovered this weekend that itunes does not sell mp3 's in the mp3 format .
it using something called ac3 ( at least the trial song i purchased was in this format ) which is not a compatible format for the nomad .
i have n't figured out if this is the case for all the songs on itunes .
but for now it appears that this player does n't play well with itunes .
scroll bar :
the scroll bar is a bit of a pain .
sometimes you skip past things or have to press it twice to select items .
it 's not the end of the world , but a better design sure would be nice . 
software :
i 've had no problems with the software .
i found it intuitive to use ( i did n't read any documentation for it and was using it successfully within a few minutes ) .
the software will convert your cd 's to mp3 and put them on the player as well as your hard disk if you want it to . 
my 2.6 mhz pentium 4 with usb 2.0 was able to perform the task pretty quickly ( i would estimate ~ 5 - 8 minutes per cd ) .
through the software you can classify songs in genres .
this is a nice feature ( i.e .
it 's early in the morning and you rather listen to `` easy listening `` rather than `` heavy metal `` - no problem .
the software comes with plenty of defaults genres .
you can also create your own if you do n't like their classifications . 
you can edit the genres once the songs are on the play if you decide to re-classify things later .
this can be done on a song by song basis or in mass .
in addition , you can create play lists where you can create the equivalent to a compilation cd right on your player .
this is pretty cool .
sound :
the sound from the player is ok .
i was a little disappointed in the low end .
i did buy separate headphones as other have recommended .
i was able to improve things a bit by using the units equalizer and boosting the base .
the sound level is also not as high as i would have expected . 
it 's probably good for the health of your ears , however i consistently play it near the high end of the volume range ( and my hearing is fine ) .
 searching for dennis !
wow , dennis sure is great !
slowly yet surely my unit engorged as i read my own review , similar to when i look in the mirror .
this thing is great , i like to use it to pick up tough stains on my countertop and also to listen to my old 8-track records . 
sometimes when i get really lonely , i like to put on some kenny g and light some candles , and while this does n't help , i am a capitalist pig and like buying things too , nah mean ! ? 
i did have some problems figuring out how to turn the unit on , but creative did a good job with this , as they had a clearly labled `` on `` button that i found when i left my cellar for the first time in years .
there was very little light in there .
anyway , im gon na go find dennis now , have a nice day ! ! !
 it is ok , but ..
i got my zen xtra a little bit more then a week ago .
it was not my first choice .
i have done a lot of research before i decided to buy the nomad zen xtra .
one good thing , it is 40 gb of disk space ( well , it is 38 gb in reality ) .
for the price and features it is really good .
one thing , before buying this player i have called the creative tech .
support and asked them if i can navigate by folders beside artist / album and answer was yes .
sure enough there is no such ability .
not sure , if customer rep .
did not know the product exactly , it is still new or they just give an anser which users would like to hear . 
in any case , navigation by artist / album is ok however i miss an ability to navigate by folders .
you even can not navigate by genre / artist / album since under genre you get just all tracks in that genre , no other division . 
creative is talking about updating it via firmware , however after following some while the descussion groups for nomad players , looks like creative represents mostly bug fixes in their firmware updates , not too much of new features .
the software , which comes with player is not good at all . 
i did not managed to make creative nomad explorer to work .
after installing it and trying to make it working for 30 minutes i went and bought notmad .
notmad worked right away after install and it is what i would like to see from the product .
transfer files is easy using notmad , however again , would be great if nomad supported folders like iriver , rca lyra and some other .
often i fill i need to have better organization for the library and there is not enought of variables . 
artist , album and genre are only mp3 tags which are supported buy this player , and if you have 100 artists would be good to have another subcategory .
after all those players have 40-60 gb of hard drive , so better organization is required .
the bottom line , i 'll still watch the progress of iriver hdd players and if they produce 40 gb player i 'll will sell my nomad and buy iriver .
 the bundled software blows , yes ...
...
but i heard of notmad explorer ( http : //redchairsoftware.com ) from the creative tech support people .
i downloaded the trial version , and after less than 10 minutes of using it , decided it was well worth the price .
so yes , as with all software bundled with creative products , it was useless and ugly .
for once , though , this 3rd party software is excellent .
dont let the bad reviews of the software change your mind .
zens rule .
 unmatched quality and beyond cool .
originally i wanted the ipod .
most people probably wanted the ipod before realizing that a vast array of full-featured viable alternatives exist .
i like the way apple is innovative , but let 's face it - they can 't be the only one with an idea to enclose a 2.5 `` hd within an aluminum case in a stylish package for long , especially after the buzz is out of their little techie pod . 
the 30gb zen xtra rocks my socks , spills my beer , but does n't wash my car .
so what ?
i can do that myself .
<cs-1>
longer battery life , greater accessibility to online music services , and pc compatibility are the sensibilities . 
</cs-1>
3_battery life 3_accessibility (greater)
the visceral teases include the case , the sound quality , and the capacity .
i have n't checked the resilience of my xtra yet , and do n't plan to .
however , if anyone has participated in violent or extreme sports while using their zen , please share your experiences .
i 'm considering using mine as a distraction to winter boredom in the paintball fields .
it can get pretty lonely out there .
 creative thinking .
i just purchased this player and i have to say that i love it .
<cs-1>
the sound is excellent , the battery life is excellent , the fact that the battery is replacable is excellent , and finally the price , $ 200 cheaper than the 40gb ipod , is excellent . 
</cs-1>
 3_price 2_40gb ipod (cheaper)
<cs-4>
the only thing the ipod has over the nomad is the style , size , and ease of use . 
</cs-4>
the nomad is not ugly , it is not that big , it comfortably fits in my pocket , or heavy , and the controls are not hard to get used to .
so far i have no complaints and i recommend this to anyone who wants quality over appearance , also anyone who wants a harddrive based mp3 player and wants to pay next to nothing .
i only have one question , when i add tracks to my nomad , via nomad explorer , they are automatically put in alphebetical order , rather than album order . 
is this possible to fix , if so how , if not does notmad explorer from red chair software do this ?
i would like album order for my live albums and was just wondering .
thank you very much , and go out and get yourself a nomad !
 got to get an ipod !
wow ..
this thing is trash .
want the laundry list of reasons why ?
of course you do !
a ) feel cheap -- the plastic is feels like it would break very easily , and it definately wouldnt survive a drop 
b ) the screen is hard to read -- the cover hides it an already annoying poorly lit display
c ) the scroll bar is a travesty -- enough said
d ) software is another great misfortune -- hard to operate , crashes frequently , screwed my music library up , doesnt work with mp4s , the list goes on and on
e ) the case is too small -- it took me like a half hour just to get this monstrosity to fit in its cage
f ) it doesnt look pretty -- spending this kind of cash , you want something that has the asthetics bit down , of course
so ..
im taking mine back tomorrow morning , and getting a nice shiny new ipod instead .
<cs-1>
do n't waste your time , engery , resources on this thing , just spend a little more for a far more functional ipod . 
</cs-1>
1_this thing 2_ipod 3_spend (more)
 do n't buy it .
i bought the zen xtra 30g as a gift .
what a disappointment .
the software failed repeatedly .
i could n't load more than one song before the software crashed .
creative labs customer support website is useless . 
software downloads on the site crashed my pc .
creative tech support operators work 9-6 p.m . 
weekdays - as if i had time during work hours to spend time on this .
do n't buy this thing .
 great mp3 player .
i just bought this player today and i already love it .
it has a few inconveniences : one is that the songs do not automatically play one after another like on a cd .
another irriation is that if you hold the scroll button down for too long , it keeps going past the song you may have wanted to stop on .
otherwise , this player is awesome !
it has a clear blue light that allows you to see everything on the screen easily .
the volume range is great , so you can blast it if you want .
overall , this player is awesome and i definately recommend it .
 perfect purchase .
i received this item for christmas and it has met and exceeded all my standards . 
naturally i did quite a bit of review before purchasing ( i recomend www.nomadness.net ) , and price-wise zens are unbeatable . 
compared to other leading hdd mp3 players , the value per gb is the tops .
- price : see above .
- sound quality : excellent , everything you would expect from this company .
- the unit is easy to use and intuitive .
it took me about 5 minutes before i had mastered the controls .
- uploading music is quick and easy .
although the supplied software can be annoying at times , on whole it is excellent .
i have uploaded about 3 , 000 songs now with very minimal difficulty .
( it 's fast too ! )
btw , be sure to have your mp3 tags labled correctly , as this will ensure a great organization .
- the unit itself its well structured , with just the buttons you need and none you do n't .
as often mentioned , the scroll tab is average , however , not difficult to use or horrible .
structurally , everything is secure and it wo n't fall apart on you .
the screen is large , defined , and easy to read , and the silver unit is naturally cool .
there are lots of interesting features included such as eax , and customization .
- the replacable battery is great since once it eventually wears out ( as all lithium batteries do ) , you will be able to buy another easily .
ipod users have to send theirs back and pay $ 100 for a replacement .
<cs-4>
also , the nomad 's 14 hours of battery life versus 8 is handy . 
</cs-4>
- equipment included is average , but that is n't a big deal since thats not what you are buying it for .
the case is strong and stylish , but unfortunately lacks a window ( now a big deal ) .
the headphone earbuds are average , so just use your regular pair instead .
conclusion :
this player is an ideal purchase .
there is n't need to get in details again , but just remember it rocks because : price , sound , ease of use , and features .
i would recogmend this player to anyone i know , and you will not be dissapointed .
 impressive with few flaws .
the nomad jukebox zen xtra is a very good mp3 player but the software is it gets hurt .
i have no problem using the player itself and i feel it is a very good player .
on my main computer the software did not work right .
i had to sit on the phone with customer support for 2 hours and they did not help at all .
i eventually gave up with customer support and worked on fixing the problem myself . 
i have the software working fine now and the mp3 player is fantastic .
it seems that depending on the system the software might not work or might work , because it works on all the other computers i have .
so once i worked out the problem with the software this mp3 player is worth the money it cost .
 awesome .
i 'm very pleased with my zx so here 's a quick review .
first there 's the unit itself .
<cs-1><cs-1>
it is small overall , bigger than the ipod , but keep in mind that this is because different , less expensive but not necessarily inferior technology is used in the zx .
</cs-1></cs-1>
1_zx 2_ipod 3_technology (bigger)
<cs-1>
the zx boasts superior sound quality than the ipod , however it compromises a bit of the unit 's size in doing so . 
</cs-1>
1_zx 2_ipod 3_sound quality (superior)
the lcd is larger than the previous model , the nx , and has a bright blue backlight which illuminates the screen more successfully than the nx 's green backlight did .
the scroll wheel is easy to use and works great for me , however many have complained that the wheel is cumbersome and difficult to operate .
the sound is excellent as one would suspect from a creative product .
the included eax support is useful at times , especially when you listen to a variety of genres , as it will adjust the equalizer for you which can be a big hassle . 
the environmental audio , however , is almost completely useless and has made most of my songs sound worse than without it ( i encode my songs at 192-256 kbps without variable bit rates .
the signal to noise ratio ( the ratio of detectable , useful data to unusable garbage in , say , a radio wave ; a larger stn ratio is better ) is nice and high at 98 decibles , and it should be noted that apple refuses to release the stn ratio of any of the ipods . 
the software has n't been a hassle for me at all .
i ignored the instruction booklet ( as i do with any product ) and figured out how to organize separate playlists within minutes .
my sister was able to figure it out on her own as well , and she is of average computer competence .
the less computer-saavy might find apple 's software a bit friendlier , though ( i use it at a friend 's house and it does do a lot more for you .
lastly , the price is fantastic :
<cs-4>
i spent $ 269 for my 30gb zx , compared to the $ 299 for a 10gb ipod and the also expensive iriver ihp-120 . 
</cs-4>
for prospective buyers , i would warn of the following : 1 ) purchase a better pair of headphones as soon as possible , as earbuds sound terrible and are terribly uncomfortable ( this applies to earbuds in general , ) and 2 ) make sure that your mp3s have id3 tags on them , that when when they are loaded into the playlist they will automatically sort themselves .
if you want great sound quality , do n't want to spend an arm and a leg per-gigabyte , do n't mind being something of an iconoclast among many ipod users , and are willing to sacrifice a few cubic centimeters of your personal space for a large discount , then i would suggest the zen xtra for you .
 it 's pretty good .
read the instuctions - do not plug the zen into your computer until you have installed all the software onto your computer and rebooted it ! !
( i had no problems since i did this but there seem to be a couple of very bitter reviews further down - maybe they did not do this or maybe there are some very sad ipod owners since they all recomend it instead ) .
and have you seen the price of the ipod extras that you need .
eg 60 $ for a plastic box to hold 4 aaa batteries to increase the use time past 6-8 hrs ( reviewers figures )
i uploaded the drivers and new software in 15 minutes - no crashes or problems .
transferred the zens new software onto it in about 10 seconds .
it is transferes a song in about 2 seconds .
usb 2.0 - very fast
yeah i agree the earbuds are pretty crap , replace them .
but the sound is very good ( and loud ) and works well on my portable speakers .
and for those that are intrested the recharger works anywhere in the world ( and is quite small ) .
it looks very cool , and seems quite small to me and very light .
the scroll button seems ok , i have no problems with it .
i am very pleased so far .
i had all my files already on my pc in wma format ( 200 cd 's ) . 
so far so good , no problems , no conversions .
very simple to use .
the reason it does not get 5 stars
1 ) a spare battery would have been great .
2 ) no games - it has a cool screen - why not use it .
3 ) it does not work automatically like a hard drive when you connect it to your computer , like some players
all in all suprisingly easy to use . 
 a great player for the price .
summary :
lots of flaws , but exceptional sound quality , hd size , and price make it a good buy .
pros :
excellent sound - i found the music reproduced faithfully through the jukebox .
there was no distortion and it sounded great , especially with eax environmental audio enabled .
transfer through windows explorer - windows recognizes the jukebox as an additional hard disk , so it allows you to simply drag and drop files from windows explorer to a folder for the nomad .
<cs-1>
i found this to be a much easier method of transferring my music to the nomad than using their software . 
</cs-1>
1_this 2_their software 3_transferring my music (easier)
<cs-2>
however , it does n't register instantly as a hard drive like other players . 
</cs-2> (as a)
1_it 2_other players 3_register instantly as a hard drive
you have to install the software to the computer you 're transferring to , instead of just connecting it with a usb connection .
<cs-1>
this would have been much easier . 
</cs-1>
1_this (easier)
the nomad can hold any type of file , not just mp3 , so you can use it as a portable hard disk .
i found it very useful for transferring large files to another computer . 
this almost made it worth the price alone .
i was able to easily copy 2gb worth of video files from my computer , and then transfer them to a friend 's .
huge storage space - even at 320kbs , you can store a ton of songs on this thing .
30gb is more than enough for most people .
having usb 2.0 makes for very fast transfers .
it only took me about 10 seconds to transfer a 200mb file .
it took maybe 15 minutes to transfer 1000 songs .
cons :
navigation system - the zen xtra uses id3 tags that are embedded in the mp3 files to organize your songs .
this is great as long as all of your music have id3 tags , and if you 've downloaded your songs off the internet , many probably do n't .
<cs-1>
it would have been much easier to use a windows explorer style navigation system . 
</cs-1>
1_windows explorer style navigation system 3_use (easier)
you can 't simply open up a folder from the player and play all the songs in it . 
whe you transfer your songs to the jukebox , it dumps all of them into a single folder , and then sorts them by the id3 tags .
fm receiver - it has none .
i would be nice to have a simple fm receiver so i could pick up local stations .
that way i could get rid of a walkman alltogether .
cheap construction - they should have made the player out of hard plastic and put some rubber on the corners .
the player feels very delicate , as if i 'm holding an actual hard drive .
i 'm not sure if it would survive a fall from 3 feet .
<cs-1>
as a portable player , it should feel a bit more durable . 
</cs-1>
1_portable player 3_durable (more)
the top of the player is a thin metal piece that covers up the battery and is removable .
i could crush this thing in half with two fingers if i wanted to . 
this is not a player you can take jogging .
the songs do n't play one after another like on a cd .
you have to add them to the playing list .
i can 't simply bring up my entire list of songs , click play , and then hit next .
you have to add all the songs to a play list . 
<cs-1>
there is probably an easier way to do this , i just have n't found it yet . 
</cs-1>
3_way to do this (easier)
software - the software is crap .
i use it for ripping cds , which it does a pretty good job of .
otherwise , it is difficult to figure out and awkward .
like most people , i do n't want to read the instructions , i just want to use it .
even after reading some of the instructions , it 's still hard to figure out .
<cs-1>
i would recommend replacing the existing software with the `` notmad explorer , `` which is simpler to use and can be found on the internet . 
</cs-1>
1_notmad explorer 2_ existing software 3_use (recommend)
no line out jack - as i said , there is none .
the headphone jack acts as a pseudo line out jack .
so you can plug your nomad directly into your stereo or use a car adapter , but you do n't get the quality from a true line out jack .
it sounds decent , but i would estimate you get maybe 80 % of the quality that you would from a true line out jack .
controls are a bit awkward .
the controls definately took some getting used to .
it was n't as easy to fast forward or pause a song than it was with a regular walkman .
when i first had it i kept finding myself having to look at the nomad to figure out where the skip button was .
<cs-1>
a sliding old fashioned volume knob would also have been easier than the digital version that was included . 
</cs-1>
1_sliding old fashioned volume knob 2_digital version (easier)
i want to have instant access to the volume , not have to hold down a button and have to wait a half second for the player to register it . 
crappy headphones .
the included earbuds were uncomfortable .
<cs-1>
i would replace them with some better sounding and more comfortable phones . 
</cs-1>
1_them 2_phones 3_sounding 3_comfortable (better)
difficult navigation - i wo n't necessarily say `` difficult , `` but i do n't enjoy the scrollwheel to navigate .
it is a bit cumbersome , and i can 't get to the songs i want as quickly .
i think this is it 's biggest flaw .
i would much more have preferred a keypad-type navigator like found on dvd remotes .
<cs-1>
up , down , left , and right would have given me better control . 
</cs-1>
1_up 1_down 1_left 1_right 3_control (better)
if you hold down the scroll wheel too long ( which is common if you have a lot of songs to sort through ) , it will get `` stuck `` rapidly going through the songs and wo n't stop until several seconds after you let your finger off of it .
case - the nomad comes with a leather holding case .
it would have been much nicer if it had a window so you could see the screen , and if the button did n't cover up the ac jack . 
that way i could keep it in the case all the time . 
as it stands now , the case is pretty useless unless you 're packing the player up for travel , or if you load up all your songs beforehand .
you can cut up the case a bit with an xacto knife and make it useable though .
overall , i feel that it 's a decent buy , and am happy that i own it .
i am willing to overlook it 's problems to get superior sound quality and low price , although i feel the player has a lot of room for improvement . 
 good for the money , but software is awful .
after looking over multiple large mp3 players , i decided to get this one .
for the price and size and features , you can 't beat the price .
a 10 gb ipod is just as much and i have heard from multiple sources that the ipod is very loud and you can heard the hard drive everytime it spins , accesses files or does antyhing .
i think the reson for the creative being larger is for sound dampening and protection , whihc is a plus , but then again it is only speculation .
the buttons and interface are very easy to use .
simple click buttons , back buttons volume and display are very easy to read , access and use .
but the major problem i had was with the software .
you are not able to simply import files , but rather you have to go through multiple steps to find them .
the instructions that come with it do n't explain how to make things simple .
the quick sync is n't any good becuase it either needs to be configured properly or just is n't very useful .
i tried to make sense of the file transfer program and just got more confused . 
i tried to take a cd and simply rip it onto a hard drive and then transfer into the player .
well that was not a simple task .
i ended up suing windows player to make mp3 's ( actually wma files ) and then using the probram to transfer .
i think the lack of the mp3 player being able to run without special software is also a downer , becuase it makes it more cumbersome for people less computer illiterate .
buy this for the storage and price , avoid it if you know nothing about computers .
 buy this instead of an ipod .
<cs-1>
with this mp3 player you get much more memory for much less than an ipod .
</cs-1>
1_this mp3 player 2_ipod 3_memory (more)
<cs-1>
an ipod with the same amount of memory is $ 150 cheaper .
</cs-1>
1_ipod (cheaper)
<cs-1>
the reason for this the ipod has `` a better user interface `` . 
</cs-1>
 1_ipod 3_user interface (better)
i have found that the interface on the nomad is very easy to use if you have a basic knowledge of a computer .
also the ipod has games on it .
games are ok for a cell phone , but mp3 's are for music .
 this thing roxxorz .
i purchased this player last week . 
i did a little research on the web and this is the player i decided on .
<cs-1>
i refuse to buy anything made by apple and the nomad is about $ 200 cheaper anyway . 
</cs-1>
1_nomad 2_apple (cheaper)
i have had no problem what-so-ever with this product .
the software installed flawlessly and without any problems on my windows 2k machine .
<cs-3>
the headphones are n't the best , but you can really expect much out of the small headphones you insert in the ear cavity . 
</cs-3>
1_headphones (best)
the battery life seems good , takes very lttle time to charge , it uploads mp3s quickly and there is no delay between songs .
took me a few tries to get use to the navigation , but it 's a very user friendly player imo .
i have n't messed with the firmware at all , the player worked perfect for me right out of the box .
all-in-all , this is another excellent creative product .
if you have the money and need 40 gb , this is the player for you .
it 's small , light and nice looking and the display is decent as well .
i would recommend this product to anyone .
<cs-1>
 it does n't get any better than this .
</cs-1>
1_it 2_this (better)
<cs-3>
before asking for the zen xtra specifically for christmas i researched many different mp3 players but finally decided on this one , and now that i have it i could n't be happier and i 'm convinced it 's the best one out there .
</cs-3>
1_zen xtra 3_mp3 players (best)
many people have written about the software being its one downfall , personally i have n't had a single problem with the software , i 'm running windows me .
the cd ripping to mp3 is so easy , and you can even rip the cd directly to the mp3 player , so it wo n't take up space on your pc hard drive .
the software runs smooth , it 's nice to look at , it 's very organized , easy to follow and makes things very simple .
the controls on the player are very simple , no need for a manual .
the player is fast and sounds great , it also has many options like slowing or speeding up the music , or making it sound like you 're hearing the music in a huge auditorium .
the battery lasts very long when playing music , but writing files to the player drains the battery fast , so you need to have it plugged into an outlet when sending files .
playlists can be made on the fly , without aid of a computer , and you can use play modes like shuffle and repeat for your ' now playing ' selections or playlists . 
the software could n't be better and the mp3 player works like a dream , i could n't give this anything but a 5 , i wish there was a 6 .
 difficult to manage large library .
i purchased and returned this product , but not because of any glaring flaws in the design .
it is an extremely cool gizmo .
in fact , everyone who saw it thought i was `` the man `` and wo n't believe i returned it .
so what 's the problem ?
i made the mistake of thinking i could easily manage my mp3 library with this device .
i initially loaded about 3700 tracks with the intent of ripping the majority of my remaining cds to mp3 .
i quickly discovered that the nomad was n't going to work for me .
the reasons below will be true for any product in this category .
here 's why :
1 .
i do n't need the nomad at the office .
i have my mp3 's stored on my workstation .
2 .
i do n't need the nomad at home for the same reason ( although using it to sync between the two pc 's might be a reason enough to get it .
3 .
it 's a hazard in the car .
the navigation is nice enough , but scrolling and searching through thousands of tracks , hundreds of albums or artists , or even dozens of genres is not conducive to save driving .
( throw a cell phone and you 're asking for trouble .
) 3a .
creating playlists using the included software to minimize issue 3 was n't as easy as i would have liked .
the bottom line :
if i have to get into making playlists to avoid rear-end collisions , i 'll just buy a regular portable cd/mp3 player and burn myself collections of about 120 tracks per disk .
<cs-1>
sure it 's `` old school `` to carry a cd wallet around , but it will be easier to manage and i 'll save around 250 bucks . 
</cs-1>
3_manage 1_cd wallet (easier)
one major complaint :
my only significant complaint is sound quality .
the eax sound enhancement feature did n't do enough for me and the custom eq was a limited 5 band eq .
this did not give me enough control .
i wanted to use the nomad with a cassette style car adapter .
i was unable achieve a sound quality on par with my simple portable cd player with `` bass boost .
``
<cs-1>
the sound quality of my cd player is superior in this setting to the nomad . 
</cs-1>
1_cd player 2_nomad 3_sound quality (superior)
one minor complaint :
the documentation says to extend battery life , do not fill player to capacity .
gee ...
thanks a lot creative .
 great product .
well in the beginning i was asking around for mp3 players .
so then i came across the ipod ( 10 gb ) .
so i was all excited about the ipod but then the day before i went to best buy to check out the other mp3 players and i came across this one .
well i decided to get this one .
well i have to say that this product is very good i mean it might be a little big but it still fits in your pocket .
well surely this is a product that i recommend someone in getting rather than any other mp3 player ( at that size and the price ) .
well just one con - its not really plug and play at first i mean its very confusing to start the program but one you do it , it will be a breeze .
enjoy .
 in a word ...
amazing i got this for christmas .
i was going to get a 10gb ipod , but after looking at the 10 day warranty for ipod and www.ipodsdirtysecret.com ( battery lasts 18 months ; 
it costs like 200 dollars to replace - now you mail it off to get the battery replaced for like 99 ..
what a big improvement ...
<cs-1>
lol ) and the fact that lots of people have had problems with ipods on windows computers , i realized this is a much better buy . 
</cs-1>
1_this 2_ipods 3_buy (better)
not only is it more affordable , but its a better player for windows , which is what i have .
anyway , on with the review .
so far i 've only had it since christmas , so i cant tell you much about the battery life . 
it hasnt gone below the second notch ( i charge mine whenever i 'm at home and not using it ) , so the battery life seems fine ( so far ) .
software : for the people who complain about software , please , stop complaining .
once you hook the thing up to the computer ( via the usb cable ) , the machine instantly recognizes the fact that it 's there & installs the drivers .
from there , you transfer files from your computer to the mp3 player ( with the help of the media sniffer ..
read the manual ) .
my only complaint would be that you need id3 tags & that takes a while to do if your mp3 files do n't have them .
if you 're copying cds with windows media , its really simple to give your songs id3 tags , so thats what i do .
oh ...
and file transfers are fast & easy .
the player : it 's silver .
a little weighty ( 9 ounces ...
no biggie ) , but otherwise fine .
people complain about the scroll wheel , but its not a big deal at all ( though it is just a little annoying at times ) . 
it 's easy .
the buttons are easy to use , and its easy to navigate .
the big backlight makes things easy to see , and the writing is big enough for people to see .
my favorite thing about the nomad is the eax feature .
you can customize bass , etc .
like usual , but also you can customize the sound of the player ( like how it would sound in a concert hall , jazz club , etc ) .
its really cool .
sound quality is amazing .
i was expecting worse , but its really good ( especially if your files have good sound quality ) .
you can also slow a song down & speed it up , which is cool too .
but the earbuds suck !
buy new ones asap .
every time you move your face or something they pop out .
for a 250 dollar player , they could have thrown in nice headphones .
a remote would have been cool too ...
but lets not push it .
oh ...
one more thing .
i forgot , the case does n't fit .
my case doesnt close ...
maybe mine was just faulty , but the case isnt that great .
so far the player froze on me once ( i started pushing buttons before it loaded ) but since is hard drive based - you have to expect that . 
so all you do is stick a pin or something small in the reset button & you 're golden .
also , you can store data on it , which is a plus .
for all you people who want to buy an ipod just to say you have an ipod , do n't bother , this is a much better buy .
hope i helped !
 simply doesnt shine .
i 'd like to start off saying that before this product i was using an archos jukebox recorder ..
what made this product so great to me was the open source os called rockbox ..
based on hardware one could assume the archos players were horrible ( which by hardware standards ..
they were ) ..
but because a few fine men and women took the time to create the upstanding rockbox software , the archos became a top notch player for me with intuitive features out the wazoo .. 
now we come to the zen xtra ..
first i 'll start off by saying that this players hardware is pretty good ..
<cs-1>
the sound is indeed excellent and the form factore is not bad ( but still rather larger than i had expected ) ..
</cs-1>
 3_sound 3_form factore (larger)
what really made this a mediocre mp3 player for me was the software .
not just the transfer software ( which was a hellishly horrible experience ) but also the player 's software .
first of all , many actions that the player utilizes do n't make sense .
bookmarks for example , are an excellent feature ...
but not on this player ..
rather than creating a directory for bookmarks to be found in one area , the user must actually find the track where the bookmark was made .
this makes no sense and sort of defeats the purpose of audio bookmarks ..
the dynamic playlists ( `` now playing `` , i belive creative calls it ) feels very awkward at times and some menus simply take to long to get to and operate ..
well , anyway i could go on and on on why this player did n't meet my expectations ..
i 'll just say this ..
for the average music listener not expecting much ...
this may be a satisfactory mp3 player ...
but for someone who cares about thier music collection and wants fluid and responsive playback ..
i can 't recommend this product .
 excellent product with a few minor problems .
i became interested in getting a mp3 player when i got a new work computer ; while my office bars the addition of any non-work software , it does n't care if you load cds onto the hard drive .
over time , i loaded hundreds of cds onto the computer , and the idea of carrying around all of my music with me became attractive .
many people recommended the ipod , and i borrowed one from a friend .
<cs-1>
while the ease of use was very impressive , i was put off by the price -- about $ 130 more than what i paid amazon for this player . 
</cs-1>
2_amazon 3_paid (more)
also , there is the need to send the ipod to replace the batteries when they die ( which they will ) .
i have had the nomad jukebox for about three weeks now , and i am very happy with it .
it 's only slightly heavier than the ipod , and has a longer battery life .
the storage capacity is great for me --
i have a large but not huge cd collection and have loaded everything i want to listen to on it and still have 13 gigabytes free .
the controls are somewhat harder to use than the ipod , but i have gotten use to them , and even at the beginning did not think would justify the huge difference in price .
loading cds was somewhat time-consuming , but i think it would have been with the ipod as well .
i had never loaded my cds on to my home computer , using my work computer instead .
my office would not let me put the software on to my work computer .
this meant that i had to take all my cds and do in a fairly short period of time what i had done over a year at work .
if the music had been on my home computer , the transfer would have been accomplished very quickly .
<cs-1>
i have an older computer , running windows 98 se , and so those of you with something more recent would find the process even quicker . 
</cs-1>
 3_process (quicker)
my only reservations about this product concern the tagging process and the way it interacts with the software . 
when you load a disc , you go to an internet cite for the insertion of the names for the cd and the tracks .
<cs-4>
while the listing process is accurate for track names ( unlike windows ' reliance on the amg , which frequently gets track listings out of order ) , the results can be odd . 
</cs-4>
the cd will be classified into a number of genres , and in multidisk sets , you can get separate classifications for different disks by the same artist and the same performance .
for example , jimi hendrix 's 2 cd live at the fillmore east had one cd classifed as classic rock and the other psychidelic rock .
perhaps the weirdest was one of bruce springsteen 's cds from the tracks set being classified as goth rock .
you can change any of these , but need to be paying attention when the information is downloaded before you copy it . 
a somewhat more troublesome problem is that the internet site will sometimes give different discs of the same set slightly different names .
this will cause the discs not to show up together when you are looking for them on the nomad .
again , you can change this , but it 's harder to spot a minor variation in the title when you do n't have the title of the other disk in front of you . 
other tagging problems result ( i think ) from the nomad 's operating system .
if you have two tracks with exactly the same name on one disk , it will not copy both -- it gives you the option of skipping the second or overwriting the first with the second . 
this is rarely a problem with any kind of popular music , but can be troublesome with classical music where tracks are identified by tempi .
i also had it happen when recording a jazz set where there were a number of outtakes of the same song without numbering them separately . 
the way to fix this is to rename the track by adding a number yourself to the end of the track listing .
also , i can 't understand why the software does not ignore `` the `` when it lists the cds in alphabetical order .
finally , making playlists from the computer can be complicated because the tracks are listed individually , and are organized by cd , which are not listed but are organized in alphabetical order .
in other words , to locate a track using the software on the computer and add it to a playlist , you must know the name of the cd it appears on and then find the track by locating the location of the unlisted cd by looking for tracks that appear on it .
you do n't have this problem if you make your playlist from the nomad , where cds are listed separately .
you need your computer , however , if you want to add tracks to a playlist .
these are minor problems , and i list them to save anyone else the trouble of discovering them .
had i not been in such a hurry to load cds , i would have spotted them sooner .
also , if i had already loaded and tagged by cds on my home computer , this would not have been an issue .
the bottom line for me is that i am very happy with this product .
apple 's ipod is dominant now , but i have to wonder whether the price differential will mean that in 3 or 4 years its market share will drop significantly .
 poor substitute for an ipod .
simply not as friendly for functional as an ipod .
even better , ipod integrates perfectly with itunes so that managing music is a snap .
<cs-4>
zen versus ipod . 
</cs-4> 
i just got a 40gb ipod to replace my zen ( a 20gb model ) .
<cs-1>
while the ipod 's form factor is much nicer , here 's where the zen is better . 
</cs-1> 
 1_zen 1_ipod 3_form factor (much nicer)
software :
a lot of people complain about the creative software , but i actually find creative mediasource organizer to have some strengths over itunes .
first , the zen lets you sync to more than one computer .
the ipod is a one way only machine - from computer to player . 
the zen is an outstanding way to shuttle music between sources , you can 't do this on the ipod ( except for a cumbersome work-around using the ipod as a hard drive instead of a player ) .
second , the `` automatic `` sync on creative lets you review the songs before it begins its transfer . 
since the ipod lacks this review feature on its auto-sync and it only allows one-way transfers , the first time i connected my ipod to my laptop , i wiped out the 20gb of music i had transferred from my desktop to the ipod .
if the hard drive on your computer should fail , better have your music backed up somewhere or its gone !
the zen serves as a back-up device as well as a player .
third , creative software allows you to keep two windows open to look at both the content on the player and the computer .
only thing missing from creative is a cd burner .
lastly , ipod / itunes will not play wma formatted songs .
if you have a lot of those , be prepared to convert to mp3 .
itunes does what apple is famous for , makes software that works for the less computer saavy . 
for those of us that like to tinker , i think creative offers some advantages .
player controls :
here 's where the ipod drives me nuts .
the player controls are too easy to hit accidentally .
if you happen to push the wrong button , you can wipe out the order of songs you had put in .
the ipod also does not let you see what 's coming up next on the player .
zen allows you to scroll up and down the song list selected on the player .
it also lets you remove songs from the play order .
if you bring up an album , but absolutely hate some of the tracks , the zen will allow you to delete that from the playing order .
you have to skip to the next track when your hated song comes up with the ipod .
lastly , you can not manage anything on the ipod itself .
while you can create a temporary playlist , you can 't store it permanently , delete songs , search very easily , etc .
none of these features are available because of the ipod 's 1-way transfers - you can not make changes on the ipod that are premanent .
again , the ipod is a beautiful thing to look at and touch , player controls are less functional .
i think the ipod versus zen typifies differences between apple and win machines .
<cs-1>
win software can be a little cranky , but much more easier to customize to your needs . 
</cs-1>
 1_software (easier)
with apple , you get a good product , but you get it the way apple wants you to have it .
if i had to do this again , i might get the 40gb zen .
its ability to serve as a back-up for my music collection is a huge plus .
 excellent alternative .
i got this thing for christmas and i have been very happy with it ever since .
i was planning on getting an ipod , but i changed my mind last minute ... 
mostly because of the whole battery issue , i do n't have the patience for those sorta things .
my cuzin got an ipod and i wo n't say it is an awful product , but i will say that for the price , apple could do better as far as storage and battery life goes .
<cs-2>
the only thing i would complain about the zen xtra is that the controls are n't as easy as the ipod 's , or as `` sexy `` looking .
</cs-2>
1_zen xtra 2_ipod 3_controls (as easy as)
 excellent .
i got this player for christmas & this was my first time using an mp3 player . 
i have a large collection of cds and have loaded over 100 of them so far .
the software is quick & easy to use & i found the entire process very easily mastered .
as mentioned in other reviews the headphones are useless and need to be replaced right away !
the unit works great with my cassette adapter for my car & is also easily worked without taking your eyes off the road !
i have tried the belkin tunecast mobile fm transmitter but found there was too much interference .
overall it is a great unit & hopefully creative labs or some other vendor will soon come out with some accessories for it .
 review for folks new to mp3s .
i purchased this mp3 player just last night after doing some scouting around .
here 's a basic run-down from what i learned :
<cs-4>
flash card memory vs . hard drive
</cs-4>
hard drive ( i.e .
why does a 256 mb player cost $ $ $ ... and a 40 gb ( 40 , 000 mb ) player only cost
mp3 players have either flash card memory or a hard drive in them .
<cs-1>
the flash card memory is more expensive but is very light and compact . 
</cs-1>
1_flash card memory 3_expensive (more)
that 's why you have these things that can be keychain size .
tiny !
mp3 players of this kind of memory are typically small and light and have between 64 mb - 1.5 gb of memory .
i am averaging 4.5 mb per song , to give you an idea of how many songs you can get by the amount of memory .
( 1 gb = 1 , 000 mb )
hard drives ( this is what most ipods have - and just about all mp3 players over 3-5 gb of memory ) .
<cs-1>
cheaper to produce , holds a lot , heavier and has moving parts which means it 's a little more prone to damage from being banged around . 
</cs-1>
3_produce 3_prone to damage 1_it (cheaper)
that said , they are pretty sturdy machines and i would n't let this dissuade you from getting an mp3 with a lot of memory .
just be aware of it .
this explains why you see what appears to be such weird pricing on mp3 players .
a 256 mb player ( roughly 60 songs for me ) is about x amount of dollars but a 30 gb ( 30 , 000 mb ) player ( roughly 6 , 650 songs ) sells for only slightly more .
<cs-1>
it 's because the 256 player uses flash memory ( smaller / lighter ) and the 30gb uses a hard drive . 
</cs-1>
 1_256 player 3_flash memory 2_30gb (smaller / lighter)
that 's the first thing to understand . 
so consider what you 're going to use the device for .
if you 're a jogger and you want to strap it to your arm , i 'd recommend flash memory .
if you want to listen to tunes while you travel , i 'd get a hard drive because you can put so much on the thing - including audio books .
review of zen xtra - 40 gb
<cs-1>
the device is larger than an ipod of similar capacity .
</cs-1>
1_the device 2_ipod (larger)
this did n't bother me too much because it 's still a decent size .
it comes with a good case that fits it snuggly .
the front cover ( which you remove to take out the battery ) feels flimsy but when snapped on , the device still feels pretty solid .
as some other reviewers noted , after it was connected to the computer for a bit , it somehow stopped reading the player so i had to replug it . 
it did not lock up my computer or require a reboot .
the software lets you pop in a cd and then scans the internet to name the artist , track name and album name .
extremely convenient .
then it rips the tunes into mp3s and puts them on your computer .
you can even skip that step and rip them directly from the cd to the player .
( wo n't leave copy on your computer .
the pros and cons of it :
great price .
the ipod costs more for the same amount of memory .
i thought the software was decent enough - it was n't complicated to learn at all . 
the scroll button is sort of annoying to push - a nice button would be nicer but eh , not a big deal . 
it also stores data so i can see myself placing some data files on here .
<cs-1>
it is slightly larger than an ipod , no doubt about it . 
</cs-1>
1_it 2_ipod (larger)
for me , that was the only drawback . 
i 'm really happy with this purchase .
also , when i installed the software , it said that windows xp had n't approved something with the drivers , etc - and that continuing it install may cause instability .
if you 're like me , that will definitely make you pause .
after i reviewed the manual ( a pdf file included on the cd ) , i felt better because they warned you about the message and said it would n't cause problems and , in fact , it has n't .
so if you have xp , be prepared for this and do n't be alarmed .
if you are out for an mp3 player with a lot of memory and do not want to spend a ton of money , i think this is a great purchase and strongly recommend it .
i would have liked to have given it 4 1/2 stars docking that 1/2 star only for the size . 
 what a beast .
i got this a while ago knowing nothing about it .
it is a beast .
if i wasnt a runner i would take a bullet in the foot for my nomad jukebox .
now heres the stuff you should know starting with the good things : the screen is really big and the blue light in the back is perfect , fast as hell in music transfer , controls are easy to use after mastering the scroll button , great sound and ive heard many mp3 players , a ton of different equilizer type deals on here .
there are a couple things i didnt like though but nothing serious : a little larger than other mp3s but still light , the software takes some time to get used to ( maybe 10-15 mins ) , and this thing would definitely be destroyed with one fall .
but it comes with a tank of a case and if you cut a piece out where the screen is you can always keep it in the case and still access everything .
ive seen em all , the archos , dell , ipods , everything ... 
<cs-3>
good price and great sound makes this one the best in my opinion . 
</cs-3>
1_this one (best)
 yet another inferior knockoff .
<cs-1>
granted this is cheaper than an ipod . 
</cs-1>
1_this 2_ipod (cheaper)
<cs-1>
cheaper in every way .
</cs-1>
(cheaper)
<cs-1>
its far heavier and much larger which might not seem to matter except if you use it while running or keep it in your pocket . 
</cs-1>
1_its (heaveier)
<cs-1>
its far more difficult to select songs and has no easy to use on the fly playlist creation such as the new ipod not to mention it does n't sinc with contact lists , phone numbers , address books , ect . 
</cs-1>
1_its 3_select songs (more)
<cs-2>
like the ipod ( which eliminated my need for any kind of palm device ) . 
</cs-2>
2_ipod (like)
it also has unproven battery life .
everyone who says i can 't buy the ipod because after excessive use in a short time ( the man who made the ipod battery life video admitted that he had used it extensively every day and charged fully every night for those 18 months , conditions under which any rechargeable battery dies . 
use this for 18 months every day and see what happens , or look at a 2 year old electric razor and see if it holds the same charge as the first day you had it ) .
while it is an alternative to the ipod and one of the few viable ones its just that , an alternative and why would anyone seek an alternative to something that really needs no alternative choice because theres nothing wrong and everything right with it .
i 'd like to see how well a small company supports its mp3 player in 2 years when its battery dies as all rechargeable do .
finally the software used to put all the songs into it is vastly inferior to itunes on two levels , first it is poorly integrated into the overall player and clunky to use especially with tagging and second the wma audio format sucks , flat out sucks in terms of sound quality compared with the vastly superior aac format the apple ipod uses and it sticks you with one of the sub par paid music services such as napster instead of allowing to use the itunes store , which , if you ever plan to pay for your music , is by far the best .
before anyone says hey you have n't used the product , i have , my friend received one for christmas instead of an ipod and has since envied me for my vastly superior product . 
 good player , bad software .
pros :
* price and capacity
* slick-looking design and improved interface
* removable battery
cons :
* protective case completely useless as is since it obscures display window .
had to cut out a window using a swiss army knife .
how did this gigantic flaw go unnoticed by creative ?
<cs-1>
* scroll button more cumbersome than on earlier models . 
</cs-1>
1_scroll button 2_models 3_cumbersome (more)
does n't always register push-button movement .
* eax equalizer accentuates dimished quality of mp3 files .
i have to rip everything as a 160 kbps wma file ( as opposed to 128 kbps mp3 ) to avoid hearing digital garbling .
* does not provide enough volume when connected to larger headphones , or external receivers ( car radio ) .
* software is absolutely terrible :
-- will not automatically transfer songs with identical titles ( if you have live albums or greatest hits albums , this will cause you inordinate frustration ) . 
-- does not recognize player at random times , despite being connected and displaying player 's library .
-- too difficult to change genre / album / track information for large number of tracks .
-- you 'll be changing track information a lot because the cd database information utilized by the software is mediocre at best . 
if you have any multi-disc box sets , you 'll notice that the artist 's name , album name , and genre will often change with every disc .
final verdict :
a good player at a great price with terrible software that makes ripping and transferring way more difficult than it should be .
 excellent way to carry your music collection !
after investigating a multitude of player options , i asked for and received the 60 gb zen xtra for christmas .
<cs-1>
despite its being slightly larger than the ipod , i must say i was surprised to see how small it was when i unwrapped the box ! 
</cs-1>
1_its 2_ipod  (larger)
i am ripping my cd collection into 160 kbps wma files ; this gives an average of around 60-65 mb per cd , good for about 900 cds in the ~ 57 , 000 mb of free memory available to me .
file transfers are fast , nearly a song per second via usb 2.0 .
several people have complained of difficulty transferring multiple songs with the same title .
this is possible ! !
since the zen xtra does not use a folder structure , the `` duplicate name `` problem stems from the actual file name , not from the song 's title / artist / album .
solution ?
simply configure the mediasource software ( or windows media player , or your ripper-du-jour ) to create file names that include artist and ( especially ) album names in addition to track names .
using this method , i have not once encountered a situation where a track was rejected , and i have plenty of duplicate tracks on live and compilation albums .
even if there happened to be identical track titles on the same disc , you could still edit the file name manually and get them both onto the player . 
my one issue with the mediasource software is that , despite pulling id3 tag data from the cdds service , the ripping process fails to populate the `` year `` field .
weird .
how does it sound ?
<cs-2><cs-2>
to my ears , a 160 kbps wma file sounds just as good as the source cd , and the zen xtra sounds just as good as a portable cd player . 
</cs-2></cs-2>
1_160 kbps wma file 2_source cd 3_sounds (as good as)
1_zen xtra 2_portable cd player 3_sounds (as good ad)
no complaints there .
the eax features are pretty cool , as well , as creative has included a number of eq adjustments that , for example , compensate for the extraneous noise encountered in a car or on a train .
navigation could be better , but there is n't really anything the zen xtra can 't do once you 've gotten comfortable with it .
at the end of the day , what i wanted was a large-capacity player which allows me to easily play any album from my collection wherever i go , and the zen xtra 's combination of price , capacity and features easily meets those criteria .
 cd collection in your pocket .
i got this for christmas , and it is a great gift .
i have been ripping songs into it for the past few weeks , and the ease of use is wonderful .
the memory will hold an amazing amount of songs , my entire collection of cd 's will all fit on this great little tiny piece of digital fun . 
plusses are the easy to remove battery and the terrific sound produced by the nomad .
the only two things that stop me from giving it 5 stars are the ho-hum software that comes with the system , and the traveling case it comes with .
this is a powerful piece of equipment .
it is great to no longer wonder what music i want to take with me for a cross country flight or a two week trip - now i just take everything .
ripping the songs , even with my 1.1 usb connection is still very quick , and the quality is very good .
<cs-3>
considering the price and specs , this might be the best buy out there for a large memory mp3 player . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_buy (best)
before jumping on the ipod train , take a look at this marvel .
 buy an extended warranty - you 'll need it !
i 'll state up front that i do not own a zen xtra and have not used one at all . 
but you might find my review useful , nonetheless .
i purchased a jukebox 3 from creative almost a year ago .
two months ago , an internal part failed ( not due to customer abuse ; it just failed ) .
i got an rma from creative , sent my player in to them for repairs .
<cs-4>
it took them twice as long to get to my unit as they said . 
</cs-4>
moreover , they want a total of $ 107 to repair it . (twice as long)
( this includes the $ 20 that you have to pay up front , just to get them to look at your player .
if creative offered a 12-month warranty on their mp3 players , i 'd be covered .
but they offer only a 3-month warranty ( on all of their players , including the zen xtra ) .
so i 'm screwed .
but you do n't have to be . 
if you buy a creative mp3 player , be sure to get the optional extended warranty .
or better yet , buy from another company that stands behind their products with a 12-month warranty . 
<cs-3>
it 's really a shame , because otherwise , creative mp3 players are very good , and have the best sound quality of any players on the market . 
</cs-3>
1_creative mp3 players 3_sound quality (best)
<cs-3>
 the best ipod alternative .
</cs-3>
3_ipod alternative (best)
i shopped around for a while before buying a hard-drive mp3 player . 
i read reviews , compared specs , and visited user forums . 
despite all the hype about ipods , i knew i wanted something different , because i wanted more storage than the ipod i could afford would offer , and because i wanted more flexibility in where i purchased music online .
<cs-1>
after some consideration i chose the 40gb nomad zen xtra from creative , and i have not been disappointed . 
</cs-1>
1_40gb nomad zen xtra (chose)
i purchased it at a retail store , and got an extended warranty .
<cs-4>
first , the battery is replacable by the user , because creative intended it to be - unlike apple with the ipod . 
</cs-4>
it was easy enough to remove the front plate , and there was only one way the battery could be inserted . 
creative also sells batteries via its website , so there 's no shipping off my player and waiting for it to be sent back to me with the new battery .
<cs-1>
the new organizer software that ships with the nomad zen xtra could n't be easier to use . 
</cs-1>
1_the new organizer software 3_use (easier)
point the `` media sniffer `` to your music files and let it do the rest .
you can create playlists , drag & drop songs and playlists to your player , and rip directly from cd to your player .
and with usb 2.0 , transferring music to your player is incredibly easy .
you can also delete songs from the player itself , and create playlists - on the fly - on your player .
the sound is great , and the volume is more than satisfactory for commutes and shutting out external noise .
i thought i 'd have to buy a set of headphones to use with it , but the included earbuds work quite well .
they could be more comfortable , but no complaints in the sound department .
i 've played around with the equalizer settings and am satisfied at the range of choices i have there too .
there are plenty other features that i have n't checked out , but i 'm sure i soon will .
it ships with a carrying case that has a belt clip on it .
however , i do n't like to carry it on my belt because the clip is n't secure and the case can slip off .
it happened to me once .
so now i keep it in my pocket .
also , the carrying case that came with mine covers up the display , so even though the side controls are reachable , i have to open it up to see the display .
it would have been better to have some sort of window on teh carrying case , so you could see the display without opening it .
that 's my only real complaint about the nomad zen xtra , though .
 important zen information .
this player is an overall disappointment with a couple of big flaws that potential buyers should be wary of ; and all readers need to know about a third party software company that resolves virtually all of the creative mediasource file transfer issues .
zen good points :
1 .
i achieved my basic objective ; my entire cd collection is on a portable device with lots of room to store more .
2 .
most mp3 players have a gap between the end of one track and the start of the next ; it 's annoying in music that is intended to be continuous .
the zen has minimal stoppage between tracks ; when listening to music that continues from one track to the next the gap is just a hesitation - a slightly audible click ; if i am not listening for the progress from one track to the next i do n't even notice the click .
flaws :
1 .
creative mediasource software is ok to rip , catalog & burn music if you are starting from scratch ; but i used musicmatch to rip my cds before i bought the zen ( 278 cds ; 3 , 400 tracks ; 12.5 gb of music all ripped at 128bps ) and guess what ?
mediasource did not recognize my tags !
my choices at that moment were to manually re-tag my music or re-rip using mediasource . 
i do n't think so .
btw , if you * are * ripping your cds , mediasource accesses the cddb music catalog over the internet and the few cds i experimented with all provided good quality [ correct & uncluttered ] tag information . 
2 .
despite most reviewers giving kudos to the zen for music quality , i experienced a flaw using eax .
after about 45 mins of listening there was audible static in the player .
when i turned eax off the static disappeared .
when i turned eax back on the static was also not present .
creative are * the * sound people for computers , i can 't understand why eax would introduce static .
is eax faulty ?
is my unit defective ?
was i just unlucky at that moment ?
was it a full moon that night ?
i have n't figured it out yet .
3 .
mediasource is an application with serious user interface flaws .
do not underestimate this in your purchase decision .
many reviewers refer to it as `` clunky `` or `` difficult `` - heed their warnings .
some amazon reviewers say it corrrupted their music files ;
i did n't use it long enough to know , but clearly you need to use it with caution .
4 .the zen * stores * data files , but does not allow a folder structure nor does it allow documents to be opened or programs to be launched from its disk ( they must be copied to another hard drive to be launched ) .
in other words , the zen is not a convenient data storage device ; only buy the capacity you need for your music collection ( see point 1 .
for some sizing information ) .
my goal of using it as a music player * and * data storage device has not been met ; do n't make the same mistake . 
5 .
the zen does not have a stop button !
you can stop playback by pressing 2 buttons , first the pause button , then the `` next track `` or `` previous track `` button . 
but this is * not documented * in the zen manual - neither the hard copy nor the cd version .
to discover this i had to read about 10 online reviews ( with many complaints about the lack of stop button ) before i found one reviewer who was smart enough to both figure it out & document it . 
6 .
<cs-1>
the zen nx battery requires the ac adapter to recharge ; it does not charge by usb cable ; this is not tragic , but usb recharging would be a convenient ( additional ) choice . 
</cs-1>
1_usb recharging (choice)
if you are buying a zen xtra check whether the battery recharges via usb ; it does not on the zen nx .
7 .
mediasource did not install on my personal notebook .
it referred to a `` microsoft jet database engine `` error and the install program suggested i download a service pack from the ms website to fix the problem ;
i did that and re-installed the software but had the same error .
creative provided e-mail support ;
i followed their advice but that failed , too .
i experimented with installing mediasource on 2 other computers at home and it worked fine .
so it is probably `` just bad luck `` on my part that the personal notebook i own had this install error .
however , it did motivate me to find a work-around solution .
third party software to the rescue
after much frustration ( above ) i found the notmad explorer ; cute product name for software that resolves virtually all of the creative mediasource file transfer & organization problems . 
i am not associated with the company , i am not providing a url , but search for notmad and you should find it pretty easily .
this provides drag & drop transfers of music between the computer & zen ; each time it transfers music to the zen it asks if you want to generate a playlist ; it allows playlists developed in other software to be transferred to the zen ( .
m3u files are used by most mp3 players like musicmatch and winamp , but not creative - without notmad you need to manually recreate your playlists ) ; it does n't care what software you use to rip or catalog your music - creative or any other company - all my 12.5 gb of music were transferred to the zen with correct tags - hooray !
notmad has other features too , but this is not an advertisement so please see the company 's web site for more information ...
conclusion :
if i knew then what i know now i would have paid the extra to get an ipod & avoided the zen .
given that i already have the zen the only reason i am happy with it is because of the notmad software .
and i am hoping the static i heard when using eax was a blip ...
to summarize , i am using the creative zen as a mobile device ;
i am using musicmatch to rip & catalog ( and if i choose , download ) music ;
i am using notmad explorer to move music & playlists between the zen & my computer .
the only creative software i am using is the device driver ( s ) . 
 how did i get by without this ?
this is one of those items that , at first glance , looked cool but did n't really ring a bell with me . 
now that i own it , however , i can 't imagine being without it !
i have stored around 60 cd 's ( at 160kbps ) on this and have barely touched the available memory .
the sound quality is fantastic ( cd quality ) and it is really great to carry this around instead of stacks of cd 's or tapes !
it is exceedingly simple to navigate around in this device .
i did n't read a thing about how to operate it -- it was just intuitive .
i was cruising around the device within 20 minutes .
the pc-side software can be goofy and takes a little getting used to but it 's not as bad as some reviewers have indicated . 
one other plus is that napster now supports this device via their software . 
my one recommendation to creative is to get some marketing people to work on the names of these things .
<cs-2>
they have a whole bunch of devices that all have the same-sounding name ( and they are long ) . 
</cs-2>
1_devices 3_name (same)
<cs-4>
whereas some folks have the `` ipod `` , i have the `` nomad jukebox zen xtra `` ( not to be confused with the `` nomad jukebox zen nx `` ) .
</cs-4>
minor gripe .
i can 't imagine why i would spend hundreds of dollars more to have an ipod .
 great memory , quality ?
i just bought one and returned it as defective for good reason .
in a quick summation , here is what i found .
+ the memory ( 40 gb ) is staggering .
i had downloaded about 1000 songs and had room for another 9000 !
it may have taken several years to fill this up .
+ i had no problem using musicmatch software already on my computer to load songs and albums onto this unit
+ screen was good , easy to read
+ / - sound quality was good but it was going to take some tweakings with settings to try to make it great .
- the software that came with it was tough to load .
i got weird messages about it not being ok 'd by microsoft ( or something like that ) , then i thought it failed to load , then it loaded . 
- the top that covered the battery kept poping off without much of a touch near the bottom latch . 
not good if you 're taking this traveling .
the top did not fit well into the unit .
( felt defective )
- the cover that came with it did n't fit very well
- the flywheel you use for most of the navigation was n't in tightly and it was uneven as far as the amount of pressure to make it engage .
i was n't sure how long it would take before it would break .
- this did not feel like quality construction and i was n't sure how long it would last .
 great product great price .
<cs-4>
i spent much time debating on whether i should go with the zen xtra or the ipod .
</cs-4>
i decided to save the $ $ and opted for the zen xtra ...
and i was not disappointed .
the player is intuitive and outputs great sound quality .
navigation is easy and i found that syncing files from the player to the computer ( and vice versa ) was easy too .
many have complained about the software included but in my opinion it 's easy to use and effective .
i love this player and am extremely happy with my decision .
i can not recommend it enough ! !
 flimsy product .
i recently bought the nomad jukebox zen xtra , and did n't even get as far as charging the battery .
<cs-3>
the construction of the player is the cheesiest i have ever seen -- the front panel refused to clip in correctly , leaving a noticeable gap between the panel and base of the player . 
</cs-3>
1_this player 3_construction (cheesiest)
this gap allowed the front panel to fly off after barely being touched . 
i can 't comment on the quality of the audio , because it was back at the store before i ripped a single cd .
i 'm not willing to accept shoddy construction on something i paid over 250 dollars for .
if the casing of the player is this bad , i can 't image that the hardware is of very good quality .
do n't be pulled in by the great price -- you get what you pay for , and there 's a reason this model is so cheap .
 the 3 ( ? ! ) month warranty should be a warning .
like many reviewers , i really wanted to like this product . 
the price / performance looked just right .
when i bought it late last year , there were enough reviews that i knew the navigation wheel and software would be less than ideal , but it sounded like a fair tradeoff .
boy was i wrong .
reading the reviews , it looks as though people really love this device for a month or two and then come to hate it .
that 's been my experience .
if i 'd been paying attention , i would have noticed the 3 month warranty .
but i did n't because i 'm used to electronic products having a 12 month warranty .
now i know better .
i 've had this thing just over a month and the headphone jack has already come loose .
a $ 300 device and they skimped on the headphone jack ?
so now i 've got to call their customer `` service `` ( of course , no 800 number ) to send the thing back .
from the other reviews i 've read , it sounds like that wo n't be the end of my troubles .
i fully expect it to go bad again in the same or some other way in the next 6 months because , as other reviewers have pointed out , the construction is pretty flimsy .
now let 's talk about the software .
<cs-2>
like other reviewers , installation was hell . 
</cs-2>
2_reviewers 3_installation (like)
<cs-1>
subsequent behavior even worse . 
</cs-1>
1_subsequent behavior (worse)
about 10 % of the time it can 't find the device when i attach it to my pc .
after i had it a couple weeks , it got into a state where it could never find the device , no matter how often i rebooted my pc , reset the device , reloaded drivers , etc , etc .
creative 's online support was no help at all .
<cs-3>
in fact , i 'd have to rate it among the worst i 've ever encountered . 
</cs-3>
1_it (worst)
finally , i uninstalled and reinstalled the software , the usual measure of last resort for this sort of thing . 
to my amazement , even that process was error-prone .
it took several days of attempts before things finally `` worked `` again and i have n't a clue why .
that does n't leave me with a good feeling about its future stability .
i did buy the notmad software a week ago and found that a vast improvement .
but that 's a moot point now .
my gut tells me the nomad will in the long run be , at best , a 40gb portable hard drive , albeit one on which i can 't create folders , or , at worst , a very expensive lesson in companies never to buy products from again ( i have their audigy sound card and find it in many ways equally frustrating ) . 
my gut tells me i 'll also end up buying an ipod .
which means that in trying to save a few hundred dollars , i 'll end up spending more than twice that .
be forewarned .
i would have given a 3 to 5 star review in my first few weeks , depending on how mad i felt about the crummy software .
now , even 1 star seems like i 'm giving creative the benefit of the doubt . 
 very bad company .
i will never buy a creative product again .
i purchased a jukebox , it got fried while being recharged , they asked for $ 20usd just to look at it and said that they would charge me for repaing the damned thing .
no way , now i have an ipod and i 'm a very happy man .
also bought a soundblaster card that they sold for the mac .
within months they stopped supporting the new mac os . 
what kind of a company does that !
 great value & great sound ;
carry your entire collection !
pros :
1 ) great sound ( 98db signal-to-noise ratio beats ipod 's `` unspecified `` ratio ) and good power output allow the zen xtra to drive large head-phones as well as external speakers .
with my sennheiser 497 headphones , the volume is loud enough at 12 ( max is 20 ) .
the player works well with my sony srs-a 202 powered speakers .
2 ) the player user interface ( ui ) is intuitive to use , and allows easy navigation of a large or small collection .
3 ) the nomad explorer ( winxp style interface ) works well to transfer files back and forth to use the nomad as an external although the tech support web-site states that the primary intended purpose of the player is as a player . 
the nomad explorer provide most of the functionality offered by 3rd party programs like notmad .
4 ) usb 2.0 means fast data transfers ( 1 song / sec ! ) .
5 ) the cheap , user-replaceable battery ( $ 50 from creative ) is a great advantage over the ipod 's battery which costs $ 100 to replace .
6 ) excellent battery life - 14 hours beats ipod 's .
7 ) chic look and good build - the player comes in a compact form with a metal face plate .
i use it primarily in the provided protective case although i have dropped it about 3 feet from my desk ( by accident ) as well as have played it outdoors in - 30 fahrenheit weather ( by design ) and it has continued to work fine . 
8 ) creative mediasource , although not as sleek looking as windows mediaplayer , is effective in organizing your collection and is linked to a good cddb service ( gracenotes ) .
a .
the cddb downloads information for the cd that you insert such that you do not have to type in the track information such as album , artist , song title , etc .
i do n't always care for gracenotes ' genre listings but it allows easy editing of id3 tags .
b .
fast mediasource cd ripping - takes about 40 seconds for a cd on my pentium 4 pc ( 2.4 ghz with 1gb ram ) with 52x drive .
c .
i do love audio sync which allows a one-click synchronization between the player and the music collection on the computer .
9 ) wake-up feature that allows you to set up the player to wake up and play selected music at a specified time .
i have it connected to speakers for a nice musical alarm in the morning .
10 ) multiple play modes - tracks in order of album , shuffle , etc .
<cs-2>
, is standard on all jukebox players but worth noting that the zen xtra is not deficient in this matter . 
</cs-2>
1_all jukebox players (all)
<cs-1>
11 ) minimal pause between songs - less than that on other devices - good achievement for a hard-drive based player 
</cs-1>
2_other devices 1_hard-drive based player 3_minimal pause between songs (less)
12 ) big storage - my entire cd collection in one small device ( 5717 songs , 491 albums and counting ) !
cons :
1 ) player is not plug and play - need to install nomad explorer first and mediasource to transfer files and i had to be patient as i was used to winxp detecting the player and dragging and dropping the music files into it . 
2 ) music organization is based on id3 ( by genre , artist , album , etc .
) and this can be a problem for older downloaded music files with missing or incorrect id3 information . 
this was not a problem for me as most of my collection was ripped from my own cds and i updated the id3 tags on my downloaded music .
3 ) folders can not be created for the audio files .
this is unnecessary with id3 tags but people who like to organize their music in folders will not like the zen as the audio files do not allow subfolders but rely on id3 tags . 
the workaround is to update id3 tags on your files ( through mediasource ) but it can be a hassle if you have many such music files .
4 ) no fm or voice recording - these would have been nice extras .
5 ) lack of good accessories - this is more of an oversight of creative 's marketing .
both creative and third-party powered speakers work great , as do third-party wireless transmitters .
a dock is unnecessary as the charger and usb cable do the necessary .
6 ) the case occludes the display screen when it is closed .
i would have liked to be able to see what is playing without having to open the case .
7 ) some people have problems with the flip switch on the bottom that releases the player cover - has not been an issue for me and is immaterial if you use the case as the case covers the switch .
experience :
once i got home with it i had to first install creative mediasource and figure out how it transferred files to the player .
this required patience as i was used to winxp detecting the player and dragging and dropping the music files into it ( which i could do with my flash player ) .
i did already have mediasource installed due to owning the creative audigy 2 soundcard but i did need to re-install it from the supplied cd as the older version did not have the connector to the zen . 
also , i downloaded the latest firmware upgrade and software updates .
recommendations :
1 ) buy an extended coverage if offered by the retailer as this device has moving parts and is essentially a portable hard-drive .
2 ) buy a good pair of head-phones unless you already own one .
3 ) use files with id3 tags - not a problem if your cds were ripped within the last year .
4 ) a set of speakers and a wireless transmitter are accessories that will add to your player 's usability ( the latter will allow you to play it on your car radio , home receiver , etc .
5 ) handle the player with care - it is not meant to be dropped .
resources : http : //www.nomadworld.com , http : //www.nomadness.net
pros summary :
great sound ; good interface ; replaceable , powerful battery ; good software ; wake-up , sleep timers ; multiple play modes
cons summary :
not plug & play ; relies on id3 ; no fm or recording
bottom-line :
can 't beat carrying 500-cd collection with me wherever i go .
my favorite is to play `` any track `` - am rediscovering my music !
also love waking up to music with attached speakers .
 headphone jack .
i got the 40gb jukebox zen xtra for christmas .
so , i 've had it for a month , and the headphone jack went out .
i called creative and they said to send it in and they would decide if it in warranty .
it 'll take 10-15 business days for them to decide form when they get it .
nothing but hassle with this company .
what kind of product goes out within a month ?
 those who do n't like it are ipod lovers and are in denial . 
this thing does its job .
i 've compared and compared and compared .
it was either the 40gb ipod or this one .
i felt better with this one since it had the shuffle feature and i 'm not too keen on www.ipodsdirtysecret.com . 
the longest that i have n't charged it was maybe 3 days and that 's turning it off every now and then . 
<cs-4>
replacement battery is $ 50 compared to ipod 's $ 150 . 
</cs-4>
cons :
the only thing i do n't like about this is the cover does suck .
i dropped it from the couch , landed on carpet and the cover and battery flew out .
<cs-2>
it 's kinda heavy , kinda like having a walkman . 
</cs-2>
1_it 2_walkman 3_heavy (like)
headphones suck , i would invest in some cool ones since it has the eax feature .
the software sucks .
it overrides songs so you have to go in there and put it your own titles especially if you have remixes .
also the feature to automatically put in the song information is n't always accurate .
you discover this later when you 're listening to a song and it 's the wrong title , causing you to rename everything on your own .
 not what i 'd hoped .
i was prepared to love it .
i 've had this thing for less than a month , treated it quite well , never dropped it , and the headphone jack is all screwed up .
now i have to return it and rip all my music again . 
good thing i got a replacement plan .
wish it included somebody to re-rip all the songs .
<cs-1>
reading other reviews , i do n't think the replacement one will be any better . 
</cs-1>
1_replacement (better)
i 'm not looking forward to ripping my entire collection every month or two .
maybe i 'll get lucky with the next one .
kind of bulky and the wheel is awkward , but i can deal with that .
software definitely sucks , hangs up my notebook about half the time , but i do n't mind buying notmad .
i am annoyed that the player 's not automatically recognized as a hard drive .
i do n't want to install software and drivers on every computer i 'm ever at .
makes me use it much less than i otherwise would . 
looking at the glowing reviews from people that have had this for a week or two , i kind of wish people would wait until they 've had a product a little while to review it .
i loved it until it broke , but less than a month is not an acceptible period of time for something to work . 
 not durable enough for this road warrior .
i loved this product when i first got it - great sound , easy to use ( even though i agree that the software was n't the best ) and held enough songs to suit any mood .
i was willing to live with the larger size ( inconvenient on the road ) but the durability was a big zero . 
always carried it in a case in by briefcase but one day the hard drive just zapped .
tech support could n't figure it out and gave up .
i am disappointed and looking elsewhere for something that can withstand the `` rigor `` of a business traveler .
<cs-3>
 the best jukebox mp3 player , hands-down .
</cs-3>
3_jukebox mp3 player (best)
i bought the 30gb zen xtra from a well-known national electronics store as soon as i saw they were advertising it for $ 219.99 .
<cs-3>
the combination of the price , storage size , and player features makes this player the best on the market . 
</cs-3>
1_this player (best)
<cs-3>
the biggest drawback that people have about the zen xtra is the software . 
</cs-3>
1_software 3_drawback (biggest)
<cs-1>
fact is , it could n't be easier to use . 
</cs-1>
1_it (easier)
these models now ship with creative 's mediasource program , which allows you to highlight the files on your computer that you want to add to your zen xtra , click a button , and transfer it straight to your player .
assuming you have filled in all the id3 tags on your mp3s , you will not have any problem finding them on your zen xtra .
sound quality on this is amazing , as with all creative products . 
even leaving it on the default setting ( without the eax enhancements ) produces crystal clear playback .
the menu allows you to search for files by artist , genre , and album quite easily .
the battery stays charged for a long time , and takes no more than 2 or 3 hours at most to fully recharge via the included ac adapter .
connect the player to your computer ( via usb ) , open up mediasource , and you can listen to your stored mp3s as they stream directly from the xtra !
get those mp3s off your hard drive , save space , and enjoy your massive music library .
awesome feature .
usb 2.0 transfer is insanely fast .
minor complaints : 1 ) even though the music is sorted via id3 tag on the player , the option to search for music contained in a folder is unavailable . 
that is , if a folder on your computer called `` mp3 `` has slayer ( thrash metal ) , stravinsky ( classical ) , and ice cube ( rap ) in it , you will only be able to play the contents of that folder by searching for the artists or genres manually .
the zen xtra will transfer the files to the player , but not the folder name .
not a big hassle as many would have you think .
2 ) having unfilled id3 tags will cause music to be potentially placed in a folder called `` unknown .
``
i would recommend against using id3v2 tags , and stick with id3v1 only . 
when the previous versions of the zens were shipped with musicmatch , people had this problem because musicmatch creates both sets of tags , which seem to confuse the zen xtra . 
take the time to fill in those tags !
3 ) with mediasource being so easy , i found no use for the bundled nomad explorer software .
in fact , it caused my system to hang more times than not , so i uninstalled it and stuck with mediasource 100 % .
so what are you waiting for ?
get one now !
 not worth the trouble .
i received this as a gift for christmas .
my first impression was positive .
after using it for a few weeks ( the amount of time before the hard drive crashed ) it revealed a few of its shortcommings .
first , the sound quality is okay , but ( as at least one other reviewer has mentioned ) the eax can cause audio interference after about 30 minutes .
at first i thought it was my headphones but it was not .
it was just a problem with the player .
second , the menu system and controls are poorly designed .
the toggle button that is used to scroll is poorly designed and does not work well .
the general button placement is not very user friendly .
this would not be a great problem if you did n't have so much info to scroll through on a regular basis .
third , the poor design continues with the case .
the flap completely covers the screen because there is no window to see it .
it also covers over the power jack when closed .
after the first one fatally crashed , the replacement did not work .
i bought an ipod and am very happy with it .
 creative nomad zen xtra 40 gb .
overall , a good buy for the price .
easy enough to navigate through , although i 'd prefer a sturdier button besides the thumbwheel scroll / pushbutton .
my biggest complaint is the battery life or lack there of . 
there is no way the battery supplied lasts 14 hours !
at best , i 've gotten 3 hours + . 
i 've tried draining it until it wo n't turn on & recharging it overnight .
no difference .
if you 're intrested in buying a spare battery it 'll run you another $ 50 , a little steep i thought .
i 've also had the nomad zen lock-up several times .
the good news is if you can 't get it to reset / reboot you can still pull the battery and reinstall it .
that 's a huge plus by itself compared to the infamous ipod and similar mp3 players where the battery is permanently installed & removing it voids the warranty .
the nomad zen could use a little sturdier construction like the archos jukeboxes or some kind of shock resistant case .
at the very least , a sturdier more protective carrying case would be nice .
pros : huge storage capacity for the price , easy to navigate , can modify existing playlists on the fly , has a removable battery
cons :
battery life is about 1/4 of that advertised , no operators manual available for any of the nomad zen players ( on or off-line ) , occasional software lockups , replacement battery is expensive
note : about 2gb ( 5 % ) of the advertised 40gb of storage capacity is used for the operating software ( firmware ) .
this is nothing new , every mp3 player , memory card , etc .
, used for digital media today has some kind of preloaded operating software on it .
 a possible discontinued item ?
what 's going on creative labs ?
is it a coincidence that i no longer can get any of your nomad zen xtras ( worst name ever ) at best buy and now the 60gb nomad xtra is `` sold out `` or more likely `` discontinued `` at the almighty amazon.com ?
hmmmmm ... .
 hard disk mp3 players .
if you read reviews for the 4 main contenders in this market - the ipod , creative zen , rio karma and iriver ihp - you 'll notice that each has their pros and cons ; none are perfect and you should decide whether you want to take to take the plunge now or later .
if your view in life is that you are going to pay $ x00 to get a device then it must be near ideal - ruggedly constructed , fault proof , good product support , easy to use software - then do yourself a favor and do n't buy yet .
all the products have drawbacks and are not mature yet ; if you expect value and reliability then wait a while .
<cs-1>
if you are ok paying $ x00 for something that can be used now , but is likely to both get better and cost less in the future then try to determine which device is the lesser of evils for you . 
</cs-1> 
1_future 2_now 3_cost (less)
1_future 2_now (better)
ipod clearly has the most buzz .
great design and looks cool .
most people love the appearance and praise the touch sensitive buttons .
it has a hold button to deactivate the buttons to avoid accidents ; however , enough reviewers have complained that the hold button is easily broken and then the device can 't be used .
some of the more geeky ( non-apple type ) reviewers complain that the scrollwheel is annoying after a while and they resent being forced into this apple-like interface .
everyone complains about the non-replaceable battery , yet this is the price of sturdy construction .
ipod can be used as an external disk , and apparently stores files without problem .
however , the music and data are apparently not separated ; ipod reviewers complain about `` white noise `` in random feedback mode that comes from appointments / contacts created on the ipod during synchronization . 
synchronizing music among computers , if you have more than one , seems to be an issue ; research this before buying if you have multiple computers you want to be synchronized .
reviews for sound quality are generally ( but not universally ) positive .
reviews of apple 's support are generally poor ; they seem to address issues in warranty , which covers a short time after delivery / pickup of item .
after that it seems like you 're on your own . 
ipod has no stop button ; when new users mention this ipod veterans call it `` unnecessary `` and `` so 20th century `` .
creative zen feedback suffers from construction quality , poor product support , difficulty of using the scroll wheel and reasonably consistent feedback about problems with the headphone jack . 
construction quality is a difficult item .
the zen has a detachable face plate that allows the battery to be replaced .
what is added in functionality ( battery replacement ) detracts in build quality as the face plate is prone to popping off .
drop if just a few inches on a hard surface and the faceplate pops off ( but not if it 's in its case ) .
many reviewers say the faceplate simply did n't fit well so they returned the zen .
feedback on creative 's product support is universally poor ; this is not limited to the zen , it applies to all the company 's products .
the scroll wheel is finicky ; it works most of the time but there is a learning curve for pressing it just right ; new users say they have 50 % - 75 % success rate ; some find it so frustrating that they just return the device .
the creative software is awkward / difficult to use and just plain does n't load on some computers .
enough people have reported that their headphone jack does n't work after a month of using the device to believe that creative has some inbuilt manufacturing or quality control problem . 
the zen does n't support folders so it is not really a storage device ; even with third party software that `` creates `` folders , documents and programs can 't be launched from the zen , so it is not a hard disk , it 's a storage device at best .
the zen has no stop button .
veteran zen users have explained how to stop if that 's what you want .
the rio karma feedback suffers from sensitivity in the hard disk .
it seems like movement , even small movement , causes skipping in playback and even the device freezing .
if you plan to carry the device around ( it is a mobile device , right ? ) then this is something you might want to think about .
karma gets consistently good reviews for sound quality and connectivity from its docking device , which has rca output jacks and ethernet jacks for connectivity .
usability ( button usage , feature selection , menu structure , display size and quality ) also has good feedback .
repair seems to be an issue ; some say the repair do n't exist
- you just have to buy a new player .
perhaps because of its smaller user base there is also a lack of accessories . 
like the zen , the karma does not support folders and is not designed to be a data storage device .
it only comes in 20gb ; enough for most people , not for those with large collections ripped at high sampling rates .
the karma does have a stop button .
there are n't many reviews for the iriver ihp .
those that have it like it .
the only complaint seems to be that the disk rotation is slow , leading to longer delays in some functions ( playback and even a slow display of the menu ? ) .
otherwise feedback seems to be good .
no comments on reliability , warranty , repairs , accessories .
no-one mentions whether there is a stop button , but the photos do n't show one .
none of these are perfect .
if you have the appetite choose the one that you think has the least deficiencies or is best suited to you .
accept that there will be better devices ( or new generations of these ones ) in a year or two that will cost less .
if that is for you then pay the money , learn from the experience and you 'll be a more informed buyer when you buy device # 2 .
if you are n't into paying $ x00 to learn and experiment , or the cons outweigh the pros , then wait a year or so .
 good for a little while , but ..
<cs-1>
sure , this thing is definitely more cost-effective than an ipod .
</cs-1>
1_this thing 2_ipod 3_cost-effective (more)
but with a low price , comes lower quality . 
our special friends at creative gave this thing good sound quality , great features , long battery life , and an unbeatable price .
<cs-2>
the catch is it 's built like a piece of crap . 
</cs-2>
1_it 2_piece of crap 3_built (like)
it lasted about 1 1/2 weeks .
i did n't abuse it , i charged it every day , but the headphone jack just sort of fizzled out .
i tried re-setting it , i tried just about every pair of headphones in my house ( 10 pairs ) , and nothing worked .
so i contacted customer service at creative , but they said , `` if the product seems broken , we can not help , `` or something to that effect .
wow .
do n't get me wrong , the thing was like heaven for about a week .
if you want a quality mp3 player , splurge on an ipod .
if you really need to save , buy this thing on amazon , they eventually gave me a full refund .
i bought myself an rca mp3-cd player , and i 'm happy with that until a cheap , worthwhile mp3 player coomes out .
 software problem .
i bought the player this week and i like it by far . 
this is my fourth mp3 player ( creative nomad jukebox2 and 3 , rio chie , and this one ) , and my third player from creative .
here 's something you have to know before you considering about buying this one . 
pro : 1 .
removable and cheap battery - a li battery usually works properly for 1-3 years .
my friend has an i-pod for about 2 years and the battery has so so messed up .
his i-pod can only play for a couple of hours with a fully recharging now .
2 .
<cs-4>
value : comparing data storage with price . 
</cs-4>
3 .
size and style :
the appearance is okayed ( at least not ugly ) . 
<cs-1>
the size is small ( just a little bit bigger than an i-pod . 
</cs-1>
2_i-pod 3_size (bigger)
4 .
easy to use : a lot of reviews has mentioned about this
con :
the software , mediasource , can not work on my pc .
( laptop , intel p4-2.0 , xp os ) .
a tons of reveiws has reported this problem and the same here . 
in fact , each of my creative mp3 players had software problem in the first place . 
however , the creative lab did come out new update to fix their software problems .
i am crossing my finger and wish they will fix the problem .
ps : ( mediasource provides similar functions with ms mediaplay such like cd ripping , tagging , music database managing , music file transfering , and more )
now i use ms mediaplayer , musicmatch ( free downladed ) , and `` explorer / my computer / grab files from disk c or d into the player `` to replace the mediasource .
in short , this player is good at size , value , hardware design but really bad at its software
 a great player , excellent sound quality , hovewer , has flaws .
alright , well i read alot of these reviews , and i read alot of bad and good things about this player .
well to say , i had a very bad history with players .
one broke , one got stolen , and then i bought the riovolt sp - 350 .
if you are planning to buy that player , do not !
that player is a complete piece of sh *** .
i returned it once , then i sent it back , and it is crap .
now getting back to this .
i ordered this player for christmas , and so far i have it for only 2 weeks .
now as others said , so far this player is an awesome player , there are flaws .
cons :
1 .
the display is awesome , you can see everything you want and read it clearly
2 .
huge storage space , i loaded my entire collection of music , which isnt that much , 400 songs , and still have 26 gb , out of the 28 provided to you .
( 28 not 30 because software itself takes space ) .
and those songs mostly are 320 kbps .
3 .
the sound is awesome , but if u put it too loud , depends on yoursound quality , the sound might crack .
4 .
with eax on , you can modify your sound , with 4 different presets , which is pretty good , you can get different variations with it .
5 .
if you use software correctly , put in all the id3 tags , you will get an awesome database collection , from which you can easily access your songs . 
you can also search for your song , which is good .
6 .
i dont know what other people are saying , but the software is awesome .
you can easily access ur files , and easily fill in the id3 tags , which can take a while with a big collection of music , but if your not lazy , you will do it without a problem .
and i read today that you can also have online fill out the id3 , so its not a problem .
7 .
battery recharge , is an awesome thing , because it recharges in only like 2-3 hours .
8 .
when you turn on your player , the player turns on really fast , and the music continues to play , as you left it when you were turning it off .
9 .
you can manage your profile , change the contrast of backlight , make different type of display , either list or tabbed . 
you can do other different things with it such as choose what kind of `` now playing `` interface , you can see the interface as modern or classical .
there is an alarm , i still havent used it yet , but it should be good .
there is a clock , and date , which can get helpful .
10 .
the player has firmware , which will remove the glitches , if there are any .
11 .
the music plays awesome , never skips , even if u run for a bit , so you can listen to music without interruption .
cons :
1 .
the one and most major thing that i was dissapointed with , in this player , is the battery life .
the product manufacturer promised me 14 hours , and what i recieved was 6-8 .
5 hours max .
i did it like this
eax on : 6 hours eax off : 8.5 hours
2 .
the panel seems like it will come off very easily as other people have said .
3 .
you need the software to actually transfer files
4 .
the player has its minor glitches like for example when i turn it on , 60 percent of the time , it sais , shutting down , which means i have to turn off , and turn it on again , which is not to my likings . 
also , the player sometimes freezes , not a very big problem , but can also be annoying .
<cs-2>
( but as any hard drive , all of them freeze at certain points ) 
</cs-2>
1_all of them 3_freeze at certain points (all of them)
well thats about it , and as people said in earlier previews that the headfone jack gets messed up , stil havent happened to me , and i hope it doesnt .
 easy to use , massive storage space , sounds great .
and also , it 's priced very affordably .
with 40gb of storage i have about 7 , 500 songs on the player ( everything music file i have is on there ) with room for about 2 , 500 more .
a similarily priced 15gb ipod would n't have been nearly enough room . 
having my entire music collection is great when travelling ( both on plane and car trips ) and i do n't have to decide what to bring or copy onto the player -- it 's all there . 
having to copy / delete files would be time-consuming and is rendered a non-issue with 40gb of storage .
the software interface supplied was very easy to use but i went ahead and got red chair 's `` notmad `` software because of some advanced features i wanted .
the sound is great even with the supplied earbuds -- but i find earbuds uncomfortable so i use different headphones . 
on planes i use a splitter so two headphones can be plugged in for two people and the sound is equally good .
sound settings can be adjusted for personal preference .
accessing files by artist and album ( i mostly look things up by artist ) is easy and intuitive .
possibly the biggest advantage this player has ( if price was n't enough ) is the fact that the user can replace the battery him / herself by opening the lid and popping in the new battery .
<cs-2>
since batteries do run out on everything , this will also be a big money-saver since ipods , irivers , rca , dell , all have built-in batteries that need to be replaced by a technician ( apple charges 100 bones for the battery replacement ) . 
</cs-2>
1_ipods 1_irivers 1_rca 1_dell 3_built-in batteries (all)
<cs-1>
try before you buy if at all possible : although i am a mac addict now for over a decade and everyone i know has previously bought an ipod , the nomad zen xtra was a far better value and is just as easy to use with regards to both hardware and software interface . 
</cs-1>
 1_nomad zen xtra 3_value 2_ipod (better)
i personally am not crazy about the looks of either the ipod or the nomad .
the ipod 's white plastic look / surface does n't suit me .
i like the nomad 's color better , but it 's not terribly flashy .
<cs-3>
the mini ipod 's look the best to me -- but with only 4gb there 's no way i would ever buy any mp3 player with a measly 4gb of storage .
</cs-3>
1_mini ipod 3_look (best)
my advice to mp3 buyers : consider how much storage space you will need , then try and listen before you buy -- mp3 players can only fully evaluated by holding and listening to them .
 good for the price .
i have had mine for a month now and have to say i have enjoyed it .
the pros :
price !
almost half what an ipod would cost you ! 
i do n't care how it looks and i always drive so the size is not important to me .
sound quality is wonderful , i really like the smart volume sound normalization .
yes the included earphones suck but everyone replaces them anyway .
i quickly got to use to the interface and can find any song / playlist etc fast enough .
i also liked the fact that you can save custom playlist you made on the player not just the computer !
cons .
creative software stinks .
it 's horrible .
redchair software makes nice software that allows you to do everything you would want to and more !
the front cover can pop off easily but i always have mine in the case so i did n't notice after first day .
 great player .
have had the player since xmass and love it !
pros :
great sound , very long battery life ( i routinely play it for 12 + hours ) , very fast recharges rate , removable battery , storage size , nice screen , firmware updates , and great price .
cons :
short warranty ( 3 months , so i got the extended warranty at best buy ) , occasional freeze up ( easily fixed by popping out battery ) , somewhat flimsy navigation wheel .
neutral :
i did n't even try the included software .
i just bought notmad manager ( $ 25 ) and file transfers are easy drag and drop , songs stored by id3 tags not by folders , needs to have software on computer to transfer files , no window on case ( nice case otherwise .
 i do n't see what everyone 's problem is - i love this player .
<cs-2>
this is an excellent player , especially for the price , with features that are comparable to and even excel the ipod . 
</cs-2>
1_this 2_ipod 3_features (comparable)
for a price that 's still less than even the lowest level ipod i was able to get this 40gb monster , and the best part is it works as great as it was advertised to and then some .
here are the pros and cons ( few there are ) in detail :
look / design :
<cs-1>
the system is terrific in size and design , imo looking better than the ipods . 
</cs-1>
 1_imo 2_ipods (better)
<cs-1>
it 's bigger , but people have grossly exaggerated the size differences - it 's only about half an inch longer and 1/3 inch thicker than the new-generation ipods . 
</cs-1>
 1_it 3_inch 2_new-generation ipods (bigger)
it 's very solidly built , and has a nice dense feel to it .
i find all of the controls well-placed and not flimsy in the least .
<cs-1>
the scroll wheel is better than the ipod 's as well , in that you do n't risk giving yourself a cramp running your thumb around in circles endlessly - just a small nudge of the finger and you 're there . 
</cs-1>
 3_scroll wheel 2_ipod (better)
the screen 's large and easily read .
the only beef i can raise in this regard is the pop-off face , that sometimes comes off a bit easily , but besides that it 's perfect . 
sound : exceptional , though i can 't really compare it to the ipod .
from what i 've heard it 's at least equal .
like others have mentioned , you can manage to hear new things in songs even though they 're on lower bit levels . 
there 's no so-called background hiss that i 've noticed , at least so far .
interface - practically seamless .
songs are recognized automatically by id3 tags , which at first i was against since i had organized my files by folder with a previous player from iriver .
yet after ensuring that all the id3 tags are in order ( with the software which is actually not as bad as people make it out ) it actually turns out to be really handy .
<cs-1>
it 's a dedicated music playing device , anyway , so this serves it better . 
</cs-1>
1_it  (better)
you can find any song quicky by an artist , album , or genre search .
playlists can be generated on the fly ( which is a bit clunky but still a really nice bonus ) or by using the software , and there are a bevy of eq options . 
the only thing missing is an option to adjust the balance .
software :
<cs-1>
as i mentioned before , the creative mediasource software is actually really robust despite what others have said , though notmad may still work better . 
</cs-1>
 2_mediasource software 1_nomad 3_work (better)
it 's easy to transfer , preview , and organize files .
the in-program id3 tag editing is a strong point , as well .
it was no problem for me to use their software .
some may complain that there 's no drag-and-drop capability , but what they should realize is that this is mainly a portable music player , not a computer accessory or hard drive .
the software and design are geared towards enhancing the music experience .
overall , i 'm giving this 5 stars as i 've seen nothing of the problems people have repeatedly cried havoc over , but as i 've only had the player for a while i leave room for doubt if the headphone jack , hissing , or scroll wheel problems show up with me too .
so far , however , i 'm a very happy customer .
please consider this much superior piece of equipment before plopping down half a grand for an ipod .
 does not function correctly , unhelpful customer service .
do n't buy this player .
i recently bought this after my archos 20 multimedia self-destructed ( do n't get me started on that piece of junk ! ) and expected it to be flawless .
unfortunately , after loading 280 + songs , all i get now is `` player either not connected or busy .
``
it will not load any further songs on and customer service has no idea what to do .
do n't buy this player .
 why can 't it be rated zero stars ?
do not buy this product --
i took perfect care of this player and still it died in the week after the lousy 90 day warranty ended . 
nearly 4000 songs went up in smoke .
the software is not good either and the driver has trouble working with other sound blaster products , which is very dumb .
 o man , not cool .
ok , im writing yet another review , about a week from my previous one .
honestly , i love this player .
one horrible flaw , or mayybe more than one .
once again , the sound is awesome , the batterly life is only 6-8 hours , and that is because all my music is 320 kbps which does affect the battery life .
ok so i donno about what other people said , how the player breaks and stuff , and the headfone jack , fortunately that did not happen to me .
however , my hard drive did fail , and i have not dropped it once .
therefore im saying im returning it right now , and i will see wat happens with my next zen xtra ( same replacement ) .
if that one fails too , and i hope if it does , let it happen in the first 90 days , not later , cuz thats the warranty .
if it does , ill give up .
basically wat happened , is that the hard drive failed .
thats it .
i cant do anything about it , and i have to send back .
the only good thing about this whole process , is that im getting like a 34 dollar amount back , because of the price difference between when i bought it , and now .
basically u can see that i have given the player 3 stars , instead of 1 .
you know why ?
because other people that complain about this player are talking bull , this player is awesome , it just breaks fast , which is horrible .
now honestly , i love this player , but with all seriousness , i would not recommend it to other people , because of the breakdown flaw .
and i honestly would not recomment the people of the ipod , that crap sucks big donkey ... ..
never mind .
i hope my next player doesnt breakdown .
<cs-3>
honestly , the best players without any flaws were the goddam cd players . 
</cs-3>
1_cd players 3_players (best)
this is all i have to say . 
 what a junk .
what a junk .
every time nomad thinks the file is corrupt the os freezes .
the only way to recover is to plug the power cord and go into recovery mode .
so if you happen to be out of the house and you have a frozen os you can 't use nomad until you get home .
after os froze twice on me in the subway i returned the jukebox .
 you will be very disappointed with this product .
the reviews of this product can be roughly divided into two groups : ( 1 ) those who have had the product for a few weeks and ( 2 ) those have had the product for a few months .
those who have had the nomad for a few weeks are mostly thrilled with it .
the price is way below an ipod of the same size . 
<cs-1>
the nomad is only sligtly larger than an ipod . 
</cs-1>
 1_nomad 2_ipod (larger)
the sound quality is very good . 
the controls are somewhat harder to use , and there are some oddities about the software tagging system , but most people can live with this . 
because of the large capacity of the nomad , owners can load hundreds of cds on to it .
for most people , they can carry around all or almost all of their music collection .
having access to so much music where ever you go is terrific .
they fall in love with the product .
and then it breaks .
usually around the time the 90 day warranty expires .
typically , the problem is the headphone jack -- it was for me and many others .
the nomad is sent back to creative labs .
they decide that the owner was responsible for the damage and so even if it is returned within the warranty period , creative will charge you to fix it .
in my case , the bill was $ 81 , about a third of what i paid for it .
like many others , i had not abused the product , and had tried to take care of it .
if my level of care was n't good enough , i had to expect that even if i paid to have it fixed it would break again in a month or two .
i 'm convinced by my own experience and that of many other people who have posted here who have had the same experience that the product is defectively designed , and will not hold up to normal use .
the headphone jack seems to be a major problem .
the one other thing i observed while i had the nomad is that the front cover , which is taken off to have access to the battery , seemed to come undone very easily .
the headphone jack failure seems to occur just about when the warrranty period is to expire .
even if it has n't expired , creative is likely to claim that the owner caused the damage which in turn voids the warranty .
and most stores will not take back a product 90 days after purchase .
this means that you will have the nomad long enough to load a lot of music on to it , and get used to having it .
so when it breaks , as it will , you will find yourself very disappointed and depressed at the loss of the nomad .
you will find it very hard or impossible to get you money back .
you will have a very expensive paperweight .
there are not a lot of good options out there . 
most people say buy an ipod , but they are pretty expensive and also require you to send the product back to the factory just to replace the battery . 
my suggestion is to wait to see how the market develops .
maybe creative will come out with a better design , although it will be hard for me and its other customers to trust it again .
maybe more competitors will bring out similar products .
and maybe the answer is to buy an ipod .
whatever you do , do n't buy this product .
you will be sorry if you do .
 piece of junk .
i am a soldier serving in baghdad right now .
i bought the nomad when i went home on leave and it worked great for about a month .
the other day when i was listening to a song , it locked up and will not do anything now .
it says i have a harddisk problem .
and since i 'm out here i can 't mail it back under my 90 days and they wo n't help me out cause they say that the conditions here are not covered under the warranty .
it worked good for a while .
it did lock up on me a couple of times .
and then it just froze and now i 'm out $ 300 for their piece of junk .
 nomads are wonderful , but be carefull !
i first bought a 6 gig nomad jukebox ( original ) .
unfortunatly it was dropped and damaged a year after i bought it . 
the batteries would not charge .
so i took it back to best buy where i bought it and exchanged it for a newer zen 20 gig model . 
in that model the hard drive just died one morning before my class .
it 's nothing major , just a bad hard drive , any hard drive mp3 player can have that problem .
so rule of thumb , no matter what you end up buying , get the extended warranty !
it always pays off .
hope i 've been of some help .
*****************************************************************************
Amazon review	digital camera: Nikon coolpix 4300
*****************************************************************************
<cs-3>
 the best 4mp compact digital available
</cs-3>
3_4 mp compact digital (best)
this camera is perfect for an enthusiastic amateur photographer .
the pictures are razor-sharp , even in macro .
it is small enough to fit easily in a coat pocket or purse .
it is light enough to carry around all day without bother . 
operating its many features is easy and often obvious - i 'm no annie lebovitz , but i was able to figure out most of its abilities just messing around with it at a camera store .
the manual does a fine job filling in any blanks that remain .
the auto-focus performs well , but i love having the 12 optional scene modes - they are dummy-proof , and correspond to many situations in which i would actually seek to use the camera . 
comes with a 16 mb compact flash and one rechargable battery the charging unit , included , is fast and small .
i bought a 256 mb cf and a second battery , so it 's good to go on a long vacation .
i enthusiastically recommend this camera .
 perfect to grow into
i got my camera three days back , and although i had some experience with digital cameras prior to purchasing this one , i still rate myself as a beginner .
i bought this camera because it fit my budget and the pre-production and production model reviews were positive .
it 's easy to use , and yet very feature rich .
in the auto mode it functions basically as a point and click , the scene modes are very easy to use and produce good results .
the manual mode is feature rich and i can 't wait to get the hang of it .
the macro mode is exceptional , the pictures are very clear and you can take the pictures with the lens unbelievably close the subject .
the battery life is very good , i got about 90 minutes with the lcd turned on all the time , the first time around , and i have been using it with the lcd off every now and then , and have yet needed to recharge it .
the camera comes with a lexar 16mb starter card , which stores about 10 images in fine mode at the highest resolution , i intend to buy a bigger card soon . 
 near perfection
i love photography .
i had an older camera that was simply a point and shoot camera . 
i needed something with more power , so i bought a nikon coolpix 4300 .
i fell in love with this camera , it combines ease of use , with an immense amount of options and power .
you can use the scene modes , or fine tune the options , i . 
you can change the iso level , shutter speed , etc .
this camera is ideal for people who want more power , but do n't want to spend 1000s dollars on a camera .
 not too excited
i bought coolpix 4300 two months after i had bought canon powershot s400 .
reason for two ?
it was not easy sharing one with my teen age kid .
<cs-2>
the two cameras are very similar in functionality and pricing . 
</cs-2>
1_two camera 3_functioning 3_pricing (similar)
i 've had no problem with canon whatsoever .
<cs-2>
with nikon , although picture qualities are as good as any other 4 mp cameras , i 've had the following headaches ; 
</cs-2>
1_nikon 2_other 4 mp camera 3_picture qualities (as good as)
1 .
pictures wo n't transfer to pc directly from the camera using the included transfer cable .
i did everything i could , and it took many days of frustration before concluding that the only way to transfer to pc is with the card reader .
card reader is included .
2 .
<cs-1>
the speed is noticeably slower than canon , especially so with flashes on . 
</cs-1>
2_canon 3_speed (slower)
3 .
with low battery , it twice wiped out the entire pictures in the memory chip . 
i used lexar 256 mb and i still use it which means nothing is wrong with lexar .
be very careful when the battery is low and make sure to carry extra batteries .
 only `` cons `` here
<cs-2>
the other reviewers have clearly pointed all the good things about this camera , which i do agree . 
</cs-2>
1_i 2_other reviewers 3_pointed good things ()
but there are certain issues might be they are to me here - all of them are minor ; not major ones though ,
this camera keeps on autofocussing in auto mode with a buzzing sound which can 't be stopped .
would be really good if they have given an option to stop this autofocussing . 
if you want to have the date ; time on the image , its only through their software `` nikon view `` which reads the images date ; time from the images meta-data . 
so if you use your card reader ; copy images - you got to onceagain open them through their software to put the date ; time .
in that too , there is n't a direct way to add date ; time - you got to say ' print images ' to a different directory in which there is an option to specify the date ; time .
even the slightest of the shakes totally distorts your image
images taken indoor were n't so clear .
you got to have flash ' on ' to get it eventhough your room is well lit
lens cap is a really annoying
go ; get a high speed like lexar 12x or higher cf card .
else with simpler viking cf cards , it takes couple of seconds to write a picture with approximately `` fine ** '' picture quality `` image size : 1600 . 
the movie clips taken will always have some ' noise ' in it - you can 't avoid that .
but overall this is a good camera with a ' really good ' picture clarity ; an exceptional close-up shooting capability .
i would rate this is 4.5 stars picture quality ; image size defined above are specific to nikon coolpix .
 bad service
within a year , there are problems with my menu dial knob .
it became stucked which makes it almost impossible to switch between modes .
i send my camera to nikon for servicing , took them a whole 6 weeks to diagnose the problem .
worse of all , they claim that it 's some kind of internal damage and refuse to cover the cost via warranty ! 
they would n't repair my camera unless if i pay $ 100 for parts ? and labor !
it is a good camera in terms of the function and quality , but take your chance with it because nikon absolutely sucks when it comes to customer service .
 system error
got a `` system error `` problem 30 days after purchase . 
made the camera totally inoperable .
also , the lens cap design is flawed .
you have to manually take the cap off in order to use it .
audio on video also lacking .
otherwise , it takes very good pictures ; shutter delay is n't so bad either .
still , had to send it back to nikon for repair .
 amazing camera
i am an amateur photographer and here is a piece of advise to all the folks who are thinking about making a move the digital world .
<cs-3>
nikon 4300 , i feel , is the best camera out there for the features and price . 
</cs-3>
1_nikon 4300 3_camera (best)
here were my requirements in a digital camera :
1 .
i had initially thought of buying a 2 or 3 megapixel camera but these are good for 4x6 `` or 5x7 `` prints and i wanted some really great 8x10 `` photos once in a while .
2 .
i did not want a very small camera as it seems to get lost in my hands and i was n't comfortable with that .
i wanted a decent sized camera with a contour for my fingers to hold it steadily .
3 .
i wanted a camera that had a lot of built-in settings for different types of suroundings while giving me an option to use my photography skills although , i am an amateur with an interest in photography by turning on the manual settings .
4 .
and , of course , i wanted a respected brand and had to stay within my budget because i had bought an expensive camcorder before but had n't used it much .
<cs-2>
depending on all the above requirements , i had narrowed down my search to nikon 4300 and canon powershot s400 models . 
</cs-2>
1_nikon 4300 2_canon powershot s400 3_search ()
nikon got the final nod for its settings auto and manual along with movie modes , medium ; compact size , price , brand name , good software that is included and previous reviews .
i should say i have been very happy with my decision ever since .
the pictures are absolutely amazing - the camera captures the minutest of details . 
a few things that might make it even better : 
1 .
pictures taken in an indoor setting are a little dull and rarely hazy if you tend to take photographs from a distance .
2 .
it takes a while for the camera to actually capture the photograph from the time you click the button and i have seen people becoming a little impatient waiting for the flash to glow .
3 .
the pictures come out hazy if your hands shake even for a moment during the entire process of taking a picture .
all the above , i think , are problems with all the digital cameras out there and so i have no major complaints .
try to buy a tripod and that should solve some of those problems .
whichever camera you buy , add upto about 200 dollars for an additional memory card i bought a 256 mb card , usb card reader , camera bag and the warranty .
and finally , get your pictures developed at a kodak picture maker machine even though it costs you a little extra - no one can beat kodak processing in terms of clarity and brightness .
hope this review has helped you in making up your mind .
i have taken about 150 photographs so far and have absolutely loved the experience .
i am looking forward to my vegas trip for some great photographs now .
 super camera
with our compact 35mm broken , and a vacation in europe at hand , i finally decided to enter the digital age .
i first intended to buy the 3100 , but am really happy to invest the extra money for the 4300 .
<cs-1>
the lense is a lot better , and the 4mb produce fantastic pictures . 
</cs-1>
 3_lense (better)
the possibilities with auto , manual , and the very helpful `` scene `` mode , which offers 11 optimized situational settings like portrait , landscape , beach / snow , sunset etc .
, are endless .
the movie mode is also working great .
the 4300 comes with excellent easy to install software i use it on xp and win98 without problem , battery charger , usb and video cable .
a 64mb flash card camera comes with a 16mb holds 52 pictures on `` normal `` resolution .
<cs-2>
i experimented with online print ordering with the two major us brick and mortar retailers , and they both delivered great results . 
</cs-2>
1_us brick and mortar retailer 3_delivered great results (both)
even at the `` normal `` setting , a 8x10 print ! shows not a single sign of visible rendering or pixels - you could never tell that the picture has been taken by a `` digital `` .
the battery life is ok , but can be somewhat short when working a lot with the monitor on .
i therefore bought a second battery as a backup , and due to the lightingfast charging with the included charger , which by the way works on 110v as well as 220v in europe , we ran never out of `` juice `` . 
i highly recommend the accessory kit , which provides you with everything else you need :
a nice camera bag , which holds camera plus all the cables and the charger . 
furher it contains a card reader , a flash card folder for up to 8 cards , a lense cleaning rag , and an ac adapter , which is very helpful when working in an `` outlet environment `` .
over all a fantastic very compact camera , which made us experience photography on a totally new level ! 
 camera shake
after reading all the glowing review on this camera , i went to my local camera shop to try one .
i currently own an olympus d-550 which takes wonderful outdoor pictures .
however , indoor pictures of subjects more than a few feet away can be blurry or grainy .
anyway , in the store , i tried coolpix 4300 along with two other 4mp models minolta dimage s414 , and panasonic lumix .
focusing on a display rack about 20 feet away in a brightly lit room during day time , pictures produced by this camera were blurry and in a shade of orange .
pictures produced by the minolta were orange but not blurry .
pictures produced by the panasonic were excellent .
<cs-1>
the store clerk concluded that the blurriness may be caused by shaking the camera slightly when i press the button , which is understandable since this camera is lighter than the other two models . 
</cs-1>
1_this camera 2_other two models (lighter)
anyway , i ended up purchasing the lumix .
i 'm sure that this camera has all the wonderful features that others talk about . 
however , as an average person with unsteady hands , i doubt it 'll perform well in lower light settings . 
 great camera
i purchased the nikon 4300 after several weeks of searching . 
the value , name , and resolution signed the lease .
after nearly 800 pictures i have found that this nikon takes incredible pictures .
the digital zoom takes as good of pictures , as the optical zoom does !
the inside pics , can be a bit challenging , but when you can instantly delete pics you dont like , that are not focused perfectly , or need lighting adjustments , make this camera very simple and effective .
i love all of the features , and presets as well . 
sunset feature takes incredible pics in the morning , and the evening !
the software you get with this camera is perfect .
touchups , redeye , and so on are very easy to alter , and correct .
i definately recommend a large memory card .
i use a 128mb card , and usually get around 70 to 100 pics 1024-1280 res .
, with good resolution .
very large pics take 8mb each !
battery life is good , although i recommend two rechargebles , or a alkaline backup , for those emergency pics you have to have .
all and all , i am extremely pleased with this camera . 
making the step from film to digital has been a great move .
i find myself emailing pics to everyone i know .
great camera , great investment !
 excellent camera
this is my second digital camera , though i also use one at work and have some experience with several nikon and canon models . 
the nikon coolpix 4300 is wonderful -- easy to use , high quality , and compact in size .
with an extra battery and a couple of good sized memory cards you are all set for a day of picture taking while on vacation .
the auto setting does a great job most of the time but there are manual settings for those who want them .
if something were to happen to my nikon coolpix 4300 , i would order another just like it . 
 the ricksters review
after much research i decided on the nikon coolpix 4300 .
it has many great features and very few bad ones .
it takes excellent pics and is very easy to use , if you read the manual .
if you cant get great pics from this camera its because you havent read the manual .
the only things i have found that i havent liked is that the lcd is hard to read in daylight but everyone elses is too .
downloads are a snap and quick .
controls easy yo use and easy to get to .
i 'm extremely glad i bought this camera .
 super little camera
really happy with this little camera .
it is n't big and offensive , though you would n't know it by looking at the pics it takes .
got it for christmas , still learning a few of the settings , but i do n't take pictures every single day .
settings for just about everything , beautiful pics and beautiful prints .
i expected the 12x digital zoom to be grainy , but onfull size high to fine quality , the zoomed images are quite impressive .
did buy a 256mb compact flash , it holds a lot of pics at any resolution .
i only wish you could get high quality tiff images at all resolutions , but does n't seem any of the buget cameras do .
still , at least from my perspective , a great camera for the money , and i 'm a happy camper !
 beginner looks experienced with coolpix
this is a wonderful camera .
my wife and i read and read and read reviews on different cameras for months . 
in the end this is the one that we decided upon and since have never had buyer 's remorse .
4 mp gives you room for the future gaining experience ; cost offsets over time from wanting more in a camera , 3x optical and the fact that it carries nikon 's quality reputation behind it make the whole package prove itself worthwile at the price .
one neat thing - i have taken some pictures in what i thought would be impossible lighting conditions pitch black rooms - no problem for the camera - rooms looked like they had ample lighting . 
 can i have a few more stars please
this little camera has created a marriage between myself and nikon .
never knew i could love a digital camera so much .
the software that comes with it is amazing and the online service that comes free is really very neat .
clean clear and well focused on over 95 % of all photos taken by a beginner . 
100 % perfect if you put some thought and time into reading the manual before you take the photos . 
i took the camera and just gave it to someone .
no instructions .
just point and shoot and the photos were great .
just imagine if you place a bit of knowledge when you take your photos .
the memory card fit nicely since i also have a pocket pc and it automatically installed a picture software on my pda wolla .
my pda becames a digital album .
i have a 128mb card in it and can shoot over 150 hi res photos .
if you have to buy a camera on a buget , this has got to be the one .
go get it .
before they are sold out !
 great camera
great camera , i have been using this for several months and got excellent results , simple friendly usage , in many scenes indoor , outdoor , snow , close up macro etc .
 great camera for a great price
i bought my nikon coolpix4300 about a week ago .
<cs-3>
this is my first digital camera and i can say that i am quite impressed with the features that it has . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_digital camera (first)
it is easy enough to use for a beginner like me but it has plenty of features for me to grow into . 
i particularly like the way it aids me in taking my macro shots .
my friends were impressed with the quality of the pictures i took !
one downside though is that autofocus does not work well when battery is low .
i assume this is the case for most cameras since it does not have enough power to do autofocus . 
battery life is ok .
i plan on buying a second battery and a larger cf for it .
 not disappointed
great camera , and for the price you can 't beat it .
i 've been using it for about 3 months now .
i found the controls very intuitive and learned how to manuver through the menus quickly .
the quality is superb .
the small size is perfect for my little hands , but may perhaps be uncomfortable or awkward for a bigger person .
 field tested
we use older versions 880 , 885 of this model in the office and i find them to produce excellent quality photos . 
the 4300 is a very durable , compact package , and i find nikon to be a brand that i can trust .
it comes with a 16mb flash card that you will need to upgrade !
we got a 256mb card , and have been hard-pressed to fill it over a weekend .
the only drawbacks that i have noticed : 
it comes with a rechargable battery that does not seem to last all that long , especially if you use the flash a lot .
so , it 's a good idea to purchase an extra battery to insure that you are not left hanging .
it does not have an auto-focus assist light which is nice for taking shots in low-light situations it allows the camera to focus in low light .
i would say that this is not a major issue , but it can be slightly annoying if you care about these things .
it has a 3x optical zoom , which is average for these cameras .
for more , you sacrifice weight and size : more optical zoom requires more glass and focal length .
it does have a digital zoom on top of the optical zoom , but you sacrifice quality .
i set the camera to the `` manual `` mode for one main reason :
in any other mode it autofocuses continuously and burns batteries .
in manual , you can set it to `` single af `` where it will focus by depressing the shudder button prior to taking the pic ; this is not really a hinderance , you just have to be familiar with its menus and features .
in reality , these are the only drawbacks this camera has , much less than many other models !
it is easy to `` focus `` in on the drawbacks , so do n't think i hate this camera .
it really is an awesome camera that is hard to beat for general-to moderate snapping .
for work , we use them in the field often , and they hold up really well .
they take excellent macro shots as well .
the menus and features are easy to manipulate and access , and it takes silent movies .
it do n't get better 
<cs-4>
i compared this to a lot of other cameras , believe me , it 's value for money . 
</cs-4>
the picturers are amazing . 
do n't waste time looking at anything else , just buy this one .
<cs-1>
it do n't get any better then the nikon 4300 . 
</cs-1>
1_it 2_nikon 4300 (better)
 excellent compact digital camera
i am a nikon fan , and owned and used slr nikon fe , n50 and n90s for many many years .
recently bought this coolpix 4300 along with a 256mb ultra flash card .
<cs-2>
as expected , i happily found that qualities of the picture are excellent with 3m-4m pixel / fine combos and many of the user-friendly functions are very similar to slr models , and with added convenience of a digital camera that you can see pictures immediately . 
</cs-2>
2_slr models 3_user-friendly functions (similar)
i particularly like the `` txt `` file which records all the control information for all the pictures you take . 
the compact digital camera is especially useful if you have little children around and you can always take the camera with you and take many pictures of them .
try to buy a high capacity ultra card , as it 's 2x as faster as the regular cf card .
consider the time you save during picture taking especially not missing a good moment and during download , it 's well worth the little extra money .
an extra rechargeable en-el 1 battery is also handy , so you will seldom run into `` out of battery `` situation .
use the rechargeable because that saves you money and helps the environment in a long run .
one thing puzzles me is that for `` fine and 2200 + `` quality pictures , one ultra 256mb cf card can only hold 130-140 pics , but the size of the pictures are only around 1.2 mb , the math does not add up . 
i would expecct the card to hold over 200 pictures for size of 1.2 mb/per .
anybody can explain that ?
a nikon will make you happier and leave you lots of good memories , as always . 
 you will not be sorry
<cs-1>
i highly recommend this camera to anyone looking for a good digital camera that takes great pictures yet does n't take weeks to figure out how to operate . 
</cs-1>
1_this camera 3_pictures (recommend)
we take this camera with us everywhere and are constantly amazed at the quality of the pictures that we get and the number of different ways the camera allows for pictures to be taken .
i am a picture fanatic so i consider myself picky and if your the same way this camera will not let you down.now buy it ! 
 absolutely great point and shoot camera
first of all , let 's start with my needs : 1 $ 500 budget 2 4mp resolution , 3 optical clarity and color , 4 fast - very little shutter lag and quick sep-up for next picture , 5 compact size , and 6 good camera grip to minimize camera shake . 
for three months , i 've researched the internet and magazines , queried various sales personnel , and took hands-on in-store test drives .
and i finally settled on the nikon coolpix 4300 .
i have it for a week now , and this camera has exceeded my expectations .
the daylight pictures are brilliant and the indoor shots are very good provided that your subject is no more than about 8 feet away .
the shutter lag is on par with what i 've experienced with point and shoot 35mm and aps film cameras and the next frame advance is about a couple seconds using a high speed 12x 128mb compact flash card a salesperson recommended the high speed card since next frame advance speed was important to me - and it was only a few dollars more .
uploading the images to my windows-based pc is very fast and simple .
the only drawbacks i 've encountered are : 1 indoor shots from a distance 8ft lack contrast and color , but i 've found this to be a problem with all cameras with built-in flashes that i 've used even on a nikon slr .
right now , i 'm researching for an inexpensive slave flash unit that 's designed for digital cameras .
2 the battery life seems to be on the short side but adequate for most situations .
i got 45 outdoor and 15 indoor shots with the monitor on turning the camera off and on over a 4 hour period before the battery died .
an extra for a back-up battery would be a good investment .
3 the picture editing software it came with is adequate , but not very robust .
i 'll still use my photosuite for editing .
one more thing about indoor shots - many of the reviews knocked this camera for low light focusing .
just for the heck of it , i took it into my dark kitchen with only indirect light coming in though the door , and the focusing was just fine . 
in summary , i love this camera and would whole-heartedly recommend this to anyone wanting a high quality point and shoot camera in the medium price range .
- since i wrote the review above in january 2003 , i still love this camera .
i 've picked up a few accessories that i found to be useful .
i bought a digi-slave dsf-1s flash unit .
i do n't use a bracket , i just hold it above my head and aim the flash with my left hand .
i also got a ur-e 4 step down ring adapter , lc-e 900 lens cap , and the nikon 28mm filter set .
this provides added protection for the camera lens and allows the use of filters .
i leave the adapter and uv filter on all the time . 
this also allows you to turn on the camera on without having to remove the lens cap .
the downside is that you might accidentally take pictures with the lens cap on , the camera wo n't fit in the small cases , and 28mm filters are expensive and hard to find .
 great camera
great camera .
i am impressed with how easy this camera is to use .
it takes great pictures .
the manual is easy to understand , and it is mostly idiot proof .
<cs-4>
it is small , unlike my canon slr , so it easily fits in my pocket . 
</cs-4>
i have not yet figured out how to make it snap quick pictures for action shots .
now where did i put that manual ?
<cs-3>
 best 4-mp camera of its size and price range 
</cs-3> (best)
3_4-mp camera
do n't let my five star rating fool you .
the nikon coolpix 4300 deserves six .
i got this camera about a month ago and i can 't put it down .
i was considering buying the minolta f-100 and the sony dsc-p 9 , but at the camera shop , realized this one went above and beyond .
i selected the 4300 right away and have gotten high quality pictures every time .
autofocus feels exactly like my film camera while scene and manual mode add a little fun challenge to it all .
i would also recommend buying an extra battery and at least a 128 mb compact flash type i memory card . 
buy this camera and savour it .
 great camera
i reviewed several digital cameras before settling on this one .
this one was rated very high by several people check out this site and epinions.com .
i have not been disappointed with my purchase .
picture quality in outdoor settings is indistinguishable from 35mm .
<cs-2>
on average , indoor shots with a flash are not quite as good as 35mm . 
</cs-2>
2_35mm 3_indoor shots with a flash (as good as)
however , the convenience of using digital far outweighs the slightly less accurate indoor pictures .
i am extremely satisfied with this camera .
i purchased it from amazon on a since discontinued promotion .
buy an extra battery - life is good but still somewhat short .
do n't buy this camera if you are not going to purchase a 128 megabyte card .
you need the storage to hold a decent amount of shots at 4 megapixel resolution .
i have one thing to say to the numbskulls who complain that this camera 's controls are confusing and hard to remember :
read the directions !
the regular mode in this camera works for 80 % of settings .
the `` scene `` mode works well for the remainder of shots that are not going to be in a `` regular `` setting .
i wish the camera had a higher optical zoom so that i could take better wildlife photos . 
however , its 3x optical setting is acceptable for 70 % of the shots that i take .
buy this camera , you wo n't regret it .
 digital nirvana
if you 're looking for a small , compact , super resolution digital camera , you can end your search with the nikon 4300 !
<cs-1>
after a lengthy and extensive journey for a feature-loaded , high performance , travel size camera , i initially gravitated to this little gem because of the superior picture quality 4 mega pixel . 
</cs-1>
1_this little gem 3_picture quality (superior)
after using it for about a month , i can state unequivocably that this nikon definitely delivers a huge bang for the buck .
its easy to use and the sheer fun of being able to use an array of nikon accessories like the telephoto and wide-angle lenses is the proverbial icing on the cake .
yes , the picture quality and features which are too numerous to mention are unmatched for any camera in this price range .
the design and construction are excellent -- as is the legendary quality of the nikon optics .
i own a 35mm slr camera and this is my second digital .
if you 're seeking that elusive state of photographic euphoria that is free of buyer 's remorse and filled with cool , then travel to the world of the coolpix 4300 !
 i love this baby
had it for a week .
there are so many functions in this little , yet powerful camera !
 it 's so cool
seriously ! i love it !
my room is so dark and when i tried taking pics of it with my old camera , they came out black , but with this , they look the same in the picture as in real life .
better actually cause my carpet looks clean , lol .
but this camera is great !
the picture quality is amazing and you can connect it to your tv and could make silent movies that way if you wanted to .
i can 't connect it to my computer though , but that 's a problem with windows me , not the camera .
if you have windows me you should upgrade to xp anyway , lol .
but it works perfectly fine on my parent 's computer .
it does have a lense cap , but it wo n't let you take pics with it on which is real good .
the battery recharges ral fast and the recharger thingy that comes with is real nice .
ooh , and i dropped it and it still works fine : this little camera has so many features i have n't even gotten to all of them yet . 
 excellent little camera
i did quite a bit of research before buying this camera , and this one had everything i was looking for .
it 's easy for beginners to use , but has features that more serious photographers will love , so it 's an excellent camera to grow into .
it 's light weight enough to take with you everywhere , but powerful enough to get outstanding pix .
i love the continuous shot mode , which allows you to take up to 16 pix in rapid succession -- great for action shots .
i 'm amazed at the photo quality -- prints are indistinguishable from 35mm prints .
i only have one complaint , and that is the 8mb card included . 
8mb for a camera like this is a joke . 
a card with more memory is a must .
a minor quibble , since most cameras on the market still only include the 8mb cards .
 perfect consumer digital camera
<cs-3>
if you do any research into digital cameras , you 'll quickly find that this camera is just about the best value out there . 
</cs-3>
1_this camera 3_value (best)
these are the reasons i think it 's great :
1 it has all the features an amatuer photo-enthusiast would want .
2 it is easy enough for my grandmother to use .
3 it is very compact but the controls are so well designed that they 're still easy to use .
4 it has optional lenses like wide angles and extra zooms .
5 for `` digital film `` it uses compact flash cards , which are easy to find , cheap , reliable and supported by many other devices you may have at hoome .
6 the nikon coolpix line is a well-established line so you know support and parts are going to be available even when nikon releases a newer model . 
7 picture quality is excellent .
8 battery life is excellent .
9 3x built-in optical zoom is a lot for this price range .
<cs-2>
10 great price for all the features . 
</cs-2>
1_all features 3_price (all)
here 's what you may miss or be annoyed by with this camera :
1 no direct firewire to the camera .
there is usb , though .
2 the camera is so small that when you attach some lenses i have the 19mm wide-angle -- wc-e 68 , the optical viewfinder is partially obscured .
this does n't affect the picture , of course .
you just have to use the lcd viewfinder to see the whole picture .
it 's no problem for me personally .
3 battery has to be removed to recharge .
4 an ac adapter for powering the camera while the battery 's out is not included , although one can be purchased separately .
5 two different adapters -- ur-e 4 and ur-e 7 -- are required for some attachment lenses .
most of these `` annoyances `` , though , are comparable to what you 'll find on other cameras in this price range .
 small camera
i am new to the whole digital camera thing ; well , new to the whole camera thing period , really .
this camera was affordable , very easy to learn , and produces spectacular images .
the auto-mode is good enough for most shots but the 4300 also boasts 12 versatile scene modes as well as a manual mode though i admit i have n't played with it too much on manual .
it 's size also makes it ideal for travel .
overall the nikon 4300 is a very dependable , robust , and useful little camera .
 nikon does it again
awesome camera with huge print quality in a tiny package .
the same 4mp chip from the 4500 camera , plus a 3x zoom with the ability to expand upon that with extenders , great closeup mode , long lasting rechargable battery , etc etc .
<cs-3>
in my opinion it 's the best camera for the money if you 're looking for something that 's easy to use , small good for travel , and provides excellent , sharp images . 
</cs-3>
1_it 3_camera (best)
*****************************************************************************
Amazon review	celluar phone:  Nokia 6610
*****************************************************************************
 excellent phone , excellent service .
i am a business user who heavily depend on mobile service .
there is much which has been said in other reviews about the features of this phone , it is a great phone , mine worked without any problems right out of the box .
just double check with customer service to ensure the number provided by amazon is for the city / exchange you wanted .
after several years of torture in the hands of at & t customer service i am delighted to drop them , and look forward to august 2004 when i will convert our other 3 family-phones from at & t to t-mobile !
i have had the phone for 1 week , the signal quality has been great in the detroit area ( suburbs ) and in my recent road trip between detroit and northern kentucky ( cincinnati ) i experienced perfect signal and reception along i-75 , far superior to at & # 38 ; t 's which does not work along several long stretches on that same route .
<cs-1>
i have owned motorola , panasonic and nokia phones over the last 8 years and generally prefer nokia , this phone combines many of the best nokia features , the only feature missing for me is the voice recognition . 
</cs-1>
1_nokia 2_motorola 2_panasonic (prefer)
my favorite features , although there are many , are the speaker phone , the radio and the infrared .
the speaker phone is very functional and i use it in the car , very audible even with freeway noise .
the infrared is a blessing if you have a previous nokia and want to transfer your old phone book to this phone , saved me hours of re-entering my numbers .
the combination of the nokia 6610 and t-mobile service ( signal , price , service ) is a winner , i highly recommend it .
 good phone , so-so service .
the day finally arrived when i was sure i 'd leave sprint .
after years with that carrier 's expensive plans and horrible customer service , portability seemed heaven-sent .
i 'd always eyed the nokia phones and had heard decent things about t-mobile , so i gave it a whirl .
here 's the brief synopsis : the phone is tiny , cute , feels kind of `` plastic-like `` ( as if it might break ) , but seems pretty sturdy . 
it has lots of little cute features , my favorite being the games and the pim ( personal information manager -- i.e .
organizer ) , and the radio !
i spent hours setting up the stations ( accepts about 13-14 , i believe ) , though the reception is unpredictable .
also , you need to have the headset plugged in all the time to have the radio work and that can get tedious .
the headset that comes with the phone has good sound volume but it hurts the ears like you can not imagine ! 
the phone comes with okay ringtones , some decent backgrounds / screensavers , but the phone has very little memory ( mine had 230kb as it arrived from amazon , so you do n't have too many options on what you can put on there ) .
the colors on the screen are not as crisp as i 'd have liked them to be .
however , it serves its purpose .
the backlight on the phone goes off way too quickly ( dangerous when you 're driving at night ) , and there 's no way to change this -- 
i checked with nokia .
the buttons on the phone are small , even for my small fingertips , but you get used to them rather quickly .
the menu options are uncreative , as you can 't see a full screen of menu items to pick from ; you have to scroll up and down to find what you 're looking for ( yes , this is minor , but not when you 're trying to keep your eye on the road ! ) . 
more downside to this phone ?
the volume .
oh my goodness --
i have excellent hearing but the volume level on this phone is especially quiet .
forget talking on it in public -- you just can 't hear the other person !
on the up-side , the phone has amazing battery life .
i do like this phone overall ( would give it a 3.5 ) , but unforutnately , i am returning it .
i was surprised by t-mobile 's service .
i assumed they had exceptional service , but their reception in my area ( los angeles ) is horrendous .
reason ?
they piggy-back on cingular 's service .
also , their t-zones , although cheap ( $ 4.99 / mo .
) never works .
since i received the phone , i spent countless hours on the phone with customer service reps who promised t-zones would work `` in 24 hours `` .
i must have heard this about a dozen times over the span of 2 weeks , when t-zones never worked .
24 hours ?
by what time standards -- martian ?
apparently , t-mobile is heavily back-logged and can 't keep up with demands .
also , they 'd forgotten to add `` wap `` capability to my service ( duh ) , so that took another 4-5 days of figuring out .
in all fairness , customer reps are very nice , and they ( most of them ) try hard to answer your questions .
but they do have this annoying habit of asking you if they 've answered all your questions , even if they did n't , to which they always seem to expect a `` yes `` answer from you .
i realize this is for quality assurance purposes , but i should have the right to say when my questions have not been answered ( i.e .
me :
'' when will my t-zones work ? `` , csr :
'' i 'm not sure `` .
) .
umm , well , thanks for nothing .
this one csr insisted on trying to get me to say that he 'd answered all my questions ( same interaction as i just described ) , and well ..
that was annoying .
t-mobile is trying very hard , and again -- they do have pretty good csr 's .
however , the calls constantly drop in my area and i experince mega-static , to the point where i 'd have to dial numbers 6-7 times to get a clear line .
and no t-zones .
so what 's the point ?
<cs-2>
i 'm staying with sprint , and though i fear that their csr is n't nearly as good as t-mobile 's , the clarity of their reception is exceptional . 
</cs-2>
1_csr 2_t-mobile (as good as)
i 've bought the very expensive sanyo 5500/vm4500 -- which i love -- and i 'm okay with my services .
guess all that glitters is not gold .
it was worth a shot -- too bad it did n't work out .
hope someone else has better luck !
 the phone refused to die .
i bought one of these phones in kuwait to use with the mtc prepaid telephone service ez because i would be able to use it when i return to the states with t-mobile .
recently i accidently washed my telephone with my laundry through two complete 18 minute wash cycles of a washing machine .
disgusted with myself after i found the phone in the bottom of the washing machine , i was about to throw it away when one of my fellow soldiers asked if he could dry it out for me in an effort to revive the phone . 
two days later the phone was returned to me in complete working order .
while i like the performance of the phone in every regard , i would buy another one solely upon the apparent indestructibility of it . 
<cs-1>
i highly recommend a nokia 6610 .
</cs-1>
1_nokia 6610 (recommend)
<cs-3>
 best phone for free . 
</cs-3>
3_phone (best)
i 've had an assortment of cell phones over the years ( motorola , sony ericsson , nokia etc .
<cs-3>
) and in my opinion , nokia has the best menus and promps hands down . 
</cs-3>
1_nokia 3_menus 3_promps (best)
no other color phone has the combination of features that the 6610 offers .
from the speakerphone that can be used up to 15 feet away with clarity , to the downloadable poly-graphic megatones that adds a personal touch to this nifty phone .
whether you 're taking a brisk jog , waiting for a bus or just having lunch at the park , you 'll be glad you had the fm radio .
wish it were a flip phone , but thats not a deal breaker !
 glad to own .
i have had this phone for about 5 months .
i treat the battery well and it has lasted .
at my heaviest usage , i must recharge after 3 days .
it lasts about 5 days otherwise and has lasted up to 10 when i was making very few calls .
signal strength will affect the battery life .
frequent signal searches eat up battery power .
i took great care of the screen , till i realized that the part that might get scratched is part of the cover .
i can replace that if the scratch is unbearable to look at .
the volume level of the phone is not all that good .
some of the higher pitched rings are very easy to hear , but not easy to listen to .
the more subtle tones that were included with the phone are hard to hear at times .
the vibration is not top .
it is a teeny phone , so it is hard to put a big mechanism in .
<cs-1>
i do n't use the vibration , because it is often easier to hear it vibrate then to feel it . 
</cs-1>
 1_vibrate 2_feel (easier)
vibration was not even listed as a feature when i purchased this .
so it was no loss .
overall this has been my favorite phone that i have owned .
great battery life , perfect size , but a tid bit quieter than i would like . 
i do hope that they offer more faceplate options . 
i am bored with the silver look .
 cool .
it has a nice color screen .
it is small .
radio is awsome , but it does n't work unless you have the earpice in .
that is a major minus , but its not that bad .
t-mobile was a pretty good server .
it has 2 games .
they are not wowable good .
you have to buy better ones .
it also does n't have voice activated dialing .
big minus ! !
***  great phone , but no warranty !
this is a very nice phone , but there is no warranty on it .
nokia will not cover phones bought from amazon .
we got two phones for the t-mobile family plan ( indeed very easy to switch to the family plan ) and one came with a broken headphone ( can hear but can not be heard ) and one died today after less than two weeks of use .
i 'll see how much help i can get from amazon and report back .
 menu flaws ? mine could n't send text messages .
i upgraded to a 6610 at my local t-mobile store .
when i got it home , i discovered that the menu options for sending messages via either text or email simply were n't there :
it defaulted to unchangeable email .
so i spent half an hour on the phone with tech support , only to have the online tech person pull one off the shelf and tell me he had the same problem .
i returned to the store , whereupon the clerk insisted that he could make it work ; he could n't .
he spent another half hour on the phone with tech support , to no avail .
so i had to give up and return it , having lost about 4 hours .
while i had the phone , the positive features were : good sound quality and an excellent fm phone and earpiece .
negative : impossibly tiny and difficult to operate , barely visible , power button .
poor visibility on the keys .
you have to tilt the phone around to catch the light on them .
 great speakerphone and great reception ! ! reccomend !
the title says it all ...
the two biggest things is the excellent working speakerphone `` unlike the nokia 3650 `` and the superb reception nokia is known for in the gsm phones they make ...
only con i can think of is no camera ...
no big deal for the size .
this phone is a winner ...
 perfect .
anything this phone does , it does perfectly .
the speakerphone , the radio , all features work perfectly .
the speakerphone :
this phone has a very cool and useful feature -- the speakerphone .
as said before this works perfectly . 
you can adjust the volume to be heard anywhere or so that it does n't make that big of a disturbance .
the person on the other end of the call can hear you perfectly .
you can be up to about 3 feet away from it and it will still work perfectly .
only one complaint about the speakerphone , you can only activate the speakerphone feature once the person you are calling answers the phone , not while it is ringing . 
the radio :
<cs-3>
this phone is one of the few phones that have an fm radio tuner built in . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_fm radio tuner (one of the few)
<cs-2>
this radio receives fairly decent reception but not nearly as good as a normal radio , but as long as the stations are coming in clearly the phone 's radio should work perfectly . 
</cs-2>
1_this radio 2_normal radio 3_reception (as good as)
tri-band :
one highly beneficial feature of this phone ( at least to me ) is that it can be used anywhere in the world except a few countries that do not use gsm , a few in asia .
i bought this phone for my trip to south africa and it worked almost perfectly .
the only problem i had was a small glitch with t-mobile . 
anywhere i went in south africa this phone received full bar reception .
if it worked like that in south africa , i imagine it would just work without a hitch in europe . 
sold in other parts of the world :
another benefit of this phone is that it is truly an international phone ; the 6610 is sold in almost everywhere in the world .
<cs-2>
this means that there is a good chance that this phone will not break easily like typical american phones . 
</cs-2>
1_this phone 2_typical american phones 3_break (like)
or on the rare occasion it does you can bring it into any t-mobile store , which are located in many countries in europe .
i can not stress enough how big of a benefit it is to have a european phone and a european company providing your cell phone service .
able to use service in another country :
if you decide to go to another country for an extended period of time , you can just buy a sim card from a service provider in that country .
you would then have a phone number in that country and not have to pay for international roaming in that country .
size and weight :
when you put this phone in your pocket you forget it is there ; it is unbelievably small and oh , so light .
this is a benefit for many reasons ; one being just for appearance , your pants wo n't be bulging with this phone in your pocket .
battery life :
the battery life on this phone is surreal .
it lasts , truly , 7 days on standby .
i 've used the speakerphone for almost two hours once and the battery did not even go down one single bar .
it is amazing that the battery lasts so long when the phone is so small and light .
this phone has many other features , ir , ; just to name one , the features above i view as the most beneficial .
the phone has a few minor inconveniences , but only because it lacks those features , bluetooth and high spend internet , but there are very few problems with things that you expected this phone to do . 
overall , i highly recommend this phone .
it is a perfect phone in such a small and appealing package .
 so far i am more than pleased .
i love the pros and cons reviews so here ya go :
pros :
size - extremely small and convenient will fit in your pocket and not bother you .
sound - excellent polyphonic ringing tones are very nice ( check cons ) it also doubles as a radio , which is a nice feature when you are bored .
speakerphone - loud and clear has some nice extra features like currency converter and a stopwatch .
surfing the web on it is nice as well , i just wish there were more wap pages available .
cons :
ring tones only come with crazy songs and annoying rings , there is only one ring that sounds close to a regular ring . 
the screen is easily scratched but if you have the warranty you should be able to swap it out .
games kind of stink and you cant download them you have to get the link cable to get additional games .
 great buy .
nice little phone ...
light compact .
great features .
buttons do seem a little sticky tho ..
and the hands free kits ' connector might be a problem ..
 it works ...
as a phone !
perhaps there is a tone of irony in the title of my review , but i actually mean it in earnest .
after having had my heart broken by a sexy piece of hardware that simply would n't perform .
i replaced it with this not-quite-so-dazzling , but definitely more functional device .
although the nokia 6610 is a little short on the features department , it is an outstanding piece of hardware for doing what it was primarily meant to do : to be a wireless telephone .
the reception and sound quality are top-notch . 
i can routinely talk on the phone in my house in the suburbs , which is an unaccustomed luxury , even with t-mobile service .
i like the size and weight of this little critter .
i am able to carry it close to my body , in places where other phones are not so easily concealed .
the keys are close together , and the layout is a bit funky in relation to standard rectangular layout keypads , but it 's not too weird . 
the fact that the `` 0 `` key is the space key for text input is a bit confusing , as many phones use the `` # `` key instead .
but that 's not an insurmoutable obstacle .
the screen is bright , easy to see in the daylight , with nice colors .
it receives very nice mms pictures from other gsm phones .
there are some features in the user interface that i find a little inconvenient .
the menu options appear one at a time , taking up the whole screen , and one has to scroll down one by one , or have memorized where they are in the menu order , to select them by using the number keypad .
thumbs down on that one .
the vibrate setting is loud !
so loud , really , that it does n't work terribly well as a silent ringer option .
but , then again , the ringer can be so loud that i heard it ringing inside my office , when i was already out on the street ..
which was a good thing , because i realized i had forgotten my phone ...
other things that i miss are voice-activated dialing and a standard 2.5 mm headset jack .
i 'd like a camera phone , but i 'd rather have a phone than a toy that takes pictures but makes no calls ...
pros :
- light , compact design
- solid , high-quality construction
- well-backlit keypad
- outstanding signal reception
- excellent sound quality
- bright , visible screen
- speakerphone
- very long-lasting battery life
cons :
- some features in the user interface
- no voice activated dialing ( what were they thinking
- no option for caller-id pictures or individualized ringtones .
- no propietary headset jack
this bumpy is wicked groovy .
i thought it would be haggard but when i be gotted this junky i was mad happy and stuff .
this junky is super duper rad .
it be my fav c-phone and stuff .
so go and buy dis sucka beefo it all be gone an stuffff .
aight den bumpy ?
word ...
peace in the east bruvah .
 i love this phone .
one of the best cell phones i have ever used to-date .
i like the speakphone function a lot . 
it allows me to place the phone on the table while talking and working on my computer or other jobs .
i am very pleased with its quality and durability .
i like the automatic key lock function . 
the phone is very light weight .
the screen is bright and ring tones are unlimited .
the fm radio is cool .
most of our emplyees use this model phone .
best regards sadoun satellite sales
<cs-3>
 best of the best mobile phone .
</cs-3>
3_mobile phone (best of the best)
while going for a cellphone , i was fully determined to buy a nokia only as it is the best in cellphones .
after much survey of all the present handsets and recommendations from friends , i bought this nokia 6610 . 
<cs-3>
and really this is the best phone one could have . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_phone (best)
it has all the features one would need in a cellphone .
it is lightweight , sleek and attractive .
this phone is very user-friendly , easy to manipulate & # 38 ; very convenient to scroll in menu etc .
the time taken in shifting from one menu option to other is in microseconds only .
it has fm radio option and i can listen to music anytime .
its speakerphone option allows us to do long talks conveniently , lying on bed & # 38 ; phone lying by your pillowside . 
it comes equipped with lot of wallpapers and polyphonic sweet tunes .
only if we could get one camera in it .
it did have scored over all other competitors ... .
i am enjoying my phone a lot ... .
 cool phone !
like some other reviewers , i recieved this phone using t-mobiles upgrade program . 
i had been comparing the 3650 , 3560 and the 3595 but could n't settle ...
then along came the 6610 , which was perfect for me .
pros :
small size .
i love the fact i can carry it in my shirt or pants pocket and forget about it .
just make sure the keys are locked .
color screen is good .
<cs-2>
it has lots of features such as the calendar which works like my outlook calendar . 
</cs-2>
1_it 2_outlook calender 3_features (like)
the keys are laid out normal so there is no guessing .
navigating through the menus is super easy , especially if you have owned a previous model nokia phone .
battery life is very good , i use it every day and i have to charge it every 5 or 6 days or so .
cons :
not many .
the volume key can be hard to press , but i think this may be by design rather than a flaw , perhaps to keep you from pressing it accidentally when you are in a call .
pc cable is too expensive ...
$ 50 for a usb cable ?
please !
is this how nokia subsidizes their free pc software ?
<cs-1>
 slightly better than average phone in its class . 
</cs-1>
2_average phone (better)
first of all i have been a big nokia fan and have been upgrading my cell phones about once a year ( right after the release contract is over ) .
<cs-1>
my last phone was a samsung s105 which imo is superior and cheaper to this phone . 
</cs-1>
 1_samsung s105 2_phone (superior, cheaper)
below is how i evaulate this phone with other t-mobile phones which i have borrowed from parents / friends :
sound quality :
the most important thing for me is sound quality . 
nokias have always had good sound quality and this is no exception .
<cs-1>
i think the sound quality of this phone is slightly better than my samsung phone , the motorolla t720 series , and the sony ericsson t610 series . 
</cs-1>
 1_phone 3_sound quality 2_samsung phone 2_motorolla t720 series 2_sony ericsson t610 series (better)
the loud speaker function on the 6610 is great because you do n't need to put your phone right next to your ear to talk .
overall design :
i like my phones to be small so i can fit it in my pockets . 
of all these phones the motorolla and the sony ericsson phones are the smallest .
the 6610 is the actually the longest but they are all very small .
<cs-1>
as much as i like nokia phones the flip phones imo are much better because a ) you wont scratch your screens / keys b ) you dont need to lock your phone all the time to prevent accidently hitting the keys . 
</cs-1>
 2_nokia phones 1_flip phones imo 3_screens keys b 3_keys (better)
ease of use :
how easy is it for me to get to a certain menu ?
the samsung phones has a customize function so that you can assign certain functions to directional buttons ( like assign alarm clock to the left directional key ) . 
that is a very nice feature .
<cs-1>
the 6610 is still easier to use than the other two phones ( t610 , t720i ) . 
</cs-1>
1_6610 2_t610 2_t720i 3_use (easier)
<cs-3><cs-3>
the sony ericsson phone ( t610 ) has the most whistles and bells , but is also the hardest to use . 
</cs-3></cs-3>
1_sony ericsson phone ( t610 ) 3_whistles 3_bells (most)
1_sony ericsson phone ( t610 ) 3_to use (hardest)
battery :
<cs-2>
the nokia , samsung and the sony phones can all last for 3 days provided you do n't talk too much .
</cs-2>
1_nokia 2_samsung 1_sony phones 3_last 3 days (all)
<cs-1>
the motorolla phone have a horrible battery which lasts about a day ( although i heard that the motorolla t722i has a much longer battery life ) .
</cs-1>
1_motorolla t722i 2_the motorolla phone 3_battery life (longer)
features :
<cs-3>
the t610 has the most functionality hands down . 
</cs-3>
1_t610 3_functionality (most)
personally i found the integrated digital camera of the t610 to be very nice .
my girlfriend is paranoid when i am not around her and i just take a pic and send it to her on the spot so she can regain her sanity .
the t610 can also compose music , a feature which most wo n't use .
the 6610 has the radio function which is utterly useless .
it also has a stock tracking app built in ( also useless ) and a somewhat useful application which converts all types of metrics ( currency , length , area , etc ) .
the s105 ( samsung ) has a beautiful big display ( 65 , 000 colors ) , and i can 't say much about the motorolla .
all these phones have color screens , polymorphic tones , and are internet ready .
in music tones department the 6610 has 20 chords ( thats number of different instruments which it can play ) i think , the samsung i think have 15 , i donno about the other phones but i feel the t610 has the best sounding ring tones .
regarding pc software support nokia suite does not work with some versions of xp as i tried to connect my phone via infrared port on my laptop . 
i called nokia tech support and they blamed microsoft .
oh well ..
<cs-1>
overall this is a slightly better than average phone . 
</cs-1>
 2_phone (better)
both the samsung and the sony phones offer a lot more features than this 6610 .
<cs-1>
personally i like the samsung phones better because i found myself liking the flip phones so much more . 
</cs-1>
 1_samsung phones 1_flip phones 3_liking (better)
i think there is a good chance i will try to get a samsung flip camera phone next year .
if t-mobile does not offer such a phone most likely i will get the t610 .
<cs-2>
they are all free if you get a new account anyway , but stick to t-mobile if you are going to use your phone overseas because t-mobile actually allows you to unlock your simm cards so that you can buy simm cards cheap from other nations and plug into your phone when you are doing some international travelling . 
</cs-2>
1_they 3_free (all)
 perfect phone .
<cs-3>
this is the best phone i have seen . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_phone (best)
 i bought 2 .
i bought 2 of these phones 2 months ago for myself and my girlfriend .
we got a familyplan from t-mobile which saves us tons .
the phones are awesome .
we hardly ever have to charge them , get great reception ( live in chicago ) , and the customization and applications are awesome .
here 's a hint : go to nokia.com and get their pc suite and a connection cable if you dont have irda or bluetooth .
you can do * so * much more with the pc suite , i.e .
free ringtones from midi files , free graphics from any picture on your computer , and if you know how to program jme you can even make your own apps / games .
the phone 's sound quality is great ( turn up the volume if its too quiet , people , this thing will get loud ) i dont have any complaints about this phone and the only thing that i miss from my 8290 is voice dialing . 
 nokia 6610 great for games and ringtones .
i bought this slick phone and i am very happy with it .
nice and small and excellent when it comes to downloading games , graphics and ringtones from www.crazycellphone.com
 nokia 6610 .
<cs-3>
i just purchased this phone and i think this is the coolest phone i ever had . 
</cs-3>
1_this phone 3_phone (coolest)
<cs-2>
the features are really cool like the radio . 
</cs-2>
2_radio 3_features (like)
the first night i got this phone i put it next to me when i went to bed just to listen to my favorite music station and the handset itself doesnt weight anything its too light and feel so comfy with it .
technology wise , i think this is awesome plus the speaker makes it even great ! ! ! ! i love this phone ! ! !
why i do n't can this product without a plan ?
i 'm live in brazil and i need very to buy this product without a plan to use in here in other operators .
i 'm pay in auto-debit in my account .
please , if anyone want sell to me this cell phone in my conditions , i 'm wait very happy .
thanks !
 excellent , but only gsm ?
i thought this was the ultimate phone when it comes to basic features , but i was dissapointed when i saw that it was only a gsm comaptible phone .
as i travel quite a lot , i 'd want something with gsm as well as cdma tri-band .
for a specific location , i still think its a great phone .
 i really think .
i think that it is a were good mobile phone and i may buy it .
 great phone , but what did you say ?
this really is a great little phone ; its got nice features , a beatiful screen , great ergonomics , and its tiny !
i waited a few years between phones , mostly because ( like most i think ) i didnt really need one .
this phone won me over , and a big seller was the size ; it fits nicely into any pocket without falling out . 
the downside though , may be a big one for you .
its quiet .
really quiet .
grandma in church quiet .
i 've gotten used to it ( holding it in just the right realation to the ear , ducking into quieter places in bars ) but when others borrow it they 're shocked i can use it .
so , i recomend it , but not for those that have any hearing troubles , or for those that like to talk a lot in crowded public places ( which is annoying , by the way .
 incredibly pleased .
i bought this phone when it first came out in the summer .
prior to my switch to t-mobile , sprint was my service provider .
to say the least , i was horribly dissatisified with my service with sprint , which was why t-mobile was so fantastically refreshing . 
<cs-2>
my past two phones were all flip phones , and i was beginning to tire of them . 
</cs-2>
1_flip phones 3_past two phones 3_tire of them (all)
<cs-3>
nokia was my first nonflip phone , and i 'm glad i decided to go with them . 
</cs-3>
1_nokia 3_nonflip phone (first)
first of all , my calls were loud and clear , unlike with sprint .
i could make phone calls from locations i previously could not ( like my apartment ) . 
the phone is small , light , and very attractive .
the battery life is amazing .
the color screen is a plus , as are the polyphonic ringtones .
i 'm not one who uses web browsing , so this phone easily met and surpassed my needs .
i highly recommend this phone to anyone .
i 've yet to be dissappointed .
<cs-4>
nokia 6610 ( sound quality ) the phone is great with very cool features & # 38 ; options , but comparing to my older motorola phone , it gets a failing grade in speaker quality . 
</cs-4>
i do here a constant high-pitched distorted sound , not to mention the volume does not seem to be loud enough .
it 's going back today , & # 38 ; being replaced with the new samsung x105 .
you do take your chances with this phone .
 ultimate phone for mobile life .
i considered this phone ( nokia 6610 ) , mainly because of my sister and the features .
it is a great phone , if you are traveling all over the world , packed with wonderful features .
truly , i am quite impressed .
! !
this is a very light phone - a little less than 3 oz , with long battery life ( not as long as the new polymer technology ) .
on an average , you would charge it once a week .
<cs-2>
the hands-free speakerphone is quite powerful ( like the motorola phone , i used to own ) . 
</cs-2>
1_hands-free speakerphone 2_motorola phone 3_powerful (like)
i simply love this feature .
in addition it comes with a sleek and powerful headset .
the built in fm radio is excellent for people traveling by public transport .
if you buy the stereo headset , you will enjoy it much more .
the pc sync feature is superb that comes with nokia pc suite software ( with data cable or infrared port or bluetooth ) .
no more hazzles of keying in all data , using the small phone keypad .
just maintain them ( phonebook , calendar and to-do list ) in ms outlook or lotus notes and transfer data back and forth .
additionally , it has more fun stuff like more tones , wallpapers , screensaver , stop clock , alarm , java applications ( chess , currency converter etc .
the mobile text messaging , chat , picture sharing etc .
other nicities , that you would enjoy .
the mms technology is very well integrated with this phone , which you will enjoy .
the built-in camera they offer these days is more of kids stuff .
if you have a good digital camera , there is no reason to consider the camera capabilities of a mobile phone .
however , if you are keen , you can attach a camera to this phone .
i have not yet discovered the internet features yet , which i will be doing soon .
i felt that i should write this comment asap , as i am quite excited in using its features .
i can recommend this phone to anyone , anytime .
 awesome phone choice .
after using the bulky 3650 for three weeks , i searched for a smaller alternative . 
i was immediately interested in the 6610 .
i have used this phone for two months now .
not only is it the perfect size ( not too small , not too large ) , it also has all the features a high-tech phone user would want .
if you can live without an integrated camera , you wo n't miss much more .
<cs-2>
in true nokia style , the phone is simple to use and despite its delicate appearance , this little guy is as durable as other nokias i have owned . 
</cs-2>
1_the phone 2_other nokias 3_durable (as other)
the phone book is very user-friendly and the speakerphone is excellent .
even better , with the optional headset you can listen to music over the integrated radio .
if there are any drawbacks to this phone here they are .
although i find it more convenient to use 1-touch dialing , this phone does not have voice dialing .
the keypad is a decent size , but the power on/off key is small and difficult to press .
however , the battery life is good enough you should n't be overly concerned with turning this phone off .
in my opinion the worst issue on this phone is the side-mounted volume control .
it requires significant force to operate which can be scary on such a small phone .
one other issue is that the headphone jack is unique to nokia , so standard headphones will not work .
<cs-3>
overall this is the best phone i have ever owned . 
</cs-3>
1_this 3_phone (best)
any disadvantages are easily outweighed by its advantages .
nokia does not disappoint in this model .
go for it !
 awesome phone , great prices on amazon.com .
i could n't be happier with t-mobile either , i switched from cingular .
one complaint ...
the screen is too easily scratched !
but there are faceplates to replace it i guess ...
almost there .
i got this phone in t-mobile 's current customer retention program for very little money and no contract renewal .
i was getting so sick of my old motorola l7089 , but was waiting for the right phone to come along .
this is almost it but not quite but the price was right .
<cs-1>
that said this phone does what it does extremely well - way better than anything motorola can produce .
</cs-1>
 1_phone 2_motorola 3_produce (better)
it has great battery life , fm radio , excellent signal , hands free speakerphone ( which i have to say is probably my favorite function ) and downloadable java apps .
what it lacks for me is n't available on one phone yet , namely gsm850 ( also sometimes known as gsm800 ) , bluetooth and edge .
so when the quad bands start appearing i will be upgrading again .
but for now this will do .
oh and before anyone comments yes i know motorola have announced a quad band edge bluetooth phone , but its not shipping at time of writing and the tri-band gsm850 phones lack the gsm900 band which is important if you like me globally roam .
great phone ..
great features ..
 great plan .
i purchased this phone after having been an at & # 38 ; t subscriber with a nokia 8260 phone for over three years . 
i did a ton of research and settled on this phone because of the small size , speakerphone option , great priced calling plan and access to my corporate email .
i went to an at & # 38 ; t store before i bought this phone to see if it was possible to get corporate email with any of their services and they looked at me like i had three heads .
they told me i would have to connect to my laptop , which had to be on and connected to my corporate network through the phone in order to access my corporate email .
with the t-mobile unlimited t-zones for $ 10 , i can check any number of email addresses and use unlimited internet .
i have had no problems with the phone .
friends of mine are always asking about it and wanting to use it .
i 've even had one friend buy one immediately after a test drive . 
great phone , i 'd buy another .
 excellent phone .
<cs-1>
excellent phone , the phone looks much better than what u see in the pictures . 
</cs-1>
 1_phone looks 2_pictures (better)
<cs-1>
bluetooth functionality would have made the phone even better . 
</cs-1>
1_phone  (better)
one more thing , the default ringtones that come with the phone are horrible .
overall an excellent phone .
the service from t-mobile is very good too .
in all a winning combination .
worth every penny !
great phone , easy to use , excellent network , no regrets ! ! !
 yo what a find .
i purchased this phone for just 50 $ and there is no end to what i can do with it .
nokia and t-mobile really teamed up well on this baby .
it puts an end to organizational deficiencies as well as communications and internet , without a bulky phone like the treo or something , which i had to cell because i was so unhappy with it .
now my little 6610 is the most coveted item at school ! 
people have paid me money just to borrow it because its so elegant .
service is great as far as i can tell , features work like a charm , ringtones are high quality if you buy them from t-mobile and aim is great .
now i can always be in contact .
this is probably your best bet if you are looking for a phone in this price range , or like me , do not have the patience to deal with annoying flip phones .
a great deal in general !
i would not give up this phone for the world .
1 month , no problems , great phone i 'm very pleased with my 6610 phone .
yes , the features are numerous .
<cs-1>
the speakerphone works better than any speakerphone i 've ever had . 
</cs-1>
 1_speakerphone 3_works 2_speakerphone (better)
people i talk to on the speakerphone are shocked when it comes out at times that i 'm even using a speakerphone .
the sound quality is excellent , except , maybe a * tad * too quiet at times when there are quieter talkers on the other end of the line . 
the included earpiece is very comfortable and easy to use .
i have not had any distortion problems with this phone and am more pleased with this phone than any i 've used before .
nokia has definitely won me over with this one . 
 best phone out there ...
a+ not only is this the best phone out there but is cheap ( free ! ! ) .
<cs-1>
first let me say that it is much smaller than it looks on the web and it also looks better . 
</cs-1>
1_it 3_looks (smaller)
the radio feature has superb sound quality .
<cs-4>
i 've compared this phone to others such as 6100 , siemens sl55 . 
</cs-4>
<cs-1>
even though they might be smaller many people seem to have alot of problems with them . 
</cs-1>
1_they (smaller)
it has a classic design yet looks hip .
is a lot better compared to the toy phone design of the nokia 7210 with its cheap feel .
it is extremely light and dissapears in your pocket .
for those that are looking for camera phones just get the camera attachement and comes with the stereo headphones to listen to the radio in style .
<cs-1>
the battery is alot better than most of the phones out there . 
</cs-1>
2_phones 3_battery (better)
one thing that i found out recently is that you do n't need t-zones from tmobile to go online .
every t-mobile plan comes with gsm data , meaning that instead of speeds of 56 kbps is around 9 kbps ( with those small size wap websites do you really think it makes a difference ) .
anyways there are ways to set up your 6610 to connect to csd which uses regular minutes and you are surfing the net , being able to download pics and ringtones ( not java apps , you need t-zones for that ) .
<cs-3><cs-3>
tmobiles might not have the best reception in some areas but with amazing phones such as nokia 6610 and cheap plans that you get way more minutes than any other plans . 
</cs-3></cs-3>
1_tmoviles 3_reception (best)
1_tmoviles 3_plans (more)
if you thought about getting this phone buy it .
<cs-2>
this phone is great as a whole and is not like others with one or two good qualities . 
</cs-2>
1_this phone 2_others (like)
 6610 = great phone and a few extras i am a person that needs my phone ( s ) on demand .
i currrently have service with t-mobile , verizon , and t-mobile .
<cs-2>
the reason so many is that i am a contractor and all of my subs have these carriers and i can benifit from the mobile to mobile features that companies are now offering ! 
</cs-2>
1_all of my subs (all)
that beside you are prob .
very well aware of many of the features that this phone is known for , and one that has not yet been mentioned : using this phone as a modem for any computer with a usb 1.0 port !
using the gprs option you can pay 19.99 extra a month and have unlimited internet access added to you account . 
yes it is 56k speed , but the functionality is what you are paying for .
i myself find this great for when i am at a site i can run to my truck and hook up my modem cable ( 49.99 @ nokiausa.com or t-mobile.com ) press dial up on my laptop ( by the way it is a mac pb 1gz .
and in a matter of seconds i can access my email , fax , and the entire web from my truck !
the only problem that i have found with the internet service is that it does not access mls ( real estate broker software ) very well at all .
i find a great amount of value in this option for any and all the people that travel buy car and do not have access to the t-mobile `` hot-spots `` .
it does well in all aspects of internet browsing . 
as i also leave you with this review i would like to thank you for reading it .
 sound good but complicated .
do too many stuffs to get to a free phone after rebate . 
also , if i want a family plan , which mean i need tw phones on a plan ..
so how can i do that ...
are n't that free for two after the rebates .
and how can i do that ...
print those coupons twice for two phones ?
...
 do n't have the phone just commenting .
i saw another review saying his only gripe was a lack of voice dialing .
the phone does have voice dialing according to amazon & t-mobile and nokia .
<cs-1>
the phone may look large but it is very small smaller then the 3390 phone . 
</cs-1>
1_the phone 2_3390 phone  (smaller)
my sister has this series of phone and she loves the radio and headset .
i find the lack of entertaining games on this phone quite disturbing .
i do n't really like bounce . 
i have always known nokia to provide me with good games on their phones .
battery life is good for a phone of this size .
but anyway , the only thing you should really look at here is the fact that the phone does have voice dialing . 
great screen and great sound .
ok , everybody loves the fm radio in this , but you want a cell phone first , right ? 
the 6610 excels as a cell phone , thank god .
the voice quality is very good , and it gets great reception ( that is , in places where you get t-mobile coverage , which is not that good ; see below ) .
the color screen makes this free-after-rebates phone shine bright , and commands are very responsive .
my only gripe about the hardware is the buttons . 
nokia seems on a campaign to revamp the phone keypad , which imho is totally unnecessary .
this model does have the traditional key arrangement , it 's just that they are really close to one another , and have unconventional shapes , so it takes a big getting used to for someone like me with big hands . 
( to be fair , the same can be said about many korean imports , and the nokia 's build quality is light years ahead of the koreans . 
other than that , this is a perfect phone for those of us with no patience for flips .
finally , i reiterate my thumbs-down rating for t-mobile as a carrier .
their network coverage is very sporadic , and the network always seems overloaded , resulting in very unpleasant calling experience .
if you can get this phone for cingular or at & t , go with the other carriers .
 great phone , great service , no voice dialing .
the nokia 6610 is a relatively new phone , and what a great phone it is .
when i first saw the 6610 , i thought it was too small . 
after using it , i found the size to be perfect for carrying in a pocket .
it is just a tad small to hold to your ear with your shoulder , but that is solved with the very comfortable handsfree ear-piece which is included .
the ear-piece has a button that answers and hangs-up the phone so you do not have to mess with the phone at all , unless dialing a number . 
<cs-4>
unfortunately , the 6610 does not offer voice dialing like my previous phone , but the other features it packs outweighs this shortcoming . 
</cs-4>
when i turned the phone on , the first thing that hit me is how good the screen is .
the resolution is very good and the colors are bright and even changeable !
the phone has several color schemes you can choose from . 
i like the default blue .
you can also set a background wallpaper .
the ringtones included are awesome , and did i mention they were polyphonic ?
no more annoying series of beeps .
this phone plays up to 4 tones at one time and it actually sounds like music .
you can also assign special rings and graphics to special people when they call .
the massive phonebook can hold 300 entries , with multiple phone number per entry , so you can program your boss 's home , work and cellphone numbers all under one contact .
the phone also sports an image gallery ( with option camera attachment ) , a calendar / organizer , alarm clock with snooze , fm radio ( way cool , even if it is just through an ear-peice ) , games , java applications and gprs high-speed internet connection .
the gprs connection is sometimes slow , and writing instant messages with the included aol instant messenger software is a pain , but the other t-zones applications are quite useful .
you can get weather , movies , horoscopes and more with a few clicks .
the service deafults to showing the information associated with your billing zip code , but you can change the default and seach other areas while on the go .
one downside : as of this writing , t-mobile has n't updated their t-zone system to fully support the 6610 .
their website does not show it as a compatible phone , and should i try to access the game downloads on t-zones the system returns an error message saying my phone is not supported .
i have been assured this will be fixed soon .
now , for the t-mobile service :
i can not say enough good things about the people who answer the phones .
if you have a question , they have the answer .
and should they not know it , they can find it out pretty quick .
every phone experience has started with a very brief time on hold followed by a cheerful representative answering the phone .
all my questions or problems have been quickly and satisfactorily resolved .
i 'd like to see my old carrier do that !
the rate plans are also very good , at least for me .
different people have different needs , of course , but the t-mobile plans are priced very well for the minutes and services you receive . 
the phone would have received 5 stars if the phone had voice dialing and the game downloads from t-zones worked .
this phone is highly recommended otherwise .
 t-mobile ruins an otherwise good phone .
nokia makes a great phone , that 's clear .
with all its complicated features , the menus are easily accessible and the quality of the features is great .
the one huge disappointment is that the phones manufactured for t-mobile lack many of the menus and functions that a nokia straight from the manufacturer should have .
one of the things t-mobile brags about is the fact that it 's a `` worldphone `` and can be used in europe , etc .
yet they 've gotten rid of most of the languages that should be in the phone , including italian , german , and dutch . 
the internet functions of the phone - wap and gprs - will only work through t-mobile 's services , because they have deleted the menu options that would enable you to configure the phone to be used on a different network .
therefore , if you wanted to travel abroad and pop in a local sim card , even if you unlock the phone , there is no way you can use the local wap browser or internet .
after spending hours being transferred from one tech help person to another , i got fed up and have decided to return the phone .
bottom line , if you 're attracted to this phone because of its tri-band feature so you can take it abroad , forget it .
find another phone , or buy this one in its manufacturer-unlocked form .
 a good phone .
this phone is good with a huge array of features built into it .
i purchased the phone last week and have been using till then . 
i did n't had any problem till now .
the design is sleek and the color screen has good resolution .
it is very light weight and has a good signal strength .
however , the main problem that i think is the with the sound quality .
it is not as good as the samsung phones that i have used earlier .
when talking the voice is not very clear .
but , i would definately recommend this phone .
go for it ...
 people with bad audio quality have defective phones .
i have read a lot of the reviews and my phone does not have a hiss or anything that people are talking about .
it is crystal clear .
this is one of the nicest phones nokia has made .
i do recommend getting the data kit for those geeks .
there are a lot of cool websites with games and midi ringtones to download for free .
*******************************************************************
Browser spped omparisons summary
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
******************************************************************
<cs-3>
o overall , Opera seems to be the fastest browser for windows . 
</cs-3> (fastest)
1_Opera 3_browser for windows
<cs-1>
Firefox is not faster than Internet Explorer , except for scripting , but for standards support , security and features , it is a better choice . 
</cs-1>
 1_Firefox 3_choice 2_Internet Explorer 1_it (faster)
However , it is still not as fast as Opera , and Opera also offers a high level of standards support , security and features .
<cs-1><cs-3>
On Linux , Konqueror is the fastest for starting and viewing basic pages on KDE , but as soon as script or images are involved , or you want to use the back or forward buttons , or if you use Gnome , Opera is a faster choice , even though on KDE it will take a few seconds longer to start . 
</cs-1></cs-3>
 2_Konqueror 1_Opera _3choice 1_it 3_seconds (faster)
1_Konqueror 3_starting and viewing basic pages (fastest)
<cs-4>
Mozilla and Firefox give an overall good performance , but their script , cache handling and image-based page speed still can not compare with Opera . 
</cs-4>
<cs-1><cs-1><cs-2>
On Mac OS X , Opera and Safari are both very fast , with Safari 2 being faster at starting and rendering CSS , but with Opera still being distinguishably faster for rendering tables , scripting and history ( especially compared with the much slower Safari 1.2 ) . 
</cs-1></cs-1></cs-2>
1_Safari 2 2_Opera 3_starting and rendering CSS (faster)
1_Opera 2_Safari 2_Safari 1.2 3_rendering tables , scripting and history (faster)
1_Opera 1_Safari 3_fast (both)
Camino is fast to start , but then it joins its sisters Mozilla and Firefox further down the list .
<cs-1><cs-2>
Neither Mozilla , Firefox nor IE perform very well on Mac , being generally slower than on other operating systems . 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_Mac 2_other operating systems 3_Mozilla , Firefox nor IE perform (slower)
1_Mozilla 1_Firefox 1_IE 3_perform on Mac (Neither)
On Mac OS 9 , no single browser stands out as the fastest .
<cs-2>
In fact , my condolences to anyone who has to use one of them , they all perform badly . 
</cs-2>
1_they all 3_perform (all)
*************************************************************
Reviews comparing pros and cons of two processors Intel and AMD
http://www.epinions.com/cmhd_Peripherals-Processors-Topics-2
*************************************************************
<cs-4>
Athlon vs Pentium III Coppermine - An Overclockers Perspective
</cs-4>
Apr 08 '00
Among hardware tweakers , nothing is sure to draw more religious zeal than the issue of choice of processor . 
At the top end of the product spectrum , AMD has their Athlon processor .
This processor is pitted against Intels ' Pentium III Coppermine processor .
In this review , I will attempt to be as impartial as possible , although it must be stated that this review is being typed on a Pentium III 650 running at 890 MHz ( www.geocities.com/steve+larrison/PIII891.jpg )
Processor Core
<cs-1>
AMD wins out over Intel here . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 2_Intel (win)
The Athlon core is a 7th generation processor based on a design just released in September 99 .
Whereas the core processor of the Pentium III Coppermine is a distant cousin to the 6th generation processors Intel has been producing since the days of the Pentium Pro .
While it is truly incredible how far Intel has taken this design , the core of the Athlon is designed to get around traditional weakspots , and actually outperforms the Intel product .
AMD has advantages over Intel in the area of L1 cache ( 128KB for the Athlon vs 32KB for the Pentium III ) , and superior FPU .
FPU was traditionally a weekpoint for AMD .
They have made remarkable improvements in this area .
L2 Cache
<cs-1>
Although the Athlon has more L2 cache then the Coppermine , the L2 cache is what allows the Coppermine to not only be competitive with the Athlon at higher clock speeds , but to actually exceed the preformance of the Athlon at higher clockspeeds . 
</cs-1>
1_Athlon 2_Coppermine 3_L2 cache (more)
1_Coppermine 2_Athlon 3_performance
The weakness of the Athlon is L2 cache .
<cs-4>
The L2 cache in the slower Athlons ( 500 , 550 , 600 , 650 , 700 Mhz ) runs at half clock speed ( 250 , 275 , 300 , 325 , 350 MHz ) , the faster Athlons ( 750 , 800 , 850 ) run at 40 % of clock speed , Athlons faster than 900 MHz run have L2 cache that runs at 1/3 clock speed . 
</cs-4>
<cs-2>
Whereas the Pentium III Coppermine has 256KB of L2 cache that runs at the same speed as the processor . 
</cs-2> 
1_56KB of L2 cache 2_processor 3_speed (same)
In addition to speed differences , the Coppermine has a 256 bit datapath to the processor core while the Athlon only has a 64 bit path to the core .
How much of a difference does this make ? Well , at the same clock speed , an Athlon will outperform a Pentium III Coppermine processor at all speeds slower than 700 MHz in most benchmarks .
<cs-1>
However , at speeds greater than 700MHz , the Coppermine will outperform the Athlon . 
</cs-1>
1_Coppermine 2_Athlon (outperform)
Overclockability
The Atlhon has the advantage of having the clock multiplier tweaked as opposed to only bus speed overclocking . 
As it turns out , this is very fortunate .
All reports on Athlon overclocking show that the processor does n't like to run stable if the bus speed is more than 10 % over spec .
( As opposed to Coppermines running anywhere from 33 % to 66 % over spec bus speed ) .
Pentium III overclocking is done via traditional bus speed overclocking .
For the original stepping of Coppermines , top clock speeds tend to be in the range of 800 to 900MHz regardless of original clock speed .
( Assuming good component selection of course ) Therefore , total overclockability is a tossup in my opinion .
Ease of Overclocking
No question here .
<cs-1>
The Pentium III wins hands down .
</cs-1>
1_Pentium III (wins)
You can overclock without having to resort to removing the original case ( and voiding the warranty ) , while the only problem with overclocking an Athlon is related to case removal .
<cs-2>
The Athlon processor case is similar to the original Pentium II cases . 
</cs-2>
1_Athlon processor case 2_Pentium II cases (similar)
The removal method involves screw drivers and prying . 
Therefore , it is possible to accidently destroy your processor removing the case .
And of course this would be void the warranty .
Once the case is removed , `` Gold Fingers '' devices work well to choose your clock multiplier .
Note : Even if you own a Pentium III , I recommend that you remove the case .
Removing the case will allow you to acheive higher overclocked speeds because a major heat trap can be eliminated at the same time a better cooling source ( Alpha Cooler ) is provided . 
The `` Case Screw '' method described in the Epinion I wrote on overclocking my Pentium III 650 to 890 is very simple and does not carry the risk of destroying your processor .
Price
There is no question here , the Athlon offers an incredible value for the horsepower , although Pentium III 's are certainly affordable as well .
Overall
Personally , I prefer the Pentium III to the Athlon .
<cs-1>
At the speeds I run at , it offers better performance , however the Athlon is a very nice processor , and should you deside to go that route , I am sure you wo n't be disappointed . 
</cs-1>
1_it  (better)
<cs-4>
K6-2 vs K6-3 : A Toss-Up 
</cs-4>
Mar 13 '00 ( Updated Nov 13 '00 )
Much has been written on the difference between the K6-2 and K6-3 , with one of the most common suggestions being that `` a K6-3 provides about 100 mhz of real world performance over a K6-2 at the same clock speed , '' ( i.e .
K6-3 400 = K6-2 500 , K6-3 450 = K6-2 550 ) since the K6-3 has 256 of full-speed on-die L2 cache , while the K6-2 does not .
However , the performance benefits of high-speed on-die cache are really not so clear-cut .
Cache generally provides a big boost for regular Windows applications ( web browsing , MS Office , etc ) , while an increase in MHZ is more helpful with heavily CPU-intensive tasks ( ex .
rendering , CAD , playing 3D games with complex environments ) .
Of course , even this is a slight oversimplification , since OpenGL apps ( ex .
Quake series , Tribes ) are heavily cache-intensive as well as floating-point intensive , whereas Direct3D and Glide apps tend to rely less on cache .
<cs-1>
If you compare K6-3 's to their `` comparable '' K6-2 's , the K6-3 's are still a good deal more expensive . 
</cs-1>
1_K6-3 2_K6-2 3_expensive (more)
<cs-4>
A quick check on Pricewatch shows : $ 65 for K6-3 400 vs $ 45 for K6-2 500 , and $ 186 for K6-3 450 vs $ 101 for K6-2 550 . 
</cs-4>
Of course , the discontinuation ( and rarity ) of K6-3 's is a big reason their prices have remained high , while K6-2 prices have dropped significantly .
The K6-3 is still a great deal for an excellent CPU , especially if paired with a motherboard that has 1 meg or more of L2 cache , and I would recommend it to anyone wanting great speed in Windows and OpenGL apps without breaking the bank . 
<cs-1>
The K6-2 , however , is significantly cheaper at comparable clock speeds , and only the K6-2 is available at 550 mhz ( which , word has it , will be the final K6-2 released ) . 
</cs-1>
 1_K6-2 (cheaper)
<cs-1>
K6-2 's are also significantly easier to overclock , since the K6-3 's on-die cache must overclock along with the CPU , whereas the K6-2 's off-die cache stays at a constant speed ( bus speed , usually 100 mhz ) regardless of how fast the CPU is running . 
</cs-1>
 1_K6-2 3_overclock 2_K6-3 (easier)
Of course , the floating point performance of the K6-X line is only comparable to competing Intel chips when running apps that utilize 3DNOW ! .
And which apps are these ? Unfortunately , it 's not just a matter of if an app USES it or not , but the EXTENT to which it is used .
Some apps use 3DNOW ! extensively ( ex .
Quake II , where performance can SMOKE a PII ) , and some use it only at the driver level and not in the app itself ( ex .
Half-Life , which has no 3DNOW ! support in the game itself , and so the performance sucks ) .
Other apps , Unreal Tournament for instance , use 3DNOW ! to some extent , providing some performance boost but nothing extraordinary ( for a full list of apps specifically optimized for 3DNOW ! , check AMD 's site : http : //www1.amd.com/products/cpg/3dnow/optimized/
Another AMD option entirely , of course , is the upcoming `` Spitfire '' ( rumored to be called the `` Alereon '' ) which is like a cheap version of the Athlon .
<cs-2>
According to various sources the performance should be similar to Athlons but it will have only 128k of cache . 
</cs-2>
2_Athlons 3_performance (similar)
Of course , the most intriguing thing about Spitfire is that is will supposedly be priced similarly to the already bargain-basement K6-2 ! ( with FAR superior performance )
If the rumors are true , Spitfire/Alereon sounds like THE chip to get if you can wait a few more months .
<cs-2>
Of course , if you 're set on a socket 7 solution and you want it immediately , both the K6-2 and K6-3 are good bargains for the price . 
</cs-2>
1_K6-2 1_K6-3 3_good bargains (both)
UPDATE : The CPU Spitfire/Alereon has actually turned out to be the Duron , which is available in Socket-A format with 128k of L1 and 64k of L2 cache .
<cs-1>
And it is indeed a far more viable option than the K6 series , since they are priced similarly , but when it comes to performance there 's practically no comparison . 
</cs-1>
1_it 2_K6 series  (more)
For more details see my article on Buying a Computer For $ 1500-2000 , and be watching for my upcoming Duron review which will explain why the Duron is the most cost-effective CPU currently available . Build-your-own PCs : Intel-AMD
Aug 30 '01
<cs-1>
The Bottom Line For the regular users out there , I CAN say that AMD has an advantage , over an identical Intel P4 .
</cs-1>
1_AMD 2_Intel P4 (advantage)
<cs-1>
Having built both Intel P4 1.7Ghz and AMD Athlon 1.4Ghz PCs , I can say that pound for pound , the advantage goes to AMD .
</cs-1>
1_AMD Athlon 1.4Ghz 2_Intel P4 1.7Ghz (advantage)
While I wo n't argue the theoretical differences between architectures , instruction sets , and potential software leveraging of processors , I can speak to regular people , who use regular PCs , and also the game types , who like the extra kick of performance .
For regular use ( office-type software ) , users from teachers to students have seen and told me that systems I 've built are far better overall for the AMD camp . 
This was when using identical video , disk drives , controllers ( PCI ) , and the same amount of RAM ( AMD-PC memory ; Intel-Rambus ) .
<cs-1>
For gamer types , who wanted extra performance , again the AMD seemed to be favored by users , not engineers or marketing types , but by regular people .
</cs-1>
1_AMD (favored)
<cs-1>
From a cost perspective , yes the AMD offered cheaper memory , and cheaper component costs ( CPU , motherboard ) , which did n't affect the overall performance significantly . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 3_memory 3_component costs (cheaper)
However , for the gamer types , the AMD does have some hidden tricks .
If coupled with configurable motherboards ( Epox , FIC or iWill ) , you CAN do some amazing things .
<cs-1>
For example , you can match an AMD 1.4Ghz CPU with PC150-C2 memory , which allows you to run the clock speed much faster , and cut down an entire cycle of memory refresh without affecting stability . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 1.4Ghz CPU with PC150-C2 memory 3_clock speed (faster)
This has been confirmed by users running Win 98 , NT , and 2000 .
<cs-1>
By cutting down on memory wait time , and upping clock speed , the AMD seemed MUCH faster than the 1.4Ghz speed . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 2_1.4Ghz speed (faster)
Note that standard memory is PC-100 or PC-133 , both at C3 speeds .
<cs-1>
PC-150-C2 is faster in two ways ; transfer synch speed , and refresh cycles . 
</cs-1>
1_PC-150-C2 3_transfer synch speed 3_refresh cycles (faster)
Note also that , especially when building your own PC , MOST of the PC 's unstable nature is due to bad memory .
Make sure you use the very best you can afford ... 
<cs-3>
`` Corsair '' is the very best you can buy . 
</cs-3>
1_Corsair 3_buy (best)
Other issues are power ...
Intel 's P4 requires significant power connections ( 3 dedicated ) , which , while based on sound design , does tap the Power Source pretty heavily .
<cs-1>
Measured voltage was lower on P4 systems than on AMD Athlons .
</cs-1>
1_P4 systems 2_AMD Athlons 3_Measured voltage (lower)
I have counted 6-8 PCs now , in various configuations , and have concluded by the user base that so far , AMD is a winner .
Intel VS .
AMD which should YOU choose ?
Jun 28 '00
Choosing a processor can be a very difficult decision .
<cs-1>
Should I get the AMD Athlon ? Is the Intel Celeron a good choice ? Is the Pentium III the processor that I should get ? Well each of those are valid questions . 
</cs-1>
But which Processor is best for you ? (good choice)
Well that is a question that only you can answer .
Coming to a determination for yourself is not so simple .
So what questions do you need to ask yourself ?
Well here is what I use to determine which Processor that I will put into my PC each time I build a new machine .
First what is the primary use of this machine ?
<cs-3>
For the gamers the Intel celeron is the best processor . 
</cs-3>
1_Intel celeron 3_gamers (best)
This is due to the lack of level 2 cache .
Video and video ram is most important to the gamer .
<cs-1>
If you are using strictly using business applications then the AMD Athlon is an excellent choice . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD Athlon 3_business applications (excellent choice)
The more ram the better with these machines and Win NT is a great OS for business applications .
If your doing some games and business applications a decent amount of graphics and an excellent server processor then I like the Pentium III processor .
The more ram the better and also the more video ram the better here too .
This processor like the drafting programs and other processor intensive programs .
Although all of the above processor will work in each other place they each function better in different roles . 
second consideration is price .
The Intel Celeron processor is the least expensive of the Intel line of processors .
a Celeron can be obtained for about $ 100 plus depending upon the speed .
The AMD Athlon is a well priced Processor .
The AMD processor family starts at under $ 100 and then goes up from there depending on the speed to upwards of over $ 600 .
<cs-1>
The Intel Pentium III is a bit pricier processor starting around $ 250 to over $ 800 depending upon processor speed . 
</cs-1>
1_Intel Pentium III (pricier)
Price although an important consideration is not that last consideration that I use for a final decision . 
Third processor reliability .
The Intel celeron is a very reliable processor .
I have had never had to return a celeron processor but I do now that they do occasionally die .
<cs-2>
The AMD processors are not as reliable as the Intel processors . 
</cs-2>
1_AMD processors 2_Intel processors 3_reliable (as reliable as)
<cs-1>
for every 1 Intel processor I have had three AMD processor die and I support 10 Intel processors for every 1 AMD processor .
</cs-1>
1_AMD processor 2_Intel processors ()
This is still a very low failure rate .
Failure rate is still under 1 percent .
The Intel Pentium III processor is a very reliable processor with a failure rate that is second to none .
Fourth is what motherboard do you want to use ? Not every motherboard can take take all three different types of CPU 's .
The choice of a motherboard requires some research . 
I personally like tyan , Gigabyte , AOpen , and Abit .
Each of these manufacturers of motherboard build boards that will take the processor you choose and each have different capabilities although they are very similar . 
The motherboard choice can have an effect on which processor you can use . 
Motherboards can run from about $ 50 to over $ 400 depending upon what is included on the motherboard .
Lastly do you want to build your own machine or get one that is already built .
If you want to build your own system then the info above is a great start for you .
If you are looking for a pre-configured machine then you have a lot of manufacturers that can build a machine with what you need and can meet almost any budget .
manufacturers like dell and Gateway will even lease machines for the everyday user .
Once you have put all of that into perspective you can make the best choice for your needs .
weighing your needs will help you get to the CPU that will best serve your needs and give you the reliability that will serve your needs . 
So what Do I use ?
<cs-2>
well I have both Intel and AMD processors in my home .
</cs-2>
1_Intel 2_AMD processors 3_in my home (both)
My high end machine is an Intel pentium III , my mid level business machine is an AMD and my last machine is just an old pentium and is not used for much right now .
I used the above guidelines when I choose the CPU 's for each of my machines . Alternatives to Intel and AMD ! ( x86 )
Jun 03 '01
The Bottom Line Tired of Intel 's high prices and sick of your 4in1 Driver problems on your AMD Athlon rig ? Try Transmeta or VIA .
Ha ha ha !
This article is strictly about x86 alternatives . 
Be aware that the Apple ( powerPC platform ) is a non x86 alternative .
<cs-2>
Over the course of the past few months , you 've probably read various complaints against both Intel and AMD x86 platforms . 
</cs-2>
1_Intel 2_AMD x86 3_complaints (both)
Among the common charges are these :
1 ) Intel CPUs are too expensive
2 ) Intel CPUs do n't perform as well on older applications 
3 ) AMD CPUs still run too hot
4 ) AMD has terrible chipset support ( this is VIA Technologies ' fault ) .
Although this picture is changing with free falling Pentium 4 prices , impending release of new Pentium 3 and 4 processors based on improved manufacturing , the release of the cooler running Athlon 4 from AMD , and nVidia 's announcement of a new Athlon chipset , some of you are doubtlessly still annoyed at all your computer problems and want to stick it to BOTH companies .
Most people are unawares of competitors to chip giants Intel and AMD .
These competitors are the Transmeta Corporation and VIA Technologies ( yes , the same people who made Athlon chipsets that annoyed many of us ) .
Transmeta offers an innovative processor named Crusoe , while VIA Technologies , owner of the defunct Cyrix name , produces the C3 processor .
Transmeta 's CPU , the Crusoe , is unique in that it is not really an x86 processor .
The Crusoe uses a special form of x86 emulation nicknamed 'Code Morphing. ' Code morphing takes the x86 instructions in an application and translates them into the native instruction set of the Crusoe , however , these translated instructions are stored back in the cache memory of the Crusoe so the chip does not have to keep translating the instructions over and over again . 
Thus , the Crusoe will run an application slowly the first time it is accessed , and more quickly with each run ( up to a certain limit ) .
The advantage of the Transmeta Crusoe is its low power consumption .
<cs-1>
On average , the Crusoe consumes far less power than a Pentium III and almost nothing compared to AMD Athlon . 
</cs-1>
1_Crusoe 2_Pentium III 2_AMD Athlon (less)
<cs-1><cs-2>
However , the processor is a bit slower than Pentium III or Athlon , with a 700 MHz TM5400 Crusoe performing on par with a 500 MHz Pentium III . 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_processor 2_Pentium III 2_Athlon (slower)
1_700 MHz TM5400 Crusoe 2_500 MHz Pentium III 3_performing (on par with)
<cs-1>
The TM5600 , an improved Crusoe , should perform somewhat better . 
</cs-1>
1_TM5600 3_perform (better)
The Crusoe will only be found in small notebook computers , but its innovative technology should give it a leg up against AMD and Intel .
Another possible alternative to AMD and Intel processors is the VIA C3 processor .
The C3 ( also known as the Cyrix 3 in past months ) runs at speeds up to 750 MHz and performs on par with the Intel Celeron in business applications .
Unfortunately , the C3 has an extremely weak floating-point unit , rendering it useless for heavy games and scientific applications .
<cs-1><cs-2>
Like the Crusoe , the C3 consumes less power than AMD or Intel chips , but does not have stellar performance . 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_C3 2_AMD 2_Intel 3_power (less)
1_C3 2_Crusoe 3_less power (like)
<cs-1>
The AMD Duron , costing only slightly more than the C3 , crushes the C3 to dust in every category . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD Duron 2_C3 3_costing (more)
Conclusion :
The Transmeta Crusoe TM5400 series processor performs well enough for its target market ( ultra portable notebooks ) .
Transmeta has shown itself to be an innovative company , and I expect that their products will continue to gain market share .
VIA 's C3 , on the other hand , costs only a fraction less than AMD 's Duron processor , making it a foolhardy choice for most people .
So if you want to give a big THUMBS DOWN to BOTH AMD and Intel , try one of these alternatives ! ( Or you could buy a Mac ) .
Face it folks , the Celeron is DEAD , and the Duron will dominate the market
Jun 29 '00
AMD 's newest processor , the Duron , is one of the best processors to hit the market in a long time .
Aimed to take the value market from Intel 's Celeron , the Duron is poised to turn the processor on its head .
If you thought that `` value '' = poor performance , then you need to take a look at the Duron .
<cs-3>
Just because the Duron is not the top-of-the-line model from perenial second fiddle AMD , does not mean that it is not up to par . 
</cs-3>
1_Duron 3_model (top-of-line)
In fact if you look closely this chip is one of the most advanced on the market , far ahead of its competition , the lowly Celeron .
Now , I have had a Celeron grudge form the beginning when it was first released basically in order to increase Intel 's profit margin by generating more market share .
The Celerons are fundamentally underpowered and underperforming .
Most consumers only look at one thing , the MHZ . 
Well maybe two things , the MHZ and the company that produces the chip .
<cs-1>
While it is true that AMD did not make very good products until they came out with the Athlon and subsequently topped Intel in performance both in MHZ and in benchmark tests . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 2_Intel 3_performance (topped)
<cs-3>
The Duron is the best design that AMD has ever come up with . 
</cs-3>
1_Duron 3_design (best)
<cs-2>
With .18 micron technology at the core of this chip , and on-die cache like it 's cousin the Thunderbird , it is a force to be recconned with . 
</cs-2>
1_it 2_Thunderbird 3_on-die cache (like)
The L2 cache is only 64 KB on the Duron compared to the T-Bird which has 256 , but this by no means that it is a poor performer .
<cs-4>
The L2 cache is an `` exclusive '' cache where the L1 cache is not duplicated in the L2 cache like it is in the Celeron or Pentium III . 
</cs-4>
This leaves extra room to fill up the rest of the L2 cache .
<cs-1>
In addition , the L1 cache is four times as large in the Duron and T-Bird as it is in the Intel products meaning that the Duron still has more cache than the Celeron . 
</cs-1>
1_Duron 1_T-Bird 2_Celeron 3_cache (four times as large)
Coming in with a MHZ range from 600-700 and having over 25 million transistors , this chip is very advanced in its design .
<cs-1>
The low ( as compared to the T-Bird or PIII ) MHZ setting means that it is a perfect chip to try your operclocking abilities on . 
</cs-1>
1_it 2_T_Bird 2_PIII (low as compared to)
I have heard of people getting this chip upwards of 950 MHZ , not too shabby huh ? There has been some speculation as to why AMD is keeping the standard clock speed so low , yet personally I believe that the Duron has the ability to go much faster , but AMD does n't want it to overlap with the Thunderbird .
<cs-4>
The Duron uses a 200 MHZ Front-side bus compared to the Celeron 's 66 MHZ FSB .
</cs-4>
<cs-1><cs-3>
It will also be one of the first chips to use the new DDR RDRAM , ( Double-Data-Rate ) which is effectively twice as fast as the standard RAM being used in nearly all PCs .
</cs-1></cs-3>
1_It 2_all PCs 3_as fast as (twice as fast)
1_It 3_use new DDR RDRAM (first)
Being a Socket A processor , you will need to purchase a new motherboard with this chip .
As of right now there is only a handful of chipsets for the Duron , all of which are still in their infancy and needs some work to say the least .
The Thunderbird is also a Socket-A chip and their motherboards are interchangable .
The primary competition of the Duron is the Celeron 2 which simply can not compete without a faster Front-Side bus .
Put simply , the Duron tops the Celeron in every way , even when the Celeron is overclocked as high as it can go .
<cs-2>
Yet the Duron will cost the same , if not less , than the Celeron . 
</cs-2>
1_Duron 2_Celeron 3_cost (same)

So I pose you this question , why would anyone buy a new Celeron2 when the Duron is clearly a better chip ? If you want to see some benchmark tests that verify my statements , just check out any of the major online hardware sites like :
www.anandtech.com or
www.tomshardware.com or
bxboards.com
If you want a chip that will be the rock for your new computer or are just looking to upgrade that old Pentium II you have , give the Duron a long , hard look .
You wo n't be disappointed ! AMD , the Batwoman of Computing
Jun 05 '00
After years of an Intel-dominated market place , the true features and reliability of AMD processors are finally starting to be noticed by someone other than us computer geeks .
<cs-1>
The truth is that previous to AMD 's thunderbird core , the AMDK6-2 and -3 lines ran as well , or in the K6-3 's case , faster that the Ever-popular Pentium , Pentium MMX , and Pentium II lines . 
</cs-1>
1_AMDK6-2 and -3 2_Pentium 2_Pentium MMX 2_Pentium II lines 3_ran (faster)
For a long while after the Intel Pentium III was released , there was no true AMD equivalent and therefore the market became dominated by an expanding Intel for a number of months .
<cs-1><cs-4>
When the AMD Athlon came out it , once again , outclassed all of the Pentium processors and even broke the 1GHZ barrier in october of 1999 , long before Intel had even scheduled to be able to do so .
</cs-1></cs-4>
1_AMD Athlon 2_Pentium processors (outclassed)
AMD developed and released for sale its GHz processor before Intel had even gotten thier processor out of R & D . 
Today 's battle is between the Intel PIII-Coppermine and AMD 's Athlon-Thunderbird processors .
<cs-1>
AMD clearly has the better processor . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 3_processor (better)
The architecture of the Pentium III processor was specifically built for the in-development , now nearly deceased RAMBUS memory bus .
The architechture was made to be able to support other types but was geared to the Intel in-house , proprietary bus .
When the RAMBUS venture fell through , PIII lost some of the performance capabilities that it had the potential of generating .
AMD , on the other hand , was and is continuing to work with present and advancing technology to produce processors that can work to the fullest possible potential . 
They are built to use scalable front-side busses and high speed RAM but are also able to work on older athlon motherboards as well .
The AMD driver support is extensive and , while not as comprehensive as Intel 's , is continuing to grow as new bugs and security holes become apparent and are addressed .
AMD also sells thier high speed processors to any who want or can afford them .
Intel , on the other hand only makes thier GHz+ processors availible through `` limited edition '' packages sold by thier closest buisness partners , dell and gateway .
For server operations , the pentium and athlon processors run neck and neck .
When you remove the graphics processing features from each processor , you still will find AMD has a little bit of a competitive edge .
Unfortunately , it will cost you an arm and a leg to attempt to use the GHz PIII in a server due to the fact that they can only be gotten ahold of through dell or gateway through overpriced machines that , on the whole , arent very well built in the first place .
Recently , we have seen the battle for processor dominance change from the R & D labs that are developing hot , fast , and expensive processors to the stores who are looking for products to offer thier customers cheap , reliable solutions for thier computer problems .
It would seem that the budget processing category , once overlooked by the major producers , is where today 's market-share battles are taking place .
Today , we see the battle of the Intel Celeron and the AMD Duron .
While the Celeron was originally a very good processor , it has since fallen behind due to the fact that very few major overhauls have been done to update the processor 's secondary features such as on-die cache and floating-point pipelines .
In this respect , the AMD duron far outdistances the Celeron in nearly every performance category and still manages to be competitive in pricing .
( For more information on the DURON , check out my review through my profile . ) 
All in all , AMD 's mix of reliability , availibility , speed , and compatibility make it the perfect choice for today 's computers . A simple math lesson : A Pentium IV comparison
Oct 03 '00
Lets start off with a easy question for you , what is one plus one ? Easy , two .
How about one times two ? Again , a no brainer , two .
At this point you are probably wondering , what the % * ! @ does this have to do with CPUs ? Believe it or not it does , you 'll just have to bear with me .
Pentium IV vs .
Pentium III
For those of you who are past members of the Intel propaganda brainwashing camp , ( and I know there are a good number of you out there , judging by Ryan Samiley 's editorial ) you live by the number known as `` mega-hertz '' .
You believe that the most important judge of a processor 's performance , besides a label with the word `` Intel '' on it , is what number comes before MHz .
For those of you out there I give you this formula 1000 = 1250 .
Confused ? I 'm not surprised , to explain it for you , a 1 GHz PIII is equivalent to a 1.25 GHz PIV , or in other words , the PIV is 25 % slower then the PIII .
Pentium IV vs .
Athlon
<cs-2>
Ready for another formula ? How about this one : 1000 = 1500 , this case a 1 GHz Athlon is equivalent to a 1.5 GHz PIV , and this is with the Athlon using PC133 , and the PIV using RAMBUS . 
</cs-2>
1_1 GHz Athlon 2_1.5 GHz PIV (equivalent)
Considering an Athlon motherboard with DDR-SDRAM is due to come out this month , this formula can become increasingly in the Athlon 's favor .
Intel 's Dirty Little Tricks
Anyone who has followed benchmark programs for a while know of how Intel has repeatedly messed with benchmarks , well they 're up to it again .
In conjunction with MadOnion , 3DMark 2001 will be heavily optimized for SSE2 and the Pentium IV 's 20-stage pipeline .
Well what does this mean to you ? For a starter , it means that 3DMark will give you a benchmark that has no relation what-so-ever to actual 3D performance .
More importantly very few games actually support SSE ( the only that comes to mind right now is Quake III ) , none support SSE2 . 
Taking in Intel 's latest attempt to force a product down manufacturer 's and consumer 's throats ( aka RAMBUS ) , Intel has lost their touch . 
Or to put it in a better way , the Athlon has become such a serious threat to Intel that consumers and manufacturers have a real choice now . 
If Intel try to force an inferior product on the industry , the answer is simple , just do n't buy it .
Taking a look at such products as RAMBUS and Intel 's 820 chipset , that is what has happened .
The Pentium IV is hot , literally !
When I mean hot , in no way I am referring to processor performance , I am referring to operating temperature .
A standard `` feature '' as you might call it on the Pentium IV will be , a huge one pound hunk of metal called a heatsink strapped to the processor .
Evidently for the PIV to run stable it needs this masive cooling system , another sign of weakness in the processor .
To make things worse , the heatsink needs to be bolted to the case to keep it from cracking the motherboard .
Which in turns means that you will not be able to put the PIV in any existing cases .
As for overclocking , if the PIV is already overclocked , how are you going to overclock it any further without a full-blown refrigeration system ? Considering the hefty price that Intel is going to slap on for PIV processors , motherboards , and cases , most likely you wo n't be able to afford it .
The Final Straw
Intel is used to being able to dominate an industry through non-capitalistic ways .
However AMD has given them the upper hand , and for this reason , very simply , the Pentium IV is going to fail .
<cs-1>
Furthermore it still relies on RAMBUS ( the illegitimate child of Intel ) as its only source of memory , while in Intel 's own benchmarks PC133 is faster then PC800 RDRAM . 
</cs-1>
1_PC133 2_PC800 RDRAM (faster)
If you add up all of the costs of the Pentium IV , it is simply not worth it . IA-7 : Part I
Nov 08 '00 ( Updated Nov 09 '00 )
At about the fortnight of Pentium IV 's release , and within a two month radius of Athlon 's new `` Palomino , '' the plots narrows down to the well-tamed drama of do-or-die .
The battle of seventh bout demands consequence in bloodshed or death of either Intel or AMD .
AMD must win .
Truthfully in gaining market share , but its cannibalizing on no foreign flesh .
<cs-4><cs-4>
AMD has a state-of-the-art Dresden -- dubbed `` Fab30 '' -- to ramp out Athlons and flash , but still , its CPU revenue is only half of Intel 's , as is its market share -- 15-20 % vs . Intel 's 60-70 % .
</cs-4></cs-4>
If Intel 's P4 do succeed , then this almost `` philanthropist-like '' company , very rare/odd in capitalism , is heading toward a diminishing arc .
With the advent of Intel Intellectual Patenting Machine , the room for AMD is getting narrower ; a complete-monopoly .
Intel needs to win .
Capital wise , Intel remains the undisputable champion ; but capital can not ensure the crown :
<cs-1>
Athlon/K7 is a superior core , well designed and beats Intel 's venerable P6 hands down ; K7 was AMD 's `` Final Fantasy '' -- in equal disposition with the game developer too . 
</cs-1>
1_Athlon/K7 2_Intel 's P6 (superior)
They succeed , the market cracks open a rift , showering AMD with well deserved and highly sought reward ( $ $ $ $ M ) .
AMD 's presence is felt ; executing five straight fiscal quarters of profits ; Gateway , IBM , and Compaq , but not Dell heeded to AMD 's prowess -- Intel/Dell conspiracy theories let roam free .
Intel , compounded with its own `` blundering of/to death , '' Pentium IV must be a success .
Well , is it ? A classic twist , two fronts , two schools , and two possibilities , equally appealing , and plausible .
Epilogue : In verisimilitude , PIV is a failure -- announcement , forum , websites ... , but by launch date , do n't be surprised if that PIV bench beyond the newest Athlon ...
Or change `` do n't '' to `` you wo n't . ''
Till Part II .
-- Chal
AMD , Intel , ViaCyrix , which chip for which job
Aug 29 '00
When buying a new computer take one peice of advice that came from my old I.T .
Teacher ,
`` The the software determin the hardware , dont let the hardware determin the software ''
Which basically means buy as computer as powerfull as what you need but no more .
<cs-1><cs-1>
If you are a hardcore gamer go for the Athlon or PIII , but if you use your business apps or only a lighter gamer then why not go for the cheaper option of the K6-2 's and the VIA Cyrix options . 
</cs-1></cs-1>
1_Athlon 1_PIII 3_hardcore gamer (go for)
1_K6-2 1_VIA Cyrix 3_lighter gamer (go for)
<cs-1>
At the power end we have the Athlon and the PIII , these chips are marketed head to head , and for me there is only one winner that is the Athlon , allthough in certain terms the PIII can perform aswell as the Athlon the fact that it is alot more expensive gives it that edge . 
</cs-1>
1_Athlon (winner)
1_PIII 2_Athlon 3_expensive
The only thing letting the Athlon down is the cache speed , the max cache speed is 1/2 core speed upto the 700mhz chip , after that the cache speed decreases in proportion to the core speed .
Intels PIII doesnt have this problem so for apps and games using alot of cache maybe the PIII gets a bit of ground back .
for under 40 ( $ 60 ) you can get enough power in a CPU to run any of todays big apps .
If your carefull with what you buy , you can make your pound go a lot further than you think .
Intels offereing is the Celeron a socket 370 chip now with 128k cache the most expensive but the best performing out of the budget chips .
AMD has the K6-2 at 40 ( $ 60 ) for a 500mhz version you ca n't really grumble .
ViaCyrix offer the MII , a budget chip which has the worst FPU out there but it has one of the best integer crunching cores per mhz .
Athlon , PIII - Top end Gamers and power users
K6-2 , Cyrix MII - Mid range games are acceptable and apps run fine
original pentium and below , these computers are not to be thrown away , they are perfectly capable of funning office programs and older or not so powerfull games , plus why not use this machine to browse the internet on . 
Even the olderst computers are usefull .
If it does the job do you really need another one ? The Bottom Line With good points from all sides , the decision depends on the application .
Still from Motorola , it 's a toned-down version of the Power4 chip ( I can not seem to remember the exact name at the moment ) .
There is also talk of them moving to the x86 architecture , although not very likely for any number of reasons .
Oh , yeah , and the eMac was released to the public , so anybody can buy it .
I guess an attempt to reclaim precious market share on the side of Apple .
CPU War - Past and present
Sep 05 '00
There has been sharp competition between processor companies ever since Cyrix and AMD came onto the scene to hot up the competition .
Heres a brief history of the war and how it stands at this moment in time and how it could shape up .
<cs-4>
Intel had had it there own way for many years until Cyrix and AMD came onto the scene back in the days of the 486 machine , with Cyrix offering 386-486 upgrade chips and 468 CPU 's upto the 5x86-133 and AMD offering the later 486 chips like the AMDX4-100 and 133 .
</cs-4>
Things really hotted up when Intel released the Pentium chip .
Cyrix and AMD followed , Cyrix with the 6x86 ( which saw the introduction of the controversial PR rating ) and AMD with the K5 ( also using the PR rating ) .
<cs-3>
Intel ruled the roost with Cyrix a close second and AMD lagging a bit with the dissapointing K5 .
</cs-3>
1_Intel (ruled the roost)
However things were soon to change .
Intel released there P166 and Cyrix released the 6x86 PR166 and the unbelievable had been done .
For the first time in history Intel had lost the fastest CPU crown .
Intel and AMD both hit back , AMD with the K6 CPU which brought the 6x86 , Pentium and K6 very close together in terms of performance . 
Intel hit back with MMX technology and briefly led again with the P200 MMX until Cyrix released their 6x86MX PR200 .
Intel were in trouble until they released there next generation processor which was to lead to them holding the quickest CPU tag for the next couple of years .
The PII was born .
<cs-1><cs-2>
Cyrix and AMD needed to hi back so Cyrix released the MII , which had the same FPU on as the 6x86MX and slightly more cache , and AMD with the K6-2 . 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_MII 2_6x86MX 3_cache (more)
1_MII 2_6x86MX 3_FPU (same)
Cyrix regretted not overhauling the MII 's FPU as its performance at the high end suffered although its performance easily equalled the PII 's in business applications at a lower clock speed , it was struggling in FPU intensive applications .
The K6-2 included AMD 's 3D NOW ! , a technology jointly developed by AMD , Cyrix and IDT as good old Microsoft would only support 1 non Intel standard .
<cs-2>
The K6-2 was a solid performer thanks to the introduction of 3D Now ! and closed the gap on Intel whereas Cyrix stayed still a little as they struggled to ratchet up the clock speeds like there opponents . 
</cs-2>
1_K602 2_Intel (like)
This eventually lead to National Semiconductor selling Cyrix to motherboard chipset manufacturer , VIA .
Intel recognised the lower end , being won largely by Cyrix and released a chip opponent called the Celeron but because of its pitiful lack of cache it failed until cache versions appeared .
AMD released the K6-3 to close the gap and level with the PII and even beat it in certain conditions .
Yet again time for a new line in processors .
Intel released
the Pentium III , AMD the Athlon and VIA Cyrix re-released the MII at higher clock speeds and with an extra instruction set to boost FPU performance .
The Athlon and PIII slogged it out at the top end whilst the K6-2 and MII slogged it out at the lower end .
This very nearly brings us up to date .
The present run of play is the following :
Intel : Produce the Slot1 PIII at clock speeds upto 1 GHz , the Socket370 Celeron upto 533 , S370 Celeron II upto 700 .
AMD : Produce the SlotA Athlon upto 1GHz , Socket7 K6-2 upto 550 , SocketA Duron upto 750
VIA Cyrix : Produce the SS7 MII upto PR433 , S370 Cyrix III upto 667
The way this will go in future is cloudy .
<cs-2>
Intel and AMD both have new chips coming out and expect to take the PIII and Athlon to 1.13 GHz . 
</cs-2>
1_Intel 2_AMD 3_new chips ()
Whether Intels clout and financial backing will regain them the top spot is a discussion up for debate . 
Benchmarks will be interesting to see between the new Intel Pentium 4 and the AMD Athlon Spitfire .
Cyrix continue to make a very good price/performance alternative particularly in business machines , new machines and machines of irregular gamers .
Cyrix will almost certainly stick to the lower end pitching their MII and Cyrix III against Intels Celeron and Celeron II and against AMD 's K6-2/+ and Duron .
It will certainly fold into a good battle .
AMD vs .
INTEL
Jul 23 '00
vicwang pointed some things out to me so I edited this review to make it more accurate 
When I first started using computers in 1992 you either had a Computer with an Intel processor or you had an apple .
AMD had been around since the 60 's , but they were n't very popular for the average computer user .
The only choice you had to make was the type of platform you wanted , PC or Apple ; you did n't have to compare two different processors for the same platform .
Now that 's all changed .
Both Intel and AMD make big bucks in the home PC market and Apple hangs in third place .
So if your planning on buying a new PC you need to decide whether to get an AMD based system or an Intel based system ...
FOR SERVERS AND WORKSTATIONS :
<cs-3>
If you 're going to start a server for your website then your best bet is the Intel pentium III Xeon . 
</cs-3>
1_Intel pentium III Xeon 3_start a server (best)
The Xeon 's are very stable processors and they have extra L2 cache ( up to 2 megabytes ) which is very important for servers .
AMD 's Athlon is n't a good choice for servers because it lacks the amount cache that Xeon 's have which would cause it to crash if it was presented with all the information that a server had to deal with ; you do n't want your website down because your server crashed .
<cs-3>
As far as workstations go , It depends , if your workstation will be used in the areas of CAD or Graphic design then an Athlon would offer the best performance . 
</cs-3>
1_Athlon 3_performance (best)
FOR THE GAMER :
So you like to play computer games , me too . 
For games there is no question that the Athlon out performs the The older Pentium III 's with Katmai cores , but the newer Pentium III 's with Coppermine cores are right on par with the Athlon 's . 
Coppermines , however are very expensive .
<cs-1>
A Coppermine at 933 MHz with a 133 Mhz FSB ( front side bus ) is about $ 780.00 , an Athlon at 950 MHz with a 200 MHz FSB is only $ 600.00 or so , that 's $ 180.00 cheaper for a processor that 's 17 MHz faster . 
</cs-1>
1_Coppermine at 933 MHz with a 133 Mhz FSB 2_ Athlon at 950 MHz with a 200 MHz FSB  (cheaper)
<cs-1>
The 200 MHz FSB although faster , is pointless because no one makes system RAM that is clocked at 200 MHz . 
</cs-1>
1_200 MHz FSB (faster)
The only problem with the Athlon is that drivers will need to be loaded in order for most modern games to run properly with it .
Since the Coppermine does n't perform much better than the Athlon and it costs more I recommend the Athlon unless you have a problem with loading drivers .
And someday someone may start manufacturing PC200 RAM .
FOR THE LOW END COMPUTER USER :
If all you do with your computer is surf the web , word process and play solitaire then you do n't need a high performance machine with an Athlon or Pentium III .
All you need is one of their little brothers , AMD 's K6-2/3 's or Intel 's Celeron 's .
AMD has recently made a new processor which is called the Duron and they market it as a low end processor , but since it is really a stripped down athlon , it performs more like a high end processor so I wo n't be covering it here .
Now , do you want a K6-2/3 or a Celeron .
My K6-2 began freezing up after six months of use and it failed shortly after ; I do n't think that this is common problem , however , because they continue to sell well .
I 've never had this type of problem with my new K6-3 however .
K6-3 's perform well for normal applications like MS Word or MS Excel .
I got my K6-3 for $ 60.00 by searching through the recycler .
<cs-1>
A Celeron at the same speed usually costs a bit more and it also performs a little better , So your average programs will load a bit faster , but not much . 
</cs-1>
1_Celeron 3_costs (more)
1_Celeron 3_performs
<cs-1>
Bottom line here , If your on a budget go with the K6-3 , unless it happens to cost more , but if you have a little extra cash go with the Celeron or even a Celeron2 . 
</cs-1>
1_K6-3 3_budget (more)
1_Celeron 1_Celeron2 3_extra cash
CONCLUSION :
AMD beats Intel in certain areas and Intel beats AMD in other areas .
First decide which of the covered categories you fall under , then make your decision on whether to buy an AMD based system or an Intel based system . Enter the Duron !
Jun 20 '00
AMD announced their newest entry into the processor race on 6/19/2000 . 
The Duron processor will be an alternative to a Celeron processor , and should be available for purchase in July .
So whats so different about this Processor ? Here are some comparisons with the Celeron :
CPU BUS Speed : The speed at which data is transferred between the processor and the rest of the system .
This number is then multiplied by the ratio .
I.E .
66mhz x 6x ratio = 396 ( 400MHZ )
Celeron=66 MHZ
Duron=200 MHZ
L1 and L2 Cache : Level 1 and Level 2 Cache is used to store instructions that have been fetched from main memory .
<cs-1>
Fetching data from main memory is a much slower process than fetching data from Cache . 
</cs-1>
1_Fetching data from main memory 2_fetching data from Cache (slower)
The CPU first check L1 then L2 then main memory then the device for the data .
Each step is respectively slower .
Celeron L1=32kb
Duron L1=128kb
Celeron L2=256 bit
Duron L2=64 bit
Core Voltage : The amount of volts required to power the processor .
Lower voltage equals lower heat= lower heat = more stability .
Celeron=2.0v
Duron=1.5v
Price : Do I really have to explain money ?
Celeron 700= $ 211
Duron 700= $ 192
Celeron 600= $ 117
Duron 600= $ 112
Floating Points Pipelines : Basically more pipes= more data thru-put .
Celeron=1
Duron=3
Benchmarks : Used to compare raw CPU power !
Ziff-Davis Business Winstone 99 ( Windows 98 ) :
Celeron 600=22.7
Duron 600=25.5
Quake 3 Arena Demo1 :
Celeron 700=83.3
Duron 700=116.4
Floating Point Performance :
Celeron 700=69.2
Duron 700=94.7
*Incorporates 3D NOW Technology
Also to be noted that the Duron will use the new SocketA , aka socket462 .
This of course means that you will have to buy a new system board if you want to use the Duron .
So , what does all this mean ? It means that AMD is going to give Intel a new contender in the Value CPU market .
( Sub $ 1000 computers ) It means that Intel will have to retaliate with a price drop or a new market angle .
It means that we the consumers win , no matter what happens . So many processors ... so little time.. 
Jul 14 '00
So , you 're looking for a new computer , eh ? Well , I 'll tell you this : The main CPU is the most important part .
It 's the heart and brain of your computer , and if it 's lacking , your entire computer will be lacking as well .
So which processor should you choose ? There 's a huge shouting match going on , mainly between the industry leader , Intel , and its biggest rival , AMD Technologies .
There are other chip makers , but their share of the market is so small , they wo n't be discussed here .
I 'm mainly going to center on AMD and Intel .
Intel currently makes several series of processors .
The Pentium III is their most popular by a landslide , and also their fastest .
<cs-3>
The Intel name has long been synonymous with the latest technology , and the highest quality . 
</cs-3>
1_Intel 3_technology (latest)
1_Intel 3_quality (highest)
Unfortunately , with brand-recognition like the Pentium series , you 're going to pay a premium for that Pentium . 
Intel also offers the Xeon processor , which is an offshoot of its Pentium series .
However , this processor is designed for high-demand applications , such as network servers , and so is not generally offered to the public .
You would n't want it anyway .
It 's extremely expensive , due to it 's purpose-built nature .
Of course , if you do n't want to pay for the premium of a Pentium , or you 're not going to use your computer for the latest games and applications , I suggest you take a close look at the Intel Celeron series .
Initially built for corporate workstations , the Celeron is a relatively high-speed , low-cost chip that sits in between the Pentium II and III in terms of speed .
And when I say low-cost , I mean it .
<cs-4>
The difference between a Pentium III-500MHZ and a Celeron-500MHZ machine can be several hundred dollars .
</cs-4>
<cs-4>
The Celeron is n't quite as fast or as strong as an equivalent P III , but it 's more than effective , especially with other cards to help out in the graphics and sound department . 
</cs-4>
And with the Celeron , you can afford that high-end graphics card or sound card with no trouble .
Now that we 've discussed the industry leader , let 's take a gander at the competition .
Namely , AMD .
AMD 's K-6 and Athlon series of processors offer high-speed performance at a bargain basement price .
But how do they really stack up ?
The K-6 series is the competitor for the Pentium II and Celeron .
Make no mistake , these chips are certainly good enough to give Intel a serious run for their money in the bargain-PC market .
<cs-1>
They offer performance equivalent ( or in some cases , even better than ) a comparable P II or Celeron machine , at a lower cost . 
</cs-1>
 1_P II 1_Celeron machine 3_cost (lower)
These chips are of good quality , and the price ca n't be beat .
The Athlon series is made to compete with the Pentium III , and upcoming Pentium IV ( that 's 4 for you non-Roman-numeral-literate folks ) .
It offers extremely high speeds .
Currently , the fastest Athlon , at a whopping 1 GHZ ( that 's 1 , 000 MHZ ! ) clocks faster than the fastest P III available .
<cs-1>
And to add insult to Intel 's injured pride , it 's actually cheaper than a comparable P III ! 
</cs-1>
 2_P III 1_it (cheaper)
There is one MAJOR problem with AMD chips , however , and that 's reliability .
<cs-1>
AMD may make a faster chip , but in the electronics world , faster means hotter , and AMD is no exception . 
</cs-1>
 1_AMD 3_chip (faster)
I 've heard some nasty stories of AMD processors overheating , and self-destructing .
Not only does this ruin the chip , but it also severely daamges your mainboard , a costly repair .
Granted , if the case has adequate cooling , this is a non-issue .
Still , it 's a disconcerting problem that AMD will have to correct if they want more of Intel 's market share .
So who 's the winner in this shootout ? The answer is simple .
<cs-3>
Despite the premium price , Intel is still the best chip out there , providing a wide range of high-quality processors to suit the consumer 's needs . 
</cs-3>
1_Intel 3_chip (best)
Make sure Intel 's inside your next machine . `` But that 's not a Pentenium ... ''
May 28 '00
5 years I spent in computer retail , and I never got over how tough it was to get across to people the fact that there were processor manufacturers other than Intel , and that some of them were even GOOD choices !
Back in 1993 , we upgraded to a 386 DX-40 .
That is , an AMD 386 DX-40 .
I was the lucky one who got to install the motherboard , and noticed this interesting little processor .
Not long afterwards , I found myself working to help people understand that our 486-100MHZ processors were n't made by Intel , but by AMD .
`` Yes , we run them in every computer we have in the office .
Here , this system is using one .
Well , yes , it IS faster than the Intel 66MHZ , and less expensive . ''
When AMD joined with NexGen , I expected great things .
With the booming sales of the 586-133 ( which were actually 486 's that ran somewhat near the speed of a Pentium 75 ) , we figured the world was ready for AMD , and vice versa .
Instead , we got the K5 .
A processor that did a decent job but certainly was n't a `` put you on the map '' product , it was a severe disappointment , and fear struck through us that we would be left only with Intel and Cyrix ( we 'll get to them in a bit ) if AMD lost too much on the K5 's . 
As it turns out , AMD showed signs of being a great company in the light of this semi-failure ( they did n't do THAT bad , just not that well ) .
How ? They learned from their mistake .
The K6 was , at the very first glance , a far cry from the Nexgen-looking K5 's ( with the gold `` humps '' on the top ) .
When we opened up the box ( like a 5-year old at Christmas ) and pulled the tray out , we were greeted with shiny CPU-tops ( silverish-metal squares on top of the CPU ) that screamed `` I 'm shiny , AND I distribute heat well ! ! '' We had the motherboard clocked and ready , dropped the CPU in , and watched as , well ...
as it booted ( yeehaw ? ) .
However boring it may seem , we knew at that point that AMD had scored a major blow against Intel .
Ever since , AMD and Intel held almost a 50/50 split of the sales of motherboards w/cpu , and almost the same for whole systems in our stores . 
Nowadays , we have the Athlons , and AMD has hit full stride .
When you go shopping , you 'll see 'em everywhere .
Gateway just upped their orders of AMD processors .
The only problems AMD seems to have nowadays is meeting demand .
But what happens if AMD folds ? How do I know they 'll be around for a while ? Well , as fair as it is to not trust Wall Street , you ca n't ignore this fact : For quite some time , AMD 's stock hovered around 15-20 .
Their stock is currently at 74 , and has stayed fairly stable in spite of all the hammering on the market as of late . 
AMD makes a fine processor , and a fine alternative . 
While many people will give you technical reasons or tell you that it 's just faster , I think it 's important to realize that AMD as a company is a viable alternative as well .
They are devoted to producing quality products , selling them at affordable prices , and working to ensure customer satisfaction .
Cyrix .
Cyrix .
Cyrix ... .
Tsk , tsk , tsk ...
I do n't understand why Cyrix just does n't seem to get it .
At the same time we were ooh-ahhing the new AMD 's , we had pretty much decided to give away the Cyrix processors , due to the fact that none of our salespeople felt morally justified in selling them .
Incompatibilities ( especially with Windows NT ) , heat problems , quality issues , and overall poor customer satisfaction were problems back then .
If you 're wondering why it 's relevant now , that would be due to the fact that not much has changed .
Let me make something clear : Cyrix was not a processor manufacturer .
They were a research team .
TI and then IBM did their production with an agreement that for every `` Cyrix '' processor , there would be one `` TI '' or `` IBM '' processor .
National Semiconductor bought out Cyrix , then passed the hot potato to VIA ( thank you for the comment , vicwang ) , who is looking at combining Cyrix processors with VIA motherboards to make a little combination deal ( they 're also looking into providing the backbone for smaller devices , like Smart Appliances ) .
This does n't change the fact that , instead of working for making a better quality product , Cyrix has instead focused on making the cheapest , and have succeeded ( much to their buyer 's chagrin ) .
Intel is Intel .
That wo n't change anytime soon .
The point here is to consider the alternatives , examine them thoroughly , look at the differences , and make an informed , educated decision .
And no , it 's not a `` Pentilum '' ...
it 's a `` Teflon ''
<cs-4>
Ogur Duron vs Celeron 
</cs-4>
Dec 13 '00 ( Updated Apr 29 '01 )
The Bottom Line I have seen loads of benchmarks which show the Duron to be not only faster than the Celeron , but cheaper in stores .
The-chips-can-be-replaced by-ever-cheapening-Athlons .
While Intels Celeron processors have been around for a good few years , the new AMD Duron processor is set to dominate the inexpensive processor market .
<cs-2>
The chip from Duron uses the Socket A , the same as the AMD Athlon , so when the Athlon prices fall you can buy a 1Ghz , to replace the Duron . 
</cs-2>
1_chip from Duron 2_AMD Athlon 3_uses the Socket A (same)
<cs-3>
The Duron sarts off at 600Mhz at a best price of 65/ $ 91 ; and goes all the way up to 800 : 
</cs-3>
1_Duron 3_price (best)
The Duron processor can be found in stores for around 100/ $ 140 , and I have seen them at computer fairs for just 85/ $ 119 for a Duron 800Mhz .
The Celeron on the other hand is rarley seem at the computer fairs I go to but I guess its around 150/ $ 210 .
And the chips uses its own 370 socket which can be used by the Pentium III ( some though ) .
It starts off at 300Mhz ( where the PII 's mid point is ) and goes up to the 700Mhz .
Overclockers ;
The AMD Duron , was easy to overclock , but now AMD have added block on the chip to stop people joining tiny jumpers on it , so try an older one . 
Usually a 700 could go to 900 .
I have n't seem much for the Celeron though .
I tried overclocking , but I did n't see much of a performance increase , just a few crashes the first time I boosted it to 955Mhz from 750 ! 
In my veiw the AMD Duron beats the Celeron in graphics and is backed up from numerous graphics tests shown in www.sharkyextreme.com .
<cs-1>
The Duron is both faster and cheaper and offers much higher upgrade-ability . 
</cs-1>
 1_Duron 3_upgrade-ability (faster, cheaper)
So what do I have , a Duron 750 .
The PC hardly ever crashes , but a 600 did once and a while before I got this 750 . 
<cs-4>
But price difference is tiny , an extra 10 could get me a 800 . 
</cs-4>
Not bad at all .
So for me the Duron beats all other competition , excluding the Pentium III and the Athlon , which are in their own league .
AMD Eats Intel : Again
May 10 '01
The Bottom Line In a newer computer , always go with AMD .
<cs-3>
They grew up to be the best . 
</cs-3>
1_They 3_grew up (best)
AMD Vs Intel : how long has that been around ? Intel was always the one that everyone compared all the processors too : AMD was lumped together with Cyrix as a `` Cheap Alternative '' .
At first , well , this was kind of true .
<cs-1>
The AMD K6-2 was a lower version of the Intel Pentium II . 
</cs-1>
 1_AMD K6-2 2_Intel Pentium II (lower)
<cs-1>
The Pentium II ran faster , but was usually more expensive .
</cs-1>
1_Pentium 3_ran 3_expensive (faster, more)
But nowadays , on the other hand , the AMD T-Birds are eating P3 's and 4 's for lunch . 
Mmmmm , Munch Munch .
Performance tests between a T-Bird and a Pentium breed of higher speeds are funny to see .
Intel 's problem has always been that their budget is :
Marketing :
***************************************
R And D
***
Not a lot of people know about how good the T-birds are because their budget goes :
Marketing :
***
R And D
**********************************
AMD relies on the people who are informed consumers to buy their superior product , and they charge less because they don ? t have to pay for their Massive advertising campaigns .
<cs-3>
Intel has started to develop the opinion that they can not be beat , because they have the market cornered , and everyone knows that Intel is the best , right ? Intel was a good manufacturer at one time , but they have started to stagnate . 
</cs-3>
1_Intel (best)
<cs-4>
AMD 's R is always trying new things , Intels is always slightly changing the same core they had in Pentium Pro 's . 
</cs-4>
And the whole idea that you have to patch some BIOS 's to make them report the `` correct '' speed for a late Pentium breed .
Sure .
They are not making the BIOS tell you the speed its supposed to run at , not the speed that it does run at .
Of course not .
( sarcasm drips ) .
And when the P3 came out , what did they charge for it ? almost $ 1 per MHz ( Canadian ) .
The T-bird 1100 right now will cost me about $ 340 Canadian .
The Pentium breed 1100 ? twice that . 
and for inferior performance , why would I pay twice the price ? If you are buying a new computer , go with AMD .
<cs-1><cs-1>
The boards that the chips come on are better , and the chips themselves are cheaper and faster . 
</cs-1></cs-1>
1_boards (better)
1_chips (cheaper, faster)
What 's left to decide ? Here is a Shootout on Amd & Intel
May 27 '01
<cs-3>
The Bottom Line i think that Amd is going to the top
</cs-3>
1_Amd (top)
On January 26 , 1999 , an announcement came , a company had outsold Intel , can you believe it was not Cyrix , but AMD just made a comeback And what a comeback it was .
In 1998 AMD introduce the K6-2 ; in fact , most of us slept right through it .
With caution the gaming community accepted the K6-2 .
Problem with these new processor they required software , driver.This would take time , so they plopped a new PII-400 or 450 in their system instead .
A big announcements came from 3Dfx and nVidia ; they supporting the full set of 3Dnow ! The benchmarks test that where done did n't lie , the new drivers gave that extra bang that the current graphics cards could n't give alone .
Meanwhile Intel 's Pentium III added modification to the x86 architecture , and Changed the registers by eight , it also came with an excess of negatives , including an incredibly high price tag , and thou also blocked overclocking , but it still comes with 32k of full L1 cache , and 512kb Level2 cache .
However , AMD released K6-III , with faster L1 speed cache of the Pentium III , And it still uses the good ol ' 3Dnow ! , Also the K6-III came out with a TriLevel cache architecture , which speed up everyday tasks .
Intel has managed to stay ahead on the clock-speed , but AMD 's next processor may change that .
<cs-3>
The power of Intel is still the most powerful , so many vendors may still cling to Intel for steady supplies , and higher clock speeds .
</cs-3>
1_Intel 3_power (most)
Maybe this is the second coming ? Hmmm , AMD has comeback into the CPU market .
And pretty soon we 'll be seeing Intel asking AMD for the plans for the processor .
Perhaps Intel has some tricks up their sleeves , but i think not , for the most part it appears as AMD is taking the lead .
Ok at first sight , you can get the Athlon and Pentium III mixed up , as they are a very similar size and shape .
In fact , AMD has borrowed the cartridge-style design from Intel , This is a great move from the Super 7 chip socket that AMD has used up until now , so why has it suddenly decided to follow Intel ? The answer is a simple : The cache memory .
that is setto the processor 's clock speeds ever increasing , the rate at which the main cache is clocked has to scale to match , but there is a limit to the amount that can be squeezed in .
However , if you look more closely at the two products , and you will see that many of these similarities .
For example , while the two processors use the same physical connector design , AMD 's Slot A architecture uses a 200MHz EV6 system bus from the Alpha Risc processor , while the Pentium III systems currently available use the familiar 100MHz bus .
Intel has a newer chips with a 133MHz front-side bus ( FSB ) , AMD expects to be able to scale up to 400MHz with the Athlon .
And , the most important differences are inside the processor chip . 
While the K6-3 was basically a souped-up version of the K6-2 the Athlon was designed from scratch to maximise performance while maintaining x86 compatibility .
<cs-4>
Because the Athlon has such a different system bus architecture from that found in previous generations , the processor ca n't be used with standard motherboards . 
</cs-4>
Re : CPU Wars : It 's about time Apple ...
Aug 22 '00
<cs-2>
So what , Apple 's putting together 2 of the 500MHz computers , and this is supposedly as good as a theoretical Intel 2000MHz computer ? Who cares ? It 's two chips . 
</cs-2>
1_2 of the 500MHz computers 2_INtel 2000MHz computer (as good as)
<cs-1>
The chips themselves are not actually any better . 
</cs-1>
1_chips (better)
<cs-3>
The Pentium 1.13GHz chip is still the fastest chip available to the avg . 
</cs-3>
1_Pentium 1.13GHz chip 3_chip (fastest)
consumer ( I 'm discluding obviously superior products like SGI MIPS b/c most ppl do n't buy them ) .
Anyone can put together 2 1000MHz chips and get the same result ... In fact , there is a BeOS system ( see be.com ) which boasts 4000MHz 's by combining 8 500MHz Intel chips .
With OS ' like BeOS , Slackware Linux , Debian Linux , and FreeBSD , the consumer can fully take advantage of having a multi-processor system .
Apple should n't be acclaimed for doing something that the rest of the industry has done all along .
It is not even clear that they should be acclaimed yet for this ew `` accomplishment '' .
Since Mac has never before made a dual processor system , it 's obvious they have n't devoted time to making their OS such that it can fully take advantage of a dual processor system .
MS has developed Windows NT knowing all along that many customers want a multi-processor system , and NT still ca n't take full advantage of a dual processor system , such as can BeOS and *nix . 
What makes you think that Apple will be able to do this on their first release ? Hype and Gullability
Oct 22 '00
Stop it you fools , why should the Athlon , Durons , P3 's and the soon to arrive P4 's running at excess of 1Ghz interest anyone ? There is absolutly no reason why it should .
The main arguement in this direction is that of the software requirement , but what about the bottle-necks in the hardware ? It has long been the case that disk access and parallel/serial/USB connections are limiting factors in any system running at above 300mhz , so what are the gullable consumers doing being drawn towards the 2 grand 1Ghz Athlon systems ? It 's all hype .
If you want my advice you should be looking at a P3 600 with a board capable of upgrade , its hard to find but increasingly we will see MB supporting 200mhz FSB with a slot 1 , go for somthing similar and dont be fooled .
Wait until HD access and data transfer times fall .
My long term prediction is the introduction of optical fibre into PC 's replacing USB and more ...
An AMD A64 X2 For Under $ 500 ? ?
<cs-3>
Advanced Micro Devices ( AMD ) has been leading the dual core performance race when it comes to gaming and raw performance levels , but they have failed to release a dual core processor at an affordable price range . 
</cs-3>
1_Advanced Micro Devices ( AMD ) 3_dual core performance race (leading)
Prior to today the low end dual core processor was the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester processor and it comes with a not too low end price tag of roughly $ 550 US at the time of press .
 For years AMD processors have been known to be the best deal for computer enthusiasts on a budget since their price points were always lower than their competitor 's -- Intel Corporation.
<cs-1>
 Although AMD was first to tape out a dual core processor , Intel beat AMD out the door with their dual core series and in an amazing turn of events the Intel Pentium 4 820 ( Intel 's entry level dual core processor ) costs ~ $ 236 US when purchased from online retailers. 
</cs-1>
1_Intel 2_AMD (beat)
For a consumer that has been sold on dual core processors the choice between which of the two processor brands to use has been an uphill battle for AMD . 
 The two major factors that are causing issues for AMD are are the facts that Intel 's marketing budget dwarfs those over at AMD , and the entry level pricing that was formentioned varies greatly in Intel 's favor .
<cs-1>
 With AMD 's entry level dual core processor costing more than double that of Intel 's , many consumers simply ca n't afford AMD 's Athlon 64 X2 processors. 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 2_Intel 3_costing (more)
All that changes today with the release of the AMD Athlon 64 X2 800+ processor .
The new X2 3800+ comes at a value packed price tag of $ 354 US on the day it launches and it will of course go down as the market settles down after the launch . 
<cs-1>
 Although it is still one hundred dollars more than the Intel 820 , AMD has lowered their dual core X2 series entry level processor down two hundred dollars lower than it previously was , and finally makes it a consideration for the working class ( pretty much everyone in America living paycheck to paycheck ) . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 2_Intel 820 (more)
Today , AMD offers another option to those who are willing to pay $ 354 to have an AMD Athlon 63 X2 Dual-Core Processor .
Featuring a pair of Manchester cores clocked at 2.0 GHz each , as well as 1MB of L2 cache ( 2 x 512KBs ) , the 3800+ should make anyone 's short list for a mainstream processor .
Legit Reviews will take a look at the X2 3800+ and throw a wide variety of benchmarks at it and its big bad brother the X2 4800+ , as well as Intel 's Pentium D 820 and 840EE .
 What you may or may not have noticed in that paragraph above is that the 3800+ features a `` Manchester '' core , not the `` Toledo core used in the rest of the X2 line .
<cs-1>
The difference ? The Manchester core features fewer transistors ( 154M compared to the Toledo 's 233.2M ) and a smaller die size ( 147mm^ compared to the Toledo 's 199mm^2 ) , which also definitely gives it a far better thermal numbers than its siblings ( 89W as opposed to 110W ) . 
</cs-1>
 1_Manchester core 3_transistors 3_die size 2_Toledo 1_it 3_thermal numbers 2_siblings (fewer)
<cs-4>
Before we get down and dirty , lets take a look at some specs as compared to Intel 's Pentium D 820 that we covered last month . 
</cs-4>
<cs-4>
Looking at the two processors above , you can see that in single threaded applications we are in a way looking at a AMD 3200+ vs an Intel 620 . 
</cs-4>
Remember , dual core processors do not benefit from single threaded applications .
<cs-1>
 From a purely financial standpoint , the 3800+ still comes in about $ 90 more than the Pentium D 820. 
</cs-1>
1_3800+ 2_Pentium D 820 (more)
 However , the 3800+ has some benefits not found with Intel 's dual core core line , namely the ability to simply throw it in your existing socket 939 motherboard with a simple BIOS update and fire it up .
Intel 's dual core line is officially compatible with only the newer i945 and i955 chipsets , but some motherboard makers like AsRock have come out with boards based on the Intel 865PE chipset ( AsRock Model # 775i65PE ) that unofficially support Intel dual core processors.
Comparing the X2 to the Pentium D
Much has been made of dual core processors over the past 6 months .
Unfortunately , unless you are multitasking or using one of a very few programs designed to take advantage of multi cored processors , you will not see much , if any , benefit to owning a dual core processor at this time .
With dual core processors in their infancy , it is only common sense that it will take time for software developers and program writers to optimize their programs to use the full potential of these beasts . 
Right now , most of us will only see benefits from running multiple programs at one time ( such as an anti virus or spyware app while playing a game , or encoding a video or burning a music CD while writing a review ) .
However , it wo n't be too much longer before we see some programs and games really take advantage of these new processors .
 While Intel ran into some issues when it came to motherboard support for their Pentium D line ( Intel 's still fairly new 915 and 925 chipset do not officially support dual core processors ) , AMD fans will be happy to know that if their socket 939 motherboard supports AMD 's FX 55 , then it will gladly work with their new X2. 
 The possibilities here are limitless : while the Pentium D is limited in support , owners have a bevy of PCI-E as well as AGP boards to choose from. 
 When it comes to thermal properties , the Pentium D again finds itself looking up at the X2. 
Although both are built upon a 90nm process , Intel 's Prescott 2 core ( even with all its optimizations ) is still an incredibly hot processor when compared to AMD 's X2. 
<cs-4>
While the X2 3800 dissipates a managable 89W , the 2.8 Pentium D dissipated 95W. 
</cs-4>
<cs-4>
This is not a drastic difference , but something to keep in mind later when we get into testing and overclocking .
</cs-4>
 On the flip side , AMD 's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ , their high end X2 processor , dissipates 110W compared to Intel 's Pentium D 840 EE 's incredible 130+W. 
When it comes to managing the processor 's thermals , AMD not only has an obvious advantage in core design , but also their Cool and Quiet technology has been a very good performer by reducing the core speed to as low as 800MHz when the system does n't require extra power. 
Intel 's thermal management apps include EIST ( Enhanced Intel SpeedStep technology ) , which allows the processor to adjust voltage and core frequency based upon system load .
The caveat here is that Intel 's budget processor , the Pentium D 820 , does not support EIST , as it is already running at Intel 's lowest possible frequency for this line , 2.8GHz .
<cs-2>
When it comes to features and performance , both AMD and Intel show their muscle . 
</cs-2>
1_AMD 1_Intel 3_features 3_performance (both)
 Both the X2 3800+ and Pentium D 820 offer two cores , 64 bit OS support , SSE3 , and noeXecute support to protect against most buffer overflow attacks. 
What I believe will end up giving the X2 a distinct advantage over the Pentium D is the X2 's on die memory controller , and the Pentium D 's lack of Hyper Threading ( except with its 840 Extreme Edition processor ) .
Now that we know a little more about the processors both companies offer , lets see how they perform , and which might be best for your next system . 
From personal experience , I am really excited to have a go at the 3800+ .
Having owned quite a few AMD processors , I have found that their budget CPUs have ended up being a great choice for enthusiasts .
While great performers at stock speed , they really show their benefit when in the hands of a person who knows how to tweak and manipulate extra performance out of them .
The X2 3800+ should be no exception to this .
Single Thread Testing
3DMark 2005 v1.2.0
3DMark05 is best suited for the latest generation of DirectX9.0 graphics cards .
It is the first benchmark to require a DirectX9.0 compliant hardware with support for Pixel Shaders 2.0 or higher ! By combining high quality 3D tests , CPU tests , feature tests , image quality tools , and much more , 3DMark05 is a premium benchmark for evaluating the latest generation of gaming hardware .
Simply a normal person using a normal benchmark
Mar 23 '01
The Bottom Line All in all , I am very impressed with the AMD line of prossesors and would recommend them to my own mother .
I am , by no means , a computer expert but I have worked with computers since the Atari days and now work in the computer industry ( driver development ) .
I can only compare the Intel Celeron against the AMD Athlon as that is all I have had experience with .
I recently had a HP 6740c ( running a 667 Celeron ) and thought that it was quick enough but the case itself became too small for my needs so I bought a new HP .
I had been one of those people that always stuck with the Intel prossesors ( no reason , just loyal ) but I had been hearing such great things about the Athlon .
So , I decided to purchase a new computer ( again , an HP ) with a 1 gig Athlon .
I transfered all my old hardware to the new computer , not to count all the new bells and whistles that the new one came with ( dvd ect. ) . 
<cs-4>
I started running some of my old programs and noticed a HUGE difference . 
</cs-4>
<cs-1>
According to the `` Mhz '' rating ( yes , I know this does n't mean jack ) , It should only have been 50 % faster but one program in particular , encryption software , was running more then three and a half times faster then the old computer ( it shows it 's progress in cps ) ! That is an enormous difference ! And my games could be run at full resolution without that `` choppy '' look ( I think the better video card played a factor here ) . 
</cs-1>
1_It 2_old computer 3_running (faster)
Intel Verses AMD
Jun 11 '00
I have spent a lot of time pondering why so many people prefer Intel chips to AMD chips .
Specifically , the Pentium chip line , the Athalon and K6 chip lines .
To tell you the truth , I still havent figured out this difference .
Lets take an example : Let the Intel chip line be Nike shoes , and let the AMD chip line be Reeboks shoes .
Both are great brands , but people have a preference to Nike shoes .
Why ? Because Nike claims to have basketball stars using their shoes and better air and support .
<cs-1>
Like I 'm going to ever be able to jump 3 or 4 feet ! Reebok is just a good shoe and maybe even better . 
</cs-1>
1_Reebok 3_shoe (better)
Now apply this theory to the Intel Vs .
AMD problem .
Intel is always having fancy commercials with men in foil suits and claims to have the leading edge in performance . 
<cs-1><cs-4>
This is why AMD has the gigahertz chip before Intel ! To tell you the truth , there isnt a whole lot of difference , other than the price . 
</cs-1></cs-4>
1_AMD 2_Intel 3_gigahertz chip (before)
<cs-1>
Overall , the chips on the AMD line are much cheaper than the chips on the Intel line . 
</cs-1>
1_chips on the AMD line 2_chips on the Intel line (cheaper)
I have always bought AMD chips and have never had any problems .
I have also used computers that have the Pentium III chips in them , but I see no difference between these computers and my computer as long as the compared chips have the same speed .
So , I think that before you go out and pay for the Intel chips consider the AMD line .
<cs-1><cs-2>
They are cheaper , and just as effective . 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_They (cheaper)
1_They 3_effective
<cs-2>
The AMD chip is like the Reebok shoe , losing business to Nike . 
</cs-2>
1_AMD chip 2_Reebok shoe (like)
Now , lets try to answer the question .
<cs-1>
People think that Intel chips are superior solely to popularity and commercials . 
</cs-1>
1_Intel chips (superior)
So , before you buy the Intel chip , think again . You get what you pay for
Jul 09 '00
I 've had my share of experience with Intel and AMD systems , and there was a time where I raved about AMD , but that was short lived , with the advent of 3d graphics , and the rise of incompatabilities with AMD .
It as one thing after another that would go wrong with my AMD system . 
So I decided to make a switch , and it was only a celeron .
Suddenly , my system became faster , I did n't have any glitches in my system , and I could play games decently , and even some that would n't play before .
<cs-1><cs-1>
The Athlon systems perform much better today , but they do n't have the edge Intel holds on it 's solid chipset . 
</cs-1></cs-1>
1_Athlon systems 3_perform 2_Intel (better)
1_Intel 2_Athlon systems 3_chipset (edge)
To have a good system , you need 2 things , a good processor , and a good motherboard .
<cs-1>
If AMD had better motherboards , it probably would be the better product , but this is n't the fact . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 3_motherboards 3_product (better)
The Intel line of products still have an industry lead , and preferred among professionals and manufacturers .
Therefore , almost everything for the PC is designed on the Intel architecture .
This does n't guarantee it will work with AMD , therefore making Intel a dominant product , regardless of benchmarks .
<cs-3>
Solid performance and stability will keep it on top . 
</cs-3>
1_it (top)
Like I said , you get what you pay for .
Intel 's Pentium 4 Processor ~ Holy Smoke !
Oct 29 '00 ( Updated Nov 01 '00 )
As an avid AMD loyalist for some time now , I have been basking in the glory of the AMD Athlon processor with it 's Alpha EV6 inspired 200MHz system bus .
The Athlon processor actually made Intel sit up and take notice that they were no longer alone in the trek to faster processing power .
This evening we were called to a meeting at work for product training .
In the retail field , this usually means you sit and try not to fall asleep while a guy with white hair who makes about six times your salary talks about his company 's product for a couple of hours .
Not tonight .
We were treated to a short introduction to the new Intel Pentium 4 processor and I have to admit , I was thoroughly impressed .
The Intel Pentium 4 processor will be introduced in the very near future at an amazing speed of 1.4GHz and will run on a 400MHz system bus .
The new processor will introduce SSE2 and new SIMD instructions .
All total , 144 new instructions will be added to the current instructions built into the Pentium III processors .
This alone was enough to get my attention but there is more to it than that .
The new processor will also have a new Intel chipset designed for the motherboards that support it .
The Intel i850 chipset .
We were not indulged with very much information on this chipset other than it will support AGP 8x .
Another feature of the supporting motherboards will be a dual RDRAM bus giving 400MHz times two for main memory bandwidth .
Unfortunately the RAMBUS memory is still very expensive and the Pentium 4 processor will not be compatible with PC100 or PC133 SDRAM .
The motherboard we were shown will support up to six 1GB RDRAM modules giving a possible total capacity of 6GB of RDRAM !
 Unlike Intel 's new upcoming 64-bit processor , the Pentium 4 will be a 32-bit processor and therefor still compatible with current operating systems like Windows 95 , 98 , ME , NT and 2000 as well as Linux , Unix , BeOS and many others. 
As usual , the new processor will be available only in new name brand computers ( we were not told which ones ) at first then slowly become available to the average Joe .
We were not given an actual release date , but they did say that it would be very soon .
Intel has pulled all the stops for this processor and I await more information in the near future . 
AMD will have their work cut out for them to keep up with this new technology from Intel .
I will update this review as I learn more information about this wonderful new chip .
Update : 11/01/2000 ~ New Information
I would like to recognize Epinions member and Computers Advisor Vic Wang for sending me the information I am about to share with you .
The first Pentium 4 motherboars will support only RAMBUS or otherwise known as RDRAM memory , but Intel has plans to have a chipset on motherboards supporting SDRAM and possibly even DDR memory sometime next year after the initial introduction of the P4 . 
VIA also has plans on releasing a chipset for the Pentium 4 supporting DDR memory .
<cs-4>
There is some speculation as to the overall performance speed of the Pentium 4 compared to the Pentium III .
</cs-4>
 The Pentium 4 has 144 new instructions built into the processor but these new instruction must go through 20 separate stages as opposed to 12 stages for the Pentium III processor. 
This extremely long pipeline actually lowers the performance in a clock-for-clock benchmark comparison between the two processors .
 The Athlon processor on the other hand has only 10 stages for it 's instruction to go through , even though it has a lot less instructions than the Pentium 4 will have it still may out perform the Pentium 4 in most benchmarks at the same clock speed. 
 This is very interesting and I will investigate further into this new information .
A good place to get more information for yourself is at the following web address . 
http : //www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0 , 4586 , 2619619 , 00.html ? chkpt=zdnnmoreon
Again , thanks to Vic Wang for bringing this information to light for me and for the web link above .
If you would like to visit Vic Wang 's profile page , he has a lot of information on computers and processors .
The address of his profile page is ... WHAT OH WHAT IS BEST FOR ME ? ? ?
Aug 11 '01
<cs-3>
 The Bottom Line Most of you will want the AMD chips .
</cs-3>
1_AMD chips 3_want (most)
The reason is simply the price to performance ratio ; the AMD chips will do what you need inexpensively.
This article is written in an attempt to help those who have no idea what FSB stands for but would still like some idea of which processor is best for them . 
I will endeavour to keep the jargon to a minimum and to explain it in the simplest terms I know how ; as a result , the more sophisticated of you out there will probably be saying ... '' but you did n't even mention the L2 cache size ! ! ! '' Well , that is true , but this and many other factors are covered in other articles ( and I will be writing a more in depth article in this area as well ) and I feel that there are those of US who could use a more down home ( read ... less technical ) overview .
The fact is that if you are n't building them , selling them or at least writing a book on them ... .all this is probably not going to help any more than a simple `` for this , you need this. '' Now , having said that , I will probably go a little more into the techie side than you would expect , but I am always here to answer questions if you have any .
Thank you and happy reading .
The primary choices right now in the PC market are the AMD DURON , AMD THUNDERBIRD , iNTEL Pentium III and iNTEL Pentium IV .
I will briefly go into each .
<cs-3><cs-3>
The AMD Duron is the lowest priced of the chips in this lineup and might , therefore , be expected to be the slowest . 
</cs-3></cs-3>
1_AMD Duron 3_priced (lowest)
1_AMD Duron (slowest)
No real surprises , in most high end apps it is the slowest in this line-up at the same MHz rating at peak use .
What do all those ats mean ? ? ? ... .Well , the reason I have written it this way is to give me leeway to explain the rest of the performance of this chip without contradicting myself .
The DURON will perform beautifully and meet the needs of ( I 'm estimating here ) 90+ % of the market .
If you are running high end CAD or are a REALLY serious gamer , you might look into stepping up past the DURON line , but if you 're running the SIMS , SIMCITY300 unlimited or similar ... I happen to know for a fact they run fine , even flawlessly , on a 850MHz Duron ( $ 52.00 chip as of Aug .
11 , 2001 ) .
 There are some advantages to the pentium chips that we will get into a bit here and a whole lot more in another article , but they are really underscored by the cost to performance factor you get out of the DURON chip ( not to mention you probably are n't going to see more than a 4-5 % speed increase with the faster chips on most of what you run ... notice I said see , and I 'm leaving those speed reader guru guys that have been advertising on techtv out of this , because I suppose they might notice the difference a little more ) . 
Also , if you go with the DURON and are still going to spend the same amount of cash on the overall system , you get to go with more RAM , a bigger hard drive ( or a faster one ) , maybe add in a CD/RW or DVD , or any number of other things .
<cs-1>
A decked out DURON is infinitely superior , in my humble epinion , to a scrapped down PIV . 
</cs-1>
1_DURON 2_PIV (superior)
 The Thunderbird is next up on our list .
The AMD ATHLON THUNDERBIRD is a fantastic chip ... .mine is anyway ... .
The advantages over the DURON are not `` all that great ( laugh out loud ) , '' but to me they make all the difference in the world. 
 Now , I told you most of you would n't really see the advantage of the THUNDERBIRD over the DURON ... let me clarify , right now , with the software common on the market , most users not in heavily graphics oriented environments will be well matched with a DURON , but for all you speed junkies out there ... .the word is THUNDERBIRD. 
With a 266FSB , loads of cache ( l1 and l2 ... do n't worry if you do n't know what these mean , just suffice to say that they are like really fast RAM ( Random Access Memory ) that will help with speed ) , and overclocking a joke , these are capable of absolutely SCREAMING .
I have personally had a 1.2 running stable for several days at close to 1.8 on an ABIT board with water cooling ( of course , that is n't really practical for most of us , but it sure is fun .
These chips are very inexpensive ( $ 102 for the 1.2 with 266FSB as of August 11 , 2001 ) and will absolutely meet and exceed virtually everyone 's needs .
NOTE : THERE IS ONE MAJOR CAVEAT TO THE AMD DURON AND THUNDERBIRD LINE ... .THEY ARE SO EASY TO DAMAGE .
THE PROCESSOR SITS ON TOP OF THE DIE , EXPOSED .
IT USED TO BE THAT THE ACTUAL PROCESSING UNIT WAS UNDER A COVER ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE PROCESSOR ON MOST CPUS , BUT THESE ARE RIGHT OUT THERE IN THE OPEN AND THEY BREAK IF NOT HANDLED PROPERLY .
AMD uses these , in my opinion , substandard rubber pieces on each corner to space the heatsink and if you apply just a little to much pressure , you break the chip ... ruined , no fix , toss it , no good ... ... ..unless you bought it with a good credit card , then you get a new one and laugh at your `` little '' mistake .
There are a number of ways around this , including going exotic with epoxy and a sheet of glass ( this will be in my AMD overclocking article ) or as mundane as a shim ( both conductive and nonconductive shims available ) . 
Of course , you could just be careful , but do be sure you are .
 Also , never , never , ever , ever , never , absolutely , under no circumstances turn on the system without a properly applied heatsink with a good fan and thermal paste ; you could get away with that for a while on an old pentium 133 , but these 'll be dead in seconds without proper cooling. 
Now , we 'll go into the PIII .
A really nice chip , price aside .
I wo n't go into to much on this chip as this article is about which one you will want and I definitely do n't think this 'll be it for the majority of you .
<cs-2>
OKAY , you overclockers out there that are going to give me all the stories about pushing the envelope with these babies ... .yes , they are capable of doing a lot , but so are the AMDs ( for less cash ) and if you know all the technical how tos and want to tweak your sys out for hours everyday to stay on that `` edge , '' go for it , but most of the people out there who are simply looking for a system to do their typing , get online , and maybe listen to music , will be very well suited with the AMD chip. 
</cs-2>
1_they 2_AMD 3_capable ()
Now , the PIV is in a very similar chip to the PIII in most aspects .
 It has a little more cache and a few more instruction sets , but the way it uses those instruction sets is inefficient in comparison the AMD chips. 
 Does this mean its slower ... .well , yes and no .
 It is slower on some things , but it is faster on some of them as well. 
 The real thing to remember here is that the benefits of the PIV are expensive. 
 If you are the type of person who adds a supercharger to your car to get a couple of MPH advantage , then you might want a PIV .
 Will it `` stomp '' the Thunderbird ... no , but in VERY high end apps , you will see some difference , especially if you are using RDRAM ( higher bandwith , read very expensive ( though the price is dropping ) RAM ) . 
DDR ( DOUBLE DATA RATE ) RAM is a relatively cheap alternative with a great deal of the benefits , and it will work will with the AMD THUNDERBIRD AT 266FSB .
I have a 600MHz Duron running at 790MHz ( yes , its overclocked ) , a 850MHz DURON running standard , and a 1.2GHz Thunderbird with 266FSB ( theres that nasty acronym I said you would n't have to know ... ... well , you do n't really , but what it means is Front Speed Bus and it relates to the amount of data that can be transferred from the processor to a useable state at any given time ; generally the higher the number , the better off you 'll be ... right now the AMD Thunderbirds are either 200 or 266MHz ... more about that in the technical article ) .
I build PIIIs and PIVs pretty regularly , but do n't use them myself ( although I have a great old Pentium 90 that stills a workout as a web server running Apache on Linux ... .some apps do n't need all the speed that is available to us now ) .
 Okay , so now you realize I 'm a little jaded towards the AMD chips .
Do I have anything against Intel ? No , I just like the price to performance factor of the DURON and THUNDERBIRD chips. 
David and Goliath
Jan 09 '03
The Bottom Line Overall , the AMD Athlon and Athlon XP processors are the way to go .
The cost and speed of them are reason enough for the switch from Intel .
The time has come , once again , for the epic battle of the little man and the enormous behemoth .
This time , unlike the biblical tale of two men facing each other in a field , it is all about computer processor manufacturers in Intel and AMD .
Much to everyone 's understanding , Intel is obviously the `` Goliath '' in this virtually never-ending battle .
However , this Goliath is much , much more difficult to kill than the original was .
No slingshot and rock is going to knock out Intel 's massive marketing power and mainstream CPU , the Pentium processor .
Intel , for years , has dominated the CPU world .
With their huge advertising campaign , contracts with Microsoft and Dell ( yes , in case you have not noticed , Dell does not use AMD chips ) , they have effectively made the AMD processor a CPU of myth and legend . 
I am a computer sales person for a large electronics store , which is NOT COMMISSIONED .
Therefore , I can honestly say that I do not ever oversell anyone on a computer I know they will not need .
However , this is not pertinent to my argument other than my opinion 's background .
The main focus for this argument will be the Pentium and Athlon XP series processors .
Intel , for well over a decade , has made quality processors .
They have designed 5 types of chips , from the low-end Celeron to the Server capacity Xeon , Intel is a formidable opponent for anyone trying to become the next CPU giant .
The Intel Pentium series chipsets have been the pioneer in CPU power and clock speed , with a maximum core clock of 2.0GHz and FSB of 533MHz , they are a force to be reckoned with .
Now , before I start getting a bunch of people asking why I have said core clock of 2.0GHz when everyone knows they make speeds of 3.06GHz on the PIV scale , let me explain .
<cs-1>
The Pentium series CPUs have capped out @ 2GHz , meaning that anything faster than that is overclocked ; being forced to run faster than it is supposed to . 
</cs-1>
1_Pentium series CPUs 3_run (faster)
This being the case , we will only refer to the 2GHz Pentium IV .
Intel recently switched over on their motherboards from the RDR ( Rambus ) memory to the DDR ( Double Data Rate ) memory which AMD was notorius for utilizing .
There are three reasons for the swtich : 1 ) Rambus ram had to come in pairs , which made them cost more .
<cs-1>
2 ) The cost difference from Rambus and DDR made people buy AMD more and more . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 3_buy (more)
<cs-1>
3 ) DDR memory was not only cheaper , but performed better for what it was supposed to do . 
</cs-1>
1_DDR memory (cheaper)
1_DDR memory 3_performed (better)
Seems like a winning switch for Intel , right ? Wrong .
Since Intel made the switch , their advertised 533MHz FSB will never be .
Why , you ask ? Well , the FSB speed is made for the speed of the memory .
The FSB and memory clock speed must coincide for optimal performance , so when you slap a 533MHz FSB on a 266MHz memory ( standard DDR { PC2100 } runs at 266MHz ) , you only receive a 266MHz FSB speed .
This decreased FSB makes the processor work harder to take up the extra slack , which causes more heat . 
Anyone who knows computers will tell you : heat is your enemy .
Heat kills processors , plain and simple .
The Pentium IV processor has major heat dissipation problems when coupled with the DDR ram , making the performance of the CPU terribly troublesome .
<cs-1>
AMD , on the other hand , being the `` David '' as you will , runs cooler because it 's FSB has always been a constant 266MHz , and does not cause problems with DDR memory. 
</cs-1>
1_AMD 3_runs (cooler)
As a matter of fact , DDR and AMD Athlon were designed hand in hand . 
<cs-2>
Much like the contracts Intel has with Microsoft and Dell , DDR and AMD have a mutual respect .
</cs-2>
1_DDR and AMD 2_Intel has with Microsoft 3_contracts (like)
Running using the `` Quantispeed Technology , '' AMD has beed able to effectively eliminate the misconception that clock speed is the basis for performance .
 The AMD Athlon has been able to out perform the Intel Pentium CPUs by more than 15 % on average. 
The AMD company , holding back on much of the marketing that Intel does , is able to create much lower prices for the same , if not better performing , processor.
 I have owned all types of CPUs , from the Intel 386 processor to the AMD Athlon XP over the last 13 years , and have found that since AMD created it 's first processor , the AM386 , it has out performed Intel in virtually all possible ways. 
Sep 26 '01 ( Updated Oct 31 '01 )
 The Bottom Line Even though Intel regained performance crown with P4 2GHz , I would still choose AMD for lower cost , and more importantly , to punish Intel 's bad behavior. 
Who Am I ( and why should you believe me )
I built my new computer in February 2001 with a AMD Athlon 900 MHz .
From this experience , I have learned a lot about computer hardware .
Before that , I baby-sit 10 PCs and 10 Macs in a research lab .
I am biased against Intel .
You can see why if you read on .
The Clock Speed Game
If you look at Pentium 4 ( P4 ) specs , you will be impressed by the super-high clock speed they have , now up to 2 GHz .
However , clock speed is not everything ( see epinion by dkozin ) .
It is quite disgusting to find that the P4 design is aimed at getting a high clock speed but not necessarily performance .
 In most benchmark tests , P4 is as fast as P3 ( yes , Intel 's own product ) with 2/3 of the clock speed . 
<cs-2>
That means 1.5 GHz P4 is as fast as 1.0 GHz P3. 
</cs-2>
1_1.5 GHz P4 2_1.0 GHz P3 (as fast as)
So Intel is cheating here by artificially boosting clock speed to create an illusion that the P4 is much faster .
 That said , I have to admit that P4 2.0 GHz IS very fast .
<cs-1>
In fact , it beats the currently fastest Athlon ( 1.4 GHz ) , in a lot of the benchmarks.  
</cs-1>
1_it 2_Athlon ( 1.4 GHz ) 3_benchmarks (beats)
<cs-4>
Rambus vs . DDR
</cs-4>
DDR
 One reason the P4 is sometimes faster than Athlon is its high memory throughput , because P4 uses Rambus memory. 
However , you might already noticed that the Rambus memory ( RDRAM ) is much more expensive than traditional memory ( SDRAM ) and DDR RAM ( DDR stands for double data rate ) . 
The current industry consensus is that DDR is a better compromise between cost and performance. 
However , because Intel backed Rambus from the early days , it is refusing to release DDR support for P4 . 
Legal Front
To make the situation even more disgusting , Intel not only delays its own DDR solution , but also works hard to block other people from doing so .
They do so by two means .
First , they are suing VIA , the maker of P4X266 chipset ( DDR for P4 ) .
Secondly , they are intimidating motherboard manufacturers from using the P4X266 .
Noteworthy is that this intimidation game happened in 1999 also , when Intel were trying to prevent Athlon motherboards from being made .
Break Monopoly , Choose AMD
 I think Intel is behaving like a bad monopoly , just like Microsoft. 
The good news is , unlike the operating system world , we do have a very strong competing product , the AMD Athlon .
 In the past year or so , Athlon holds the performance crown. 
Although they have lost it recently after the release of Intel P4 2 GHz , I believe they will come back. 
 I chose AMD at the beginning of this year because of its performance ( and low cost ) . 
If I were to make the choice again today , I will still choose AMD. 
 This time , I might loose a little bit in terms of performance , however I will be sending a message to Intel : stop fooling consumers and stop all these bad behaviors .
Update : AMD come back to beat Intel
Here is an update .
 In the benchmarks released on TomsHardwareGuide today ( 10/31/01 ) , AMD Athlon XP 1800+ ( running at 1533MHz ) was tested faster in most categories than Pentium 4 2000MHz. 
Jul 27 '00 ( Updated Sep 15 '00 )
Today I read several reviews about computer processors .
Majority of them was quite useless and misleading at best , yet majority of these were given high ratings by members .
I used to assemble PCs myself and install software , perform upgrades and such .
I read a lot of articles in different computer magazines and web sites about benchmarks and influence of processor on the overall system performance . 
By saying this I am trying to convince you that I know what I am talking about .
There are some popular myths about processors
THE HIGHER THE FREQUENCY THE FASTER THE CPU
This is true only when comparing the CPUs of the same type ( i.e .
<cs-4>
Celeron vs Celeron ) . 
</cs-4>
 You can not say that Celeron 550 MHz is faster than AMD Athlon 500 MHz ( it is not true ) . 
Also every processor has its ~Sups and downs~T.
 Intel processors are much better when dealing with floating-point numbers and MMX instructions than AMD ( before Athlon arrived ) and , especially , Cyrix and WinChip at the same clock frequency. 
On the other hand , AMD processors sometimes worked better when dealing with integer numbers.
THE FASTER THE CPU THE FASTER THE PC
<cs-4>
It is true , but it doesnt mean that if you compare a computer with 800 MHz processor with a 400 MHz one , you will get 100 % performance increase . 
</cs-4>
A lot depends on the hard drive performance and memory ( RAM ) size .
Modern applications use hard drive a lot .
Also the operating system itself uses the hard drive to increase the size of the virtual memory by placing part of the information , which has to be located in RAM , in the special swap file.
The less RAM you have and the more RAM applications require , the more the hard drive usage , which slows your computer regardless of your CPU performance .
So for calculation-intensive applications the processor performance will mean a lot , but for regular office applications , CPU itself doesnt mean much .
A lot of time is spent redrawing windows and exchanging information with hard drive .
For 3D computer games , the good 3D video card increases performance significantly .
You can get good 3D performance even with outdated ( 1 year old ) processor .
Also to notice the difference in speed , the overall PC ( not CPU ! ) performance should be at increased by at least 30 % ( my own experience ) .
COMPUTERS CRASH BECAUSE OF THE BAD CPU
Although it is possible that PC will crash because of CPU production defects or too high frequency , the CPU architecture itself will not cause the crash.
So when somebodys review says AMD K6-2 is good , because my AMD-based PC doesnt crash , I get upset .
Computers usually crash because of software conflicts , faulty hardware and just poorly written software .
I can cause the infamous Windows General Protection Fault with 2 lines of code .
By faulty hardware I mean not only CPU , but the motherboard , network card , video card , modem , sound card , etc .
Majority of hardware-related crashes are not caused by CPU .
MULTIPROCESSOR SUPPORT
Some reviews say that this processor does not provide multiprocessor support. 
At home you are not going to use an operating system that would allow you to use multiple processors .
Home-use oriented operating systems ( Win95 , Win98 ) does not have multiprocessing support .
I would not use , say , NT 4.0 at home  it has no USB support and doesnt support peripherals and hardware I have .
BOTTOM LINE
Usually there is no reason to buy the fastest processor for your home PC .
1GHz processor will not give you much advantage over 500MHz one , if you use regular office applications .
A lot of processor time is spent waiting for data to arrive from the hard drive or even RAM .
1GHz processor doesnt wait faster than 500 MHz one .
And all CPUs at the normal operating parameters ( normal clock frequency , voltage and temperature ) are stable .
<cs-4>
Crashes are not caused by the processor architecture . Intel versus AMD , who are you betting on ? 
</cs-4>
Aug 14 '01 ( Updated Nov 16 '02 )
The Bottom Line With good points from all sides , the decision depends on the application .
When working on a computer , all of what you are doing is processed by the CPU ( central processing unit ) , the brain of the computer if you will .
Like brains , computers arent all of equal power .
Some are the equivalent to a rat brain , and some to Einstein .
The trick is to find that sweat spot between value and performance , thats when youve found the perfect processor for you ! But , before you decide how much power you want to jam in that little chip , youre going to want to decide on the type .
<cs-4>
This my friend , is where we enter a feud that has lasted longer than life itself ( well , at least for people that are younger than it ! ) , the Intel versus AMD feud .
</cs-4>
From the early 80 's when the company Intel was founded , ( by the way , Intel isnt derived from the word intelligence , its a mix between the words integrated electronics ) Intel has taken off and dominated the home computer market .
It also took over the laptop processor market , and just recently with the introduction of there first 64 bit processor , very might well take over the server and workstation market ( previously occupied by Suns UltraSparc and Compaqs Alpha ) .
But , all along the road to fame Intel has run into some competition .
In the beginning , from IBM ( the creator of the desktop ) , then Cyrix ( which is almost totally wiped out ) , and most recently AMD .
You might think that AMD will have the same fate as the rest , but the fact is that AMD is putting up a huge fight and is actually taking away Intels market share in almost all markets .
Now that Ive given Intels background , AMD deserves some of the spotlight .
AMD ( Advanced Micro Devices ) doesnt have such a long and prestigious history , but has done some pretty amazing things .
No one knew about AMD before they introduced there first hit product , the AMD K6-2 .
It was designed to compete against the Pentium Pro , Pentium II , and earlier Pentium IIIs .
They then introduced the AMD K6-III , which wasnt as popular and didnt stick around long due to the introduction of the AMD Athlon and Duron processors .
The Duron was designed to compete against the Celeron , it was designed as a consumer budget model .
The Athlon was more advanced and was designed to compete against the Pentium III .
They then redid the Athlon and came out with a Socket model ( uses a small chip with pins on the bottom compared to the slot which was about the size of a graphing calculator and went in thin side down ) .
This was designed to compete against the later Pentium III models and the Pentium 4 .
Now that you know some background information on the two companies , its time to start the debate between the Intel processors and the AMD processors .
The first fight is between the two consumer budget chips from both models , the Celeron from Intel and the Duron from AMD .
The next fight is the desktop round between the Pentium III and Pentium 4 from Intel and the Athlon from AMD .
The next is the high-end workstation and server markets , in which the Itanium from Intel and the SMP version of the Athlon from AMD .
The last battle is for the notebook market .
This includes the Pentium III with SpeedStep technology from Intel and the Athlon 4 from AMD .
Round One , Consumer Budget Processors
This fight is between the two entry level processors , Intels Celeron and AMDs Duron .
Both of the processors dont perform as well as there desktop counterparts , especially the Celeron .
The Celeron is about 200 megahertz slower than the Duron or AMD equivalent , although the technical clock speed may be the same .
<cs-1>
In this one , the Duron wins hands down . 
</cs-1>
1_Duron  (wins)
<cs-1>
Its cheaper , faster , and fits in the Athlon socket , so if you built a system designed for a Duron you could easily upgrade to an Athlon , no converters or change of motherboard required ! 
</cs-1>
1_Its (cheaper, faster)
Round Two , Desktop Processors
This is really where Intel and AMD fight because here energy is not an issue and the speeds arent limited by cooling or space .
The Intel Pentium III processor goes from 400 megahertz to 1 gigahertz .
<cs-1><cs-2><cs-2>
It performs similar to the Pentium 4 , but is cheaper ( although not as cheap as the high end Athlons ) . 
</cs-1></cs-2></cs-2>
1_It 2_Pentium 4 (cheaper)
1_It 2_Pentium 4 3_performs (similar)
1_It 2_Athlons (as cheap as)
The Athlon is meant to compete on all fronts .
It goes from 550 megahertz to 1.67 gigahertz ( and climbing ) .
<cs-2>
It usually performs at about the same speed as an Intel processor 400 megahertz ahead ( for example , a 1.4 GH-z Athlon will beet out a 1.8 GH-z Pentium 4 ) . 
</cs-2>
1_It 2_Intel processor 3_speed (same speed as)
They are also really cheap , with the 1.4 GH-z processor going for $ 100 .
The last processor is the Pentium 4 .
This is aimed at the higher level consumer , but when sold with a desktop isnt much more expensive . 
<cs-1>
Overall , Id say go for the Athlon because its cheaper , faster , and doesnt use Rambus RAM ( the P4 only uses Rambus RAM , the Athlon can use SDRAM or DDR RAM ) unless youre a gamer , then Id say go for an Intel Pentium 4 based system at 1.5 GH-z . 
</cs-1>
 1_Athlon  P4 1_Intel Pentium 4 (go for)
Round Three , High-end Workstations and Servers
For a market where neither Intel nor AMD has ever been too successful , there is an awful lot of competition .
AMD competes with its SMP based systems ( Symmetrical Multi-Processor , more than one processor ) and Intel competes with its 64 bit Itanium processor .
The first half of the fight is centered around high-end workstations .
These are usually involved with CAD and CAM programs which just suck up megahertz like theres no tomorrow .
On this front , the SMP Athlon systems win out .
<cs-1>
They are much cheaper than the Itanium chips and dont need a 64 bit operating system to perform to their full potential . 
</cs-1>
1_They 2_Itanium chips (cheaper)
The server market is different .
It doesnt really have much activity directly onto it , but much serve up a lot of information to a large number of clients .
This fight is won by the Intel Itanium .
<cs-4>
People are willing to pay more for speed when dealing with web servers , and the operating system really isnt that important because only the clients are going to interact with it and they wont need to navigate around the OS and there arent any compatibility issues like there are with programs like AutoCAD . 
</cs-4>
Round Four , Mobile Processors
In one corner , weighing in at up to 1.1 Gigahertz , the Intel Pentium III with SpeedStep .
In the other corner , the latest mobile processor from AMD , weighing in at up to 1 Gigahertz , the AMD Athlon 4 ! Alright , first things first , what sets these chips apart from there desktop counterparts .
The SpeedStep technology that Intel talks about in the naming scheme is why its a mobile processor .
SpeedStep enabled chips are designed to save power by running at one speed when plugged in and another when relying on battery power .
For example , in my Dell Inspiron 8000 with an Intel Pentium III 900 MH-z SpeedStep enabled processor runs at 900 megahertz when plugged in and 750 when relying on batter power .
This can be disabled though , at the BIOS screen .
The Athlon 4 ( note that the 4 is just meant to compete with the Pentium 4 , its basically the same as the normal Athlon ) is just basically an energy saver .
<cs-1>
At the end of the match , Id have to say that the AMD Athlon 4 processor would win because it doesnt slow down the processor and is much cheaper ( as are most AMD products ) . 
</cs-1>
1_AMD Athlon 4 processor (win)
All of this having been said , there are other choices out there .
The main alternative is the Motorola PowerPC G4 or G3 that is in all Apple computers .
I didnt go into this here , because if you want a PowerPC system then you really only have two choices , iMac or G4 desktop .
In the server/high-end workstation market there is the Alpha by Compaq ( a 64 bit processor , although Compaqs given up on this in favor of the Itanium ) or the UltraSparc by Sun Microsystems .
Also , in the notebook field there is the Transmeta Crusoe which consumes very little power .
I just wanted to point this out before the Apple , Alpha , UltraSparc , and Transmeta fans start sending me hate mail !
Update ( August 31 , 2001 )
Intel has been the first to reach 2.0 GHz with it 's Intel Pentium 4 processor .
AMD started the megahertz race , and was the fist to get to 1.0 GHz .
But , now , since they have only gotten up to 1.4 GHz , they are dropping out of the race , they are going to stop naming the processors with the megahertz rating in them .
They have n't publically released the naming scheme .
I 've got ta remind you , megahertz are n't totally acurate , and are n't the only factors .
I 'm still recommending AMD for desktops !
Update ( October 12 , 2001 )
AMD has just released the new Athlons , with the name XP in them ( hmmmm , I think someone is trying to suck up to XP users ! ) .
<cs-1>
And , they are named names like the Athlon 1800 XP , which runs at 1.53 gigahertz , yet still beats all of the Pentium 3/4 's ! My recommendations all still stand , although it looks like AMD is showing signs of weakness ! 
</cs-1>
1_Athlon 1800 XP 2_Pentium 3/4 (beats)
Update ( November 6 , 2001 )
The second `` XP '' chip , the Athlon 1900 XP ( 1.6 GHz , or something a little higher than that ) has just been released . 
<cs-3>
Intel has n't released any new chips consumer chips ( the 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 was the last ) in a while , a sign of another in the near future , and prices are freefalling . 
</cs-3>
1_2.0 GHz Pentium 4 3_chip (last)
They have n't gotten to the point where I 'd highly reccommend them for a consumer system , but if this continues my opinion may change ( c'mon AMD , you were doing real well , please do n't stop ! ) ...
Update ( January 4 , 2002 )
`` XP '' number three has just been released , the AMD Athlon XP 2000 .
<cs-1>
What ? It does n't run at 2 gigahertz ? Nope , it 's an XP ! It actually runs as 70 megahertz more than the 1900 , at 1.67 gigahertz . 
</cs-1>
1_It 2_1900 3_runs (more)
Since the chip has just been released it is extremely high priced , around $ 350 .
With the high-end Penium 4 's falling to around $ 400 , the choice is getting less important , but all of my reccommendations still stand . 
Well , I guess my prediction about Intel releasing another chip were wrong , as they have n't released one for months now .
Happy New Year !
Update ( January 7 , 2002 )
<cs-4>
Wow , I guess my timing could n't have been worse on that last update ! Intel has released a new Pentium 4 that goes up to 2.2 Gigahertz ( which AMD is still stuck down at 1.67 Gigahertz ) . 
</cs-4>
<cs-1>
Besides just the higher clock speed , the new Pentium 4 also sports a larger `` Level 2 Cache '' ( I 'm not sure what exactly it is , all I know that it is good ! ) . 
</cs-1>
1_Pentium 4 3_clock speed 3_Level 2 Cache (larger)
Alright , so I bet you are wondering what I think of this .
My answer is , well , it pains me to say it , *gulp* but I 'm know recommending Pentium 4 's for BUYING a PC .
If you are building a PC then the price is going to be insanely high so you should still go with the Athlon 's .
Hopefully AMD will release a newer processor sometime soon . 
Hopefully my next update will be soon and we 'll get some shocking information ( oh , why the way , Steve Jobs just released the new iMac , www.apple.com , and I must say , it is ugly as sin ! ) .
Update ( April 30 , 2002 )
The new chips are here , the new chips are here ! Intel has just released two new chips : the Pentium 4 2.4 GHz and the mobile 1.8 GHz P4 .
The 2.4 GHz is the highest yet and it looks like they 're aiming for the 3GHz mark .
The mobile processor is designed for laptops and is the fastest x86 chip out there for a laptop .
AMD has released the 2100 XP which runs at 1.73 GHz , a far cry from the 2.4 of Intel .
Apple has also just released the eMac -- not i , e ! It 's for education and they 've reverted back to a CRT monitor ( something Steve Jobs did n't like , but they had to keep it under $ 1000 ) .
It 's only for schools , but I think it 's pretty cool anyway .
Update ( November 16 , 2002 )
 They can not keep up with Intel , and their marketshare is dropping. 
<cs-1>
 Not one major computer manufacterer offers a flagship PC with their chips , and I hate to say it , but Intel is just faster. 
</cs-1>
1_Intel (faster)
 Even while the clock speed is n't everything , AMD can not keep saying that , because they have been outperformed over and over again .
<cs-3>
 On the PowerPC side , Apple has released its fastest machine yet : a dual 1.25GHz system. 
</cs-3>
1_dual 1.25GHz system 3_machine (fastest)
<cs-2>
 It is fast , but not as fast as the x86 chips. 
</cs-2>
1_It 2_x86 chips (as fast as)
 In the next year or so , they will probably get a new chip .
Intel has just released their 3GHz chip , and I must say , it 's all over for AMD .
****************************************************************************
Article on Pentium 4/2200 vs. Athlon XP 2000+
http://www.thg.ru/cpu/20020107/print.html
****************************************************************************
<cs-4>
In the case of these top favorites , the `` AMD vs . Intel '' battle has encountered various twists and turns in this power play .
</cs-4>
Up till recently , for instance , AMD was still ahead of the game with its Athlon XP 1900+ .
Here , the 1.6 GHz of the Athlon XP was up against the 2 GHz of the 'old ' Pentium 4 with 'Willamette'-core .
Meanwhile , today 's introduction of the new `` Northwood '' Pentium 4 core has changed the game somewhat , because Intel not only increased the clock speed , but also doubled the L2-Cache of Pentium 4 .
<cs-1>
To express this in terms of numbers : there is a 533 MHz difference between the clock speeds of the Pentium 4/2200 and the Athlon XP 2000+ - this amounts to a 32 % core clock lead of P4 `` twenty-two-hundred '' . 
</cs-1>
1_P4 `` twenty-two-hundred '' 2_Athlon XP 2000+ 3_core clock (lead)
In addition , the L2-Cache of the Pentium 4 has grown from 256 kB ( Willamette-Core ) to 512 kB ( Northwood Core ) .
<cs-4>
Furthermore , there are substantial differences in the process technology : while Intel facilitates the new 0.13 µm process for the P4 Northwood core in order to pave its way towards 3 GHz and higher , AMD still continues to use its 0.18 µm copper process for the Palomino core of the latest Athlon XP 2000+ . 
</cs-4>
It is already a well-known fact that the 0.18 µm process sets some sharp limitations to AthlonXP 's top clock speed .
However , the manufacturer is working under considerable pressure to produce a 0.13 micron version of the Palomino core , which will probably make its debut as the `` Thoroughbred '' Core at this year 's CeBIT .
Nevertheless , in the performance tests , the results of both competitors were neck-on-neck , and in order to capture the nuances of the individual performances , we used a large set of different benchmark tests .
In spite of Intel 's 533 MHz advantage in clock speed we saw a rather close outcome .
Pentium 4 - Slow Start Followed By Supply Problems
Since its release in November 2000 , Pentium 4 first had to fight an uphill battle , doomed by its expensive platform and memory requirements as well as its rather bad 'IPC ' ratio , the amount of 'work ' it is able to do per clock cycle , which is significantly less than its competitor from AMD .
The situation finally changed last summer , when Intel finally gave the masses what they wanted - an inexpensive P4-platform in form of the mediocre performing i845 chipset .
Now i845 might be like a bad dream for technology savvy people , but it sure made Pentium 4 overnight sell like sliced bread .
By Fall 2001 Intel started to have delivery problems .
That moment marked the comeback of AMD 's Athlon .
Athlon XP - The Model Numbers Are A Success !
AMD 's Athlon-series of processors has been an excellent product since its first release in August 1999 .
However , as good as the K7-design might be , AMD started to suffer from the clock speed advantage of Intel 's Pentium 4 processor .
The majority of technologically less educated buyers would n't care for the fact that Athlon is able to do more work than Pentium 4 per clock cycle .
Core clock was all that mattered to them , and while Intel sold Pentium 4 at 1.8 GHz , AMD had nothing 'faster ' than its Athlon 1.4 GHz .
Finally , AMD made a rather desperate move and introduced Athlon XP along with a new 'model rating ' , which gives the processor a 'model number ' that is supposed to reflect its performance in comparison to Intel 's Pentium 4 .
The press received this idea with very mixed feelings and many journalists feared that this new rating system would rather damage than help AMD 's Athlon XP-sales .
Today , a couple of months later , I 'd say that AMD 's plan actually worked .
Even I am catching myself often enough thinking that AthlonXP1900+ is actually running at 1.9 GHz instead of the actual 1.6 GHz .
Once AMD has caught up with Intel in terms of process technology and introduces the 0.13 µm 'Thoroughbred ' core , AMD will have the die size advantage back in its court .
<cs-1>
The 80 mm² of 'Thoroughbred ' will be significantly less than the 146 mm² of 'Northwood ' . 
</cs-1>
1_80 mm² of 'Thoroughbred ' 2_146 mm² of 'Northwood ' (less)
Northwood - Late , But Not Too Late
The first time we reported on Intel 's upcoming P4-core 'Northwood ' , the expected replacement of 'Willamette ' , was in late 2000 .
Back then we had to tell the sad story that Willamette 's platform ( Socket423 ) would only be very short-lived , because 'Northwood ' would facilitate a new Socket478 .
Back then , Intel 's roadmap expected 'Northwood ' to be introduced in late Q3/2001 , alongside with 'Brookdale ' , the i845 chipset .
Problems with the new 0.13 µm process , a better than expected yield of Willamette as well as a slow market delayed the release of 'Northwood ' into the first days of 2002 .
This delay had only one bad side effect for Intel . 
Due to the rather huge die size of Willamette ( 217 mm² ) Intel was n't able to produce as many Pentium 4 processors as the market wanted in Q4 2001 .
Besides that , 'Northwood ' is still right on the money and right on time .
The days of easy overclocking are long gone , at least with Intel . 
With the introduction of a fixed multiplier ( burned into special SRAM registries of the CPU ) , the manufacturer has put the clamps on ever since PIII 'Coppermine ' .
So the only possibility left for overclocking the Pentium 4/2200 is to overclock the FSB .
Still , this makes little sense , because the chipset usually increases the clock speeds of PCI-ports and the AGP as well , putting them out of spec .
This frequently results in the system sporadically showing signs of instable behavior with the operating system .
For this reason , we did not overclock the Pentium 4/2200 .
<cs-4>
It 's a different story with the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ , whose clock multiplier can be unlocked by making a few modifications to the CPU . 
</cs-4>
Still , most cases are beset by strict limitations . 
With the use of a water-cooling system , we were able to increase the CPU clock to 1850 MHz , simply by raising the FSB clock from 133 MHz to 147 MHz .
This clock speed would correspond an Athlon XP 2300+ .
Average Sales Price : High Prices , Also At AMD
There has been a surprising development in the past weeks , and apparently nobody really noticed .
Ever since the introduction of the Athlon XP , AMD has barely dropped the prices .
So , the days when users could get one of the fastest CPUs for relatively little money are a thing of the past .
By contrast , within the same period of time , Intel sank the prices of its CPUs all the more .
In any case , AMD 's current top-of-the line model ( Athlon XP 2000+ ) costs $ 340 .
Intel 's top product ( Pentium 4/2200 with a Northwood core ) costs quite a bit more , with the street price running up to $ 562 .
nvestment Safety : Intel Vs .
AMD
An important criterion in evaluating processor platforms is how safe the investment is .
This is especially important with regard to complete systems whose components can be updated after purchase in order keep it up to the newest technological standards .
In addition to the processor , this has primarily to do with the chipset that corresponds to the motherboard .
<cs-3>
So , when we look at the Pentium 4 platform , we could say that it would n't be to the best interests of end users , because the majority of the motherboards for Pentium 4 ( with Intel 845 , Intel 845D , and Intel 850 chipsets ) equipped with Socket 478 are only designed to accept a Front Side Bus clocked at 100 MHz ( 400 MHz QDR ) . 
</cs-3>
1_Pentium 4 platform 3_interests of end users (best)
In the next few months , however , Intel is planning to introduce the Pentium 4 with 133 MHz ( 533 MHz QDR ) FSB and faster memory clocked at 533 MHz . 
And here , the user has to start the annoying game once again : in order to enjoy the benefits of such high performance , you need a motherboard with 133/533 MHz FSB and possibly 533 MHz RDRAM .
<cs-4>
According to memory manufacturers , this PC1066 RDRAM RIMM will cost twice the price of a normal PC-800 module for 400 MHz clock .
</cs-4>
<cs-3> 
From this point of view , DDR-chipsets for Pentium 4 are the best solution , because they work ( asynchronously ) with DDR SDRAM . 
</cs-3>
1_DDR-chipsets for Pentium 4 3_solution (best)
AMD 's development cycle for CPU platforms takes a bit longer , which is an advantage for the user .
The current Socket 462 is supposed to remain up-to-date throughout the entirety of 2002 .
The FSB clock speed has already been changed to 133 MHz ( 266 MHz DDR ) , and only an increase to 166 MHz ( 333 MHz DDR ) can be expected in this wide market .
OpenGL Performance : Quake 3 Arena
In both of the Quake 3 Arena time-demo runs , the Pentium 4/2200 is ahead of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ .
The NV15 demos show a similar picture : Pentium 4 leads in the charts .
With the introduction of the Northwood core , the distance between the P4 and the Athlon XP has increased , especially in lower resolutions that put a greater load on the CPU .
Direct3D Performance - DirectX 7 : 3D Mark 2000
3D Mark 2000 shows the Direct3D performance from DirectX 7 under Windows XP .
Because of it 's SSE-support ( 3DNow ! Professional ) , the AMD Athlon XP is able to dominate the scene and take the lead .
Direct3D Performance - DirectX 8 : 3D Mark 2001
3D Mark 2001 reveals the Direct3D performance from DirectX 8 under Windows XP .
In this benchmark , the Pentium 4/2200 overtakes the lead by a nose , positioned ahead of the Athlon XP 2000+ , which might well be due to SSE2-optimizations in Grx-drivers as well as game engines .
MP3 Audio-Encoding : Lame MP3
With the Lame MP3 Encoder , a 178 MB sound file in WAV format is converted to MPEG-1 Layer 3 format under Windows XP .
<cs-1>
The chart above clearly shows that the new Pentium 4/2200 has a 5-second lead over AMD Athlon XP 2000+ 
</cs-1>
1_Pentium 4/2200 2_AMD Athlon XP 2000+ (lead)
Video-Encoding MPEG-4 : Flask Mpeg And Divx
SiSoft Sandra Benchmarks : CPU And Multimedia
<cs-3>
With the SiSoft Sandra Benchmark 2001 , AMD Athlon XP 2000+ gets top scores in two different tests . 
</cs-3>
1_AMD Athlon XP 2000+ 3_scores (top)
The Pentium 4/2200 is ahead in the memory benchmark .
Nevertheless , all of these should be taken with a grain of salt , since this suite of benchmarks is only appropriate for friends of overclocking who want to prove the relative performance increase with specific CPUs .
3D Rendering : Newtek Lightwave 7b
<cs-1>
In the Lightwave benchmark , the lead of the Pentium 4/2200 over the Athlon XP 2000+ becomes all the more evident : while the P4/2200 takes 230 seconds for the rendering task , the Athlon XP 2000+ requires 360 seconds for the same task . 
</cs-1>
1_Pentium 4/2200 2_Athlon XP 2000+ (lead)
The strengths of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ are revealed in Office performance : with 203 points in Sysmark 2001 , the Athlon XP soars over the higher-clocked Pentium 4/2200
As always , we omit the 'Content Creation Test ' , because besides its well-known flaws , we do n't see its significance either .
Once 'invented ' by ZDBOp to create something new ( and unnecessary ) , the idea was later 'reproduced ' by BAPCo .
Still , only a very small minority of people is actually using content creation software , while almost every PC-owner is running office applications such as Word and Excel .
AMD should n't even care about the Windows Media Player 7.x issue .
Content Creation benchmarks are a cheat in itself .
<cs-4>
In compiling the newest Linux kernel , the weaknesses of the new Pentium 4/2200 become evident : it takes the Pentium 4 229 seconds , while the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ finishes the same task in only 202 seconds . 
</cs-4>
Archiving : WinACE 2.04
Archiving is a very practical application .
With the help of WinACE 2.04 under Windows XP , a 178 MB WAV file is packed , showing the time to complete the task .
Here , the Pentium 4/2200 is clearly ahead of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+
3D Rendering Performance : SPECviewperf `` Lightscape ''
n the Lightscape benchmark , the Intel Pentium 4/2200 lies ahead of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ .
Video Encoding MPEG-2 : Pinnacle Studio 7
<cs-1>
In encoding an MPEG-2 film with Pinnacle Studio 7 , the Intel Pentium 4/2200 is clearly faster than the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ . 
</cs-1>
1_Intel Pentium 4/2200 2_AMD Athlon XP 2000+ 3_encoding an MPEG-2 film with Pinnacle Studio 7 (faster)
With this benchmark , Intel profits from the increased clock speed of the P4 as well as the larger L2-Cache .
3D-Rendering Performance : Cinema 4D XL R6
In 3D rendering with Cinema 4D , AMD and Intel exchange the leading position with one another . 
Conclusion : The New Pentium 4 Has A Slight Lead Over Athlon XP
A comparison of the two top products from AMD and Intel reveals the astonishing : although the processors are as different from one another as apples and oranges , the difference is much less obvious in the benchmark results , when taken from an absolute standpoint .
In any case , one thing is visible : in the majority of performance tests , the new Pentium 4/2200 is ahead .
After all , the top AMD processor has to make do with 1666 MHz , while its archenemy steps in with 2200 MHz .
A closer look at the comprehensive benchmarks reveals that in Office performance as well as Linux Kernel compiling , the Athlon XP still takes the lead , despite its 32 % clock speed disadvantage !
In principle , the technical concepts of AMD and Intel can only be compared in the practical tests .
As always , it can be said that the Palomino core of the AMD Athlon XP is able to process more commands at the same time , while Intel 's Pentium 4 design concentrates primarily on high clock speed .
From a critical point of view , however , while AMD has already used the 0.18 micron process to its fullest and is now turning its efforts to 0.13 micron , this step has already been completed by Intel .
In addition , Intel has increased the L2-Cache from 256 kB ( Willamette core ) to 512 kB ( Northwood core ) .
The chip giant is equipped for the future : the new wafer production process , based on 300 mm disks , plus the smaller size of the die , now shrunk to 0.13 micron , increases the yield of the processor up to 30 % .
At the same time , it almost cuts the production costs for a P4 die in half .
This is the step that AMD still has to make , but for the moment , the scepter is once again in the hands of Intel .
Goliath can take a few breaths until David will take its own step towards a higher clock speeds .
Some final thoughts on investment safety : in a few months , Intel will introduce the P4 with 133 MHz FSB .
In addition , there will be 533 MHz Rambus memory .
It is impossible to upgrade a current system that is built on the Pentium 4 Northwood with 133 MHz .
Current motherboards only support 100 MHz FSB , even though the BIOS might indicate the contrary .
<cs-4>
Furthermore , 533 MHz RDRAM modules are expected to be twice the price of conventional PC800 modules . 
</cs-4>
<cs-1>
In this case , it might well be better to wait a while , or to choose a P4-chipset with DDR SDRAM support in the first place . 
</cs-1>
1_P4-chipset with DDR SDRAM support (better)
*******************************************
Comparison on Playstation 3 versus Xbox 360
*******************************************
<cs-4>
Playstation 3 versus Xbox 360 : The Good , The Bad , and the Downright Ugly 
</cs-4>
So I have been reading news about these two next generation consoles like crazy , and I didnt want to post until I had solid opinions that I wanted to have made .
Here they are in the order of whats good , whats bad , and what is just ugly .
The Good :
Xbox 360 : The case design is customizable which I just love and the size of the Xbox 360 is relatively similar to that of the PS2 ( first generation ) and the PS3 .
<cs-4>
Xbox 360 : Even though a lot of people have given the Xbox 360 a lot of flack for the sloppy frame rate , the difference between a lot of the demos and the PS3 demos is that the Xbox 360 demos were running on pre-production hardware , i.e . 
</cs-4>
the current Power Mac G5s .
They dont have their actual hardware yet , so it makes it hard to show a solid smooth demo because they dont have the three 3.2 Ghz Power PC processors with 2-thread cores that the final hardware will have .
But at least they showed more actually running code than pre-rendered demos , hint hint PS3 .
PS3 : PLEASE EVERYONE GET OVER IT .
THE PS3 IS EASY TO PROGRAM FOR .
I hate that they keep talking about the PS3 like it is hard to program for like the PS2 .
Thats just a lie .
The 7 SPEs ( Synergistic Processing Elements ) that make up the PS3 are pure gold .
<cs-4>
They are not comparable to the VUs ( Vector Units ) in the old PS2 architecture for several reasons . 
</cs-4>
The VUs in the PS2 required assembly level programming and extremely complex 3rd party libraries to help generate that assembly .
They also were not very precise allowing only single float operations only .
They were also restrictive in how they could access memory with a limited set of synchronization prims .
THIS IS NOT TRUE WITH THE CELL SPE ! ! ! It is completely programmable in C/C++ .
It is a true SIMD ( Single Instruction Multiple Data ) making each SPE completely customizable to anything that programmers will want , not just vector operations .
The Cell SPEs are also precise with the ability to do integer , floating point , and double floating point calculations and accuracy .
PS3 : The fact that they are using Nvidia hardware for the RSX graphics processor means that you could write software for the PS3 using Open GL and Cg .
This is why the Unreal Engine was so easy to port .
<cs-4>
You could write your application completing using the RSX and the core Power PC processor ( PSE as its referred to ) and not even use the Cells and it would be comparable to the demos that were shown on the Xbox 360 . 
</cs-4>
The power is that you can then program the SPEs to do background logic , AI , levels , physics , whatever on its own dedicated processor .
The SPEs have their own data pathways , registers , and are connected to a very fast , concurrent bus architecture , so doing so would truly be like having 7 dedicated machines to do whatever arbitrary tasks you spin off to them . 
This is what gives the PS3 its power advantage .
Xbox 360 : After all is said and done , the Xbox 360 will still be able to produce very awesome graphics thanks to its 3 Power PCs and its unified memory architecture .
Think of todays computers .
You dont have multiple processors , but you are able to run a plethora of applications seamlessly and concurrently .
With the Xbox 360 , developers will not have dedicated processors for each of their physics engines , etc , but the bus speed and the large unified memory will allow them to hack it and write software and libraries that will be just as good as if it had a dedicated processor .
<cs-1>
This actually puts more responsibility on the developers making it a little harder to program in my opinion than the PS3 , but Microsofts and other 3rd parties will have time to mature the libraries available to make this easier going forward . 
</cs-1>
2_PS3 3_program (harder)
Xbox 360 : The Xbox 360 will work with my iPod and with my Sony PSP !
<cs-2>
Xbox 360 and PS3 : They will both have a free online service that is awesome and just to be expected at this point . 
</cs-2>
1_Xbox 360 1_PS3 3_free online service (both)
They both will have Gigabit Ethernet ports .
They also both will both have hard drives of upgradeable sizes and HDTV Output even though it is amazing that the PS3 will have dual HD outputs capable of producing 1080p !
The Bad :
Xbox 360 : PS3 will have Bluetooth 2 and instead of using a great wireless standard like Bluetooth 2 with support for real-time protocols , Xbox is using FastRF from what I learned from bhpaddock .
I do n't know a lot about FastRF , but Microsoft , lets think about what is possible with Bluetooth .
Its a standard that provides the possibility of synchronizing with cell phones and other devices wirelessly .
I love that the Xbox 360 will support iPod synchronization and there is a high chance that they may one day have iPods synchronizing using Bluetooth 2 . 
Supporting this standard is imperative to me .
Playstation 3 : For all its power , they still have not shown a comprehensive online system .
Xbox Live is killing Sony Online because it is consistent , comprehensive , and provides a unified interface for everything online .
If Sony leaves this whole open again with the PS3 , then they will be shooting their console in the foot .
The Downright Ugly :
Playstation 3 : The console is ugly , uninspired , and just downright ugly .
The controls are even worse .
I dont want to hold onto a boomerang when playing my games .
I hope Sony is listening to customer reactions and fixing that mess of a design before the PS3 goes to final design and production .
Xbox 360 : The controllers will pass my wrath this time , but I think the console is ugly as well .
Replace the cheap plastic look of the drive tray and tone down the white on the main case ( or at least give us options for the main case as well as the face plate ) .
I dont know about most of you , but I dont want an ugly , white , PC like tower sitting as the premier device for my media beside my beautiful TV .
Please Microsoft , dont force us to have an oversized iPod beside our TVs , provide full case color options , as well and I will be happy .
Let me know what you all think .
I think it is a great time to be a gamer , and I am excited about the next generation of consoles , I just want to see the media and the news get more of this right !
*******************************************************
Mike Olford article at Goals.com
http://www.wmcollective.com/bcforum/viewtopic.php?p=217450&sid=13641d9ec1d569c09f1356ddb4f4448a
*******************************************************
Goals Goals Goals
9/23/2005 7 : 59 : 00 AM
<cs-4>
As Thierry Henry closes in on Ian Wrights all time Arsenal goalscoring record Goal.coms Mike Olford looks at his achievement and its comparison with the rest of the Premiership . 
</cs-4>
Thierry Henry needs just two more goals to overtake Ian Wright as Arsenals all time record goalscorer .
Wright netted 185 times in all competitions for the Gunners ( as well as scoring 138 times for Crystal Palace , West Ham , Nottingham Forest , Celtic and Burnley ) and there was huge celebration when he set the new milestone after passing Cliff Bastins long standing record of 178 .
<cs-4>
Henry has already scored 184 goals in 301 games ( compared to Wrights 288 appearances ) since he joined the Highbury outfit from Juventus in 1999 . 
</cs-4>
Henry will go down as one of the Premierships best ever players  as well as thrilling millions with his sublime touch and pace the Frenchman has won two titles , three FA Cups , and helped his national side to World Cup and European Championship glory .
Although Henry is fast approaching Wrights scoring record he still needs eleven more goals to beat Cliff Bastins league goal record for Arsenal .
Bastin netted 150 times in the league between 1930 and 1947 ( who knows how many it might have been had the Second World War not interrupted ) .
Ian Wright managed 128 league goals , which Henry passed last February with a brace against Cystal Palace in a 5-1 win .
<cs-4>
But how does Henrys achievement ( and Wrights and Bastins for that matter ) compare with the rest of the Premiership ?
</cs-4>
Looking at the top four sides last season , Henry would still have a way to go to compete with Manchester Uniteds and Evertons top scorers , but would find himself up there in Chelseas leading ranks .
Evertons famous William Ralph Dixie Dean boasts a record that will surely never be beaten .
<cs-4>
He scored a staggering 349 league goals between 1925 and 1937 and only Middlesbroughs George Camsell comes close to that feat with 325 league goals to his credit ( John Atyeo , who scored 314 goals for Bristol City between 1951 and 1966 , is the only other player to score more than 300 goals for any of the current English league sides ) . 
</cs-4>
<cs-3>
Bobby Charlton scored 199 league goals during an illustrious career with Manchester United and of the current crop of United stars Ryan Giggs is the closest to catching him with 92 league strikes to his name . 
</cs-3>
1_Ryan Giggs 3_catching him (closest)
Bobby Tambling is Chelseas leading marksman with 164 league goals to his credit .
<cs-3>
Those were scored between 1958 and 1970 , but with the continual change of personnel at Stamford Bridge and the squad rotation adopted within that , it will take a forward to be a regular squad member for about twenty years to challenge Tamblings record ( Eidur Gudjohnsen is currently closest with 52 league goals ) . 
</cs-3>
1_Eidur Gudjohnsen (closest)
This season should see Alan Shearer overtake Jackie Milburn as Newcastle Uniteds all time leading goalscorer .
The former England hitman needs just five more goals to beat Milburns 200 in all competitions .
<cs-3>
Shearer has of course been the Premierships most prolific striker netting over 250 league goals at both Blackburn and Newcastle ( not to mention a further 23 whilst at Southampton ) . 
</cs-3>
1_Shearer 3_striker (most)
Examining the top league scorer at every Premiership club and comparing that to the current leading scorer brings up some interesting results . 
Only Henry and Shearer are anywhere near catching their respective sides ' top scorer and of the remaining 18 teams only Everton and Manchester United have players who have scored more than fifty league goals ( Duncan Ferguson with 60 for Everton and Ryan Giggs ( 92 ) , Paul Scholes ( 87 ) , Ole Gunnar Solskjaer ( 85 ) and Ruud Van Nistelrooy ( 78 ) for Manchester United ) .
Jason Roberts is close to breaking Wigans record too , but with a total of just 70 the Latics record is by far the lowest in the league .
Of the other clubs there is just no one who has been around long enough or scored enough goals to be in with a shout of challenging .
Some teams leading scorers appear woefully low  Elliott at Sunderland has just 15 , Forssell at Birmingham has 17 , Fowler at Manchester City 20 and Nolan at Bolton with 24 .
There are two possible explanations for the lack of record goalscorers at clubs these days .
Firstly many of the records were set back in the first half of the twentieth century when formations were very much attack focused and goals generally much easier to come by ( 6-3 scorelines and the like were common place ) .
<cs-1>
Plus of course some of the records were set in lower divisions where it is arguably easier to record a higher goals tally . 
</cs-1>
1_lower divisions 3_record a higher goals tally (easier)
The other , more likely , possibility is that players are just not as loyal to their clubs these days .
The players who set their club 's goalscoring record did so in periods of over ten seasons .
In todays fiercely competitive Premiership the best forwards are snapped up by the big clubs and often fail to deliver the goods .
Recent examples could include Louis Sahas move to Manchester United , Stan Collymore going to Liverpool or Kezman at Chelsea .
Some of these players might have gone on to score hatfuls of goals for their original clubs , but the lure of the big time ( and the big bucks ) proves too much and things often turn sour .
<cs-3>
Manchester United and Arsenal are the only clubs who seem to have retained some loyalty amongst their players which is reflected in the fact United have four players who have netted over 75 league goals and Arsenal have Henry , Bergkamp and Pires who have scored over 50 for the Gunners . 
</cs-3>
1_Manchester United 2_Arsenal 3_loyalty amongst their players (only)
The fact that these two clubs have been by far the most successful over the past decade lends itself to the argument that loyalty only stems from medals on the field .
So , are any more records likely to be broken in the future ? At the current rate of turnover amongst strikers it looks unlikely .
Rooney could challenge at Old Trafford ( but needs to average 25 league goals a season for the next eight seasons ) and with a target to beat of just 70 Jason Roberts will fancy his chances of catching Wigans all time leading scorer Andy Liddell , but for now that looks about it
Managers often talk about continuity being the key to a successful side , but when it comes to scoring goals it appears to be all about the here and now , with the future left to sort itself out . 
***************************************************
Google vs Yahoo
***************************************************
The cyber battle 
We hear of corporate battles every day .
<cs-4>
Pepsi vs . Coke , Burger King vs . Hungry Jacks , BMW vs . Mercedes .
</cs-4>
But recently , the search engines around the internet are now engaging in a battle , a battle now heating up .
<cs-2>
Our major engines are Yahoo ! , MSN , and Google , all of which have special attributes . 
</cs-2>
1_Yahoo 1_MSN 1_Google (all)
Google still a step behind the rest , proves that its quality still beats all the competition .
MSN and Yahoo ! are cluttered with ads and irrelevant information ( to the average browser ) , while Google boosts the clean interface .
The Email services are dominated by Google 's new service , Gmail .
Boasting a 2Gb+ storage space , you never will delete again .
MSN still lacks POP3 support for free accounts .
<cs-1><cs-2>
Yahoo ! is equally good in terms of features , but Google still has greater storage space . 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_Google 3_storage space (greater)
1_Yahoo 2_Google 3_features (equally)
Chat services are largely dominated by MSN messeger and Yahoo ! messenger .
Google has released a Beta version of thier try , and is still to release and add more features .
MSN Messenger , is now quickly becoming cluttered and inefficient .
The ads are a major downfall .
<cs-3>
At the momnt , Yahoo ! has the best service , but its not very popular because `` all my friends are on MSN '' . 
</cs-3>
1_Yahoo 3_service (best)
Google promises to brin more . 
This one , we 'll have to wait .
Blogs/Spaces/Whatever you want to call it .
Google ( blogger.com ) rocks this one .
Yahoo ! i have n't personally tried , but seems good .
Its called `` 360 degrees '' and features a friends network like Hi5 . 
MSN Spaces lack flexibiliy , and have..
ads .
<cs-2>
Further more , they all have satellite mapping technologies . 
</cs-2>
1_they all 3_sattellite mapping technologies (all)
Google Earth ( known as Keyhole before Google takeover ) now dominates this section .
MSN gives only computer generated images and roads , while Google Earth gives actual photo 's which are surprisingly very detailed .
I found my house using this ! Some of the images were taken upto 2 years ago however .
At the same time it is very scary .
Yahoo ! and MSN only offer USA/CANADA at the moment .
But Yahoo ! makes up for this with thier amazing Launch ! music facility , allowing the users to view music videos , and listen to personalized 'Radio ' stations .
MSN has a similar feature , with less songs/clips .
Google has not yet introduced this feature .
<cs-2>
Google are still to officially release Froogle , the Ebay equivalent . 
</cs-2>
1_Froogle 2_Ebay (equivalent)
Yahoo ! have thier very own web hosting service , ofcourse ad bundled .
Geocities .
<cs-3>
But it is the first of the search engines to offer this . 
</cs-3>
1_it (first)
Well , from all that Google seems like the most innovative of them all ...
only time can tell ...
Again chances are i 've missed something ...
I would n't be surprised if they start taking over clothing and food industries .
All this seems awefully crazy , and this world seems to be dominated by it .
Soon my lungs will be labled `` Yahoo ! '' and my fingers `` Google '' .
MSN I 'll leave for the hair ( love the blue and green on hair ) .
My clothes ? Well ...
go Ask Jeeves .
The Brain ? Lycos .
I guess I am simply , one HotBot in a DogPile .
********************************************************
Matthew Bennett Guest Editorial : The Big Difference
********************************************************
Guest Editorial : The Big Difference
9/16/2005 2 : 22 : 00 PM
<cs-4>
Goal.com friend Matthew Bennett considers the shift in power in English football by analysing the tactical differences between Chelsea and Manchester United ... 
</cs-4>
The last two seasons have been described by many as the changing of the guard in England .
Sir Alex Ferguson 's Red Empire has been brought crashing down by a cocky Portuguese who calls himself the `` Special One '' .
Britain is lauding his achievements and gazing longingly at his transfer kitty .
But what is the difference between Manchester United and Chelsea ? What has led to the success of the blue rebellion ? Quite simply , it is the midfield that has laid the platform for Chelsea 's success , and the reason they will again win the title this year .
However Chelsea fans , do n't get too comfortable , because with one or two astute buys , United can reclaim the throne and once again rule over English football .
<cs-3>
The United midfield led by inspirational captain Roy Keane in the season of 1998/99 was arguably the best in the world . 
</cs-3>
1_United midfield led by inspirational captain Roy Keane in the season of 1998/99  (best)
Beckham , Scholes , Keane , Giggs - it was a Rolls Royce , the best Britain could offer .
But like all models , they got superseded . 
Now Keane is nursed through the season , and , as demonstrated against Manchester City , United greatly miss their fearless leader .
Beckham has moved on to pastures new and Giggs is a bench warmer .
Scholes is also in the twilight of his career .
<cs-2>
John O'Shea , Phil Neville and most recently Alan Smith have all been converted from other positions into makeshift holding midfielders , but while all have aspects of the Irishman 's game , none is the complete package . 
</cs-2>
1_John O'Shea 1_Phil Neville 1_Alan Smith 3_makeshift holding midfielders (all)
Keane is not only aggressive and a great ball winner , but he has a wonderful passing game , and nearly always chooses the best option .
<cs-4>
Smith , while possessing an adequate game , simply does not have the ability to distribute the ball like Keane , especially over longer distances . 
</cs-4>
City 's central pairing of Claudio Reyna and Joey Barton were able to boss the midfield for long periods , which resulted in Park and Rooney having to drop deep to defend and receive balls , leaving Ruud van Nistelrooy isolated .
But the biggest problem for United is not replacing the irreplaceable Keane ; it 's finding some creativity in the middle of the park .
<cs-2>
United 's midfield trio of Paul Scholes , Roy Keane and Darren Fletcher all have solid , unspectacular games . 
</cs-2> (all)
1_Paul Scholes 1_Roy Keane 1_Darren Fletcher 3_solid, unspectacular games
All pass the ball well , are strong in the tackle and can score a goal .
However , none seems to hold the key to unlocking a defence , especially not that of a strong European side .
Scholes is a poacher , a goal scorer , but rarely provides the final ball , or even the penultimate ball , in a goal scoring move .
Fletcher is less of a goal threat , and with Keane provides the defensive platform .
He does possess a wonderful right foot , and with some experience could become a Pirlo-esque anchorman , but so far seems to lack the creativity to slice open a defence .
Keane is simply brilliant at shielding the back four and receiving the ball deep before distributing it up-field , but his role is not one of play-maker . 
<cs-2>
With the lack of a creative central midfielder , tremendous pressure is placed on the young shoulders of Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo , both capable of wreaking havoc , but still inexperienced , with Ronaldo in particular consistently taking the wrong options . 
</cs-2>
1_Wayne Ronney 1_Cristiano Ranoldo 3_wreaking havoc (both)
But the biggest problem with United 's midfield may not in fact be the players they have , but the formation they are playing .
During United 's glory years , Ferguson used a 4-4-2 formation .
This allowed Keane to protect the back , while Scholes got forward to support the strikers , meaning United had up to three points of attack .
United also had width , something they lack in the new 4-3-3 system , with Ronaldo and Rooney getting sucked inside in support of van Nistelrooy .
With two wonderfully creative wingers in Giggs and Beckham , and two strikers who could score and assist goals in Dwight Yorke and Andy Cole , the onus was n't on the midfield to create .
Rather , it was their job to protect the defence and supply ball to the creative forces up-field .
With Ferguson 's 4-3-3 formation , Rooney and Ronaldo have to supply width and support van Nistelrooy , meaning that United have fewer attacking threats and players playing out of position , Rooney mentioning numerous times his preference for playing centrally .
<cs-2>
United have three quality wingers with Park , Ronaldo and Giggs all capable on either flank . 
</cs-2>
1_Park 1_Ranoldo 1_Giggs 3_capable on either flank (all)
A return to 4-4-2 would also allow Rooney to play behind Van Nistelrooy , in his preferred role .
So why , despite Chelsea having arguably less talented players in their final third have they only lost once in 12 months in the League ? Two main factors contribute to their success .
In Frank Lampard they have a world class goalscoring midfielder capable of passing holes in the opposition 's defensive wall .
Secondly , they have two natural wingers in support of the target man , and they are nearly always advanced to assist him . 
Other factors like the youth of their midfield ( minus the iron man Makelele ) mean that they can play more games together .
<cs-1>
But at the moment , they simply have more talent in the midfield than United . 
</cs-1>
1_they 2_United 3_talent in the midfield (more)
Lampard is clearly out-performing Scholes , both in goals scored and goals created . 
<cs-3>
Makelele and Keane are the two best players in their position in the Premiership , but Makelele can do it week in , week out . 
</cs-3>
1_Makelele 1_Keane 3_players in their position (best)
Fletcher is yet to scale the heights Michael Essien has reached in his fledgling career , with Essien named Ligue Un 's best player last year , and on paper Essien looks Fletcher 's better .
If Manchester United wants immediate success , then they need to purchase a creative midfielder of the same ilk as Juninho Pernambucano .
A solid play-maker who can also drop back and defend .
There is no doubt that Ronaldo and Rooney are future superstars , and will soon be able to shoulder the load , but at the moment it seems unfair to put the entire creative burden on two so young .
Not only will a play-making central figure take pressure off them , but it would give the side more balance and another threat . 
United have the class in the attacking third , a solid defence and an excellent keeper , now all they need is to reinvigorate the engine room , and it could be `` Glory , glory Man United '' again .
Fadi - Lebanon
9/22/2005 6 : 11 : 55 PM
honestly i think the team mourinho built is one of the best in the world .
i do n't understand why ferguson rarely buys established players , and instead opts to go for talented ones , but with minimal experience ( rooney , ronaldo , ... ) while mourinho 's players are all experienced at the EAUROPEAN LEVEL . 
Man U can buy such players , they are a great team , but i think the problem is that Man U is a team that wants to win money and trophies , while chelsea want success , success , success ... .
For god 's sake sir Alex , YOU HAVE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS WHY DO N'T YOU SPEND SOME ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
max aadan - mogadishu , somalia
9/22/2005 4 : 27 : 44 PM
Well the problem of man u is not from the coach not from the goalkeeper.Because man u has th most experienced coach in the world but the problem is from central midfield , right defence and the 4-3-3 formation.So i as soon as the market re opens i hope man u will purcase a good and talented midfield player . 
Mustafa - Stuttgart , Germany
9/22/2005 1 : 59 : 23 PM
I think Man U already got the players .
It is just a matter of using them properly .
Rooney is Man U version of Kaka/Ronaldinho/Zidane .
Only they need to tweak the current tactic a little bit to bring the best out of him . 
May I suggest 4-2-1-3 with RvN flanked by Giggs , Ronaldo or Park with Rooney plays behind them .
Any two of Keane , Scholes , Fletch and Smith would be good enough although I would like to see Ballack there in 2006/07 .
With current injury crisis may I suggest SAF to give chances to the youngsters such as Jones , Pique and Rossi whenever possible .
If SAF is looking for the next big talent , may I suggest Man U raid Barca again for Giovanni dos Santos .
<cs-2>
He is really looking like the next Ronaldinho to me . 
</cs-2>
1_He 2_Ranoldinho 3_looking (like)
vishal - Mauritius
9/22/2005 8 : 05 : 07 AM
In simple words , when taking into consideration trends in Man utd and chelsea results , there is no way man utd could catch chelsea and the main reason is the efficiency of scholes ( not keane ) .The task of a defensive midfielder is easier than that of an attack midfielder.I think that keane would be easily replaced but not scholes.That is the biggest challenge of sir Alex.A player in that position should score at least 15 goals like scholes for 2002/03 , pires for 2003/04 and lampard for 2004/05 season.That is the code for winning championships.One can check that in other leagues .
So , i think that with time , alan smith could achieve 75 % of keane`s abilities which would suffice for any team in that position and man utd need an immediate replacement for scholes which i suggest is WAYNE ROONEY.ie actually rooney replacing scholes and giggs or park in the place of rooney .
fola soyombo - Lagos , Nigeria .
9/21/2005 3 : 19 : 41 PM
I also support Bennet 's view that man u needs a creative , young and energetic mid feilder as soon as the next transfer window opens rather than trying to groom somebody into that position because by then it may too late.I was hopping any of these trio Ballack , Van Bommel or Gattuso would have been perfect .
Also another player shoul be brought in to partner Rio bcos Silvestry makes too many mistakes and an intelligent player will always capitalise on this.With just these 2 changes Man U would be on winning ways again.please Sir Alex tell your players to win the trophy for us man u fans in Nigreia because arsenal and chelsea fans are getting too boastful.thanks . 
Ralph Tarpeh Jr .
- Monrovia , Liberia
9/21/2005 2 : 25 : 13 PM
I think the problem with Sir Alex is simple , he limits his search to The United Kingdom ( England , Ireland , Wales ) , and the likes , failing to notice that there are a lot of great talents outside of the UK .
Take Chelsea as a case in point , they are global , once Mourinho finds the talent , he goes for it , look let 's not be fooled that a good manager is one that employs good tactics only on the field of play but also having the right combination of players making a whole team , modern football is money , if you want to make it you have to spend some !
collins ngetich - kenya
9/20/2005 9 : 25 : 02 AM
well chelsea have a good coach and a great cohesive team of players.they lack quality upfront but the introduction of crespo has added a new dimension to their game as he has the ability to conjure up sometinh from nothing .
as for man united they have lots of problems and dont play as a truly cohesive unit and lack a class player who will change the way the team plays and mental attitude that is some spark of geneious remember ronaldinho and barca .
man u need to work harder if the are to beat chelsea .
thiago - southampton , uk
9/19/2005 1 : 30 : 25 PM
i utterly agree with matthew bennett ... i think not only united , but the premiership as a whole lacks enough attacking midfielders , the so called `` 1 '' ( whereas u wan na call it a 4-3-1-2 , or whatever ) ... the likes of juninho pernambucano , ronaldinho , kaka ( ehehe hail the brazilians ) , aimar , riquelme , anyways the list goes on ... with at least 15 teams in the league playing either a 4-5-1 or a lone striker ( chelseas way ) , it gets really difficult , as michael owen has complaint , to break down defenses .
its not up to owen or henry to break down a 5 man midfield , i think its up for a kaka or riquelme to provide a deep run or a split defense pass .
I truly agree with Matthew that if Utd buy a player like that they would have the difference ... i believe its all about changing tactics according to the evolution of the game ... and the english game has experienced a revolution albeit to the wrong end i would say . 
<cs-3>
Prior to Mourinhos arrival or a bit before that , at the time of Sam Allardyce 's emergence with Bolton ( BigSam is a great figure and an excellent manager but i got ta say hes got ta a hand on the whole defensive dullness the premiership has fallen into ) , most of the teams played on the traditional 4-4-2 and then Man U were imperious on the way Matthew described , the wingers and forwards were responsible for creating all the goals , with the center mid there to shield and provide iron-like cover for the others , with the excellent paul scholes joining the attack on late runs and loads of goals ... well arsenals invincibles operated ( and still operate ) on a similar way ... the sensational wide players ( pires , ljunberg ) plus the always extremely gifted forwards ( henry , bergkamp , reyes u name it ) , the plus was that the hard men in the centre of the park could always pass the ball ... Now that weve reached the era of 5 man midfield and lone strikers , arsenal are struggling with the old wingers-forward system , and man utd struggle cuz they wan na get updated with the present times but in the wrong way as Matthew suggests ... So i think , the future for these teams ( and i really hope they find it because on their days they can play the most wonderful football ) i believe is to employ the number 1 playmaker , the key to unlock defenses . 
</cs-3>
()
I think arsenal have got one of the kind of their squad in hleb , the guy is an amazing dribbler got great ball control , reminds me of kaka ... its just a matter of employing him in the right positions ...
<cs-3>
Its difficult to find such a position in the English game , so devoted to always having 2 wide men ... thats why i think they could borrow some ideas from south american football , the masters on creating creative attacking midfielders ... the key ? let the full backs be the wide men ... get one holding midfielder a-la pirlo , keane , to also distribute the ball , another central man to cover scraps and fullback runs , like gattuso , another guy to operate on one of the flanks ( where a full back is not so comfortable going forward ) and then the attacking midfielder that provides flair and the key to unlock boring teams ... in another words my ideal midfield system to unlock premiership defences would be AC MILANs style ... that would be my tip for sir alex and his somewhat fading midfield
</cs-3>
1_south american football 3_creating creative attacking midfielders (masters)
Abu Jasim - Amman , Jordan
9/19/2005 12 : 36 : 11 PM
Its not so much an issue of players..but rather an issue of manager .
In JM Chelsea have by far the most competent , vibrent and intelligent manager not just in England but perhaps in Europe too .
Nobody can motivate or organise teams like JM ... nobody can better understand opponents and play to their weakenesses like JM either .
Quite simply JM has left everybody in his wake ... I say ManYoo and Arsenal should thank Sir Alex and Mr Wenger respectively , politely show them the door ( both are well beyond their expiry date ) and get themselves a new crew ... may be then , just may be they would have a snif of challenging the mighty Blues .
Max - Freetown , Sierra Leone
9/19/2005 12 : 19 : 25 PM
Matthew Bennett has hit the nail on the head in this article ! But the problem with the replacements we need is that most of those mentioned are already playing Champion 's League football , the highest stage of club football in the world ! None would leave their teams to play just in the premiership , FA cup etc , I think that we should find quality ball-winners/playmakers in teams that are not in the Champions League ! A good example is Sosa the Uruguayan that plays for Athletico Madrid , Bruno Cheyrou would be another one that would jump at the chance to play for United and so would Papa Bouba Diop ! Let SAF stop telling us that there are no Roy Keane 's out there , and he 's busy tring to convert Alan Smith into one and he 's not a natural in that position ! Let him convert one of these ones mentioned ( particularly Bouba Diop ) into our new Roy Keane !
Simon James Mone - Kampala , Uganda
9/19/2005 11 : 07 : 42 AM
Manchester Players need to play together for one more season without injuries .
The players they have are good enough to win any competition in the World . 
Recall the Arsenal side that played out the whole season unbeaten .
In the previous seasons they were not playing any good games just because they had not together enough.The problem with Chelsea is that all the good players have got to be playing games , otherwise Mourinho will fail to manage them and that is not good for defending champions .
opio anthony - kampala , uganda
9/19/2005 10 : 30 : 05 AM
<cs-1><cs-3>
i 've read with a lot of interest this article , and the comments by many who have contributed.it 's quite interesting to see `` everybody '' crying for Man.utd to regain its past glory.in my own opionion , if the trophy is going back to chelsea there is no problem because they did thier homework well under JM.its not past record that will win back trophies but ambition of players , in any case Man Utd still has quality in the likes of Giggs , Keane , Rio , who , according to me are still better than chelsea 's equivallent.May be they should look at Fergie 's brain , there could be nothing more to impart to his players.Man U 's other problem is lack of team spirit and stereotypical thinking that they are the best , richest club in the world ! .Fergie should spice up his managerial skills , otherwise chelsea will still win trophies.I am a symperthiser of chelsea . 
</cs-1></cs-3>
1_Man Utd 2_chelsea 3_equivallent (better)
1_Man U 3_club (best)
hafiz - Malaysia
9/19/2005 3 : 50 : 07 AM
i would like to agree with spandan of india .
MU lack that creative edge .
Look closely to their passing game and they rarely pass the ball forward .
The link up in midfield will be between scholes , flether and smith whom , somehow seem to pass the ball back to the defenders , most notably heinze .
<cs-4>
why is that ? if you had looked closely to the MU vs Scousers game yesterday , you would have realized keano screaming to the others to GET THE BALL FORWARD ... but somehow the ball still found its way to the defenders . 
</cs-4>
MU 's lack of drive , lack of penetration and change of tactics will not win them any trophies this year .
A hefty change to the squad will be the only solution . 
i think a group of players aged 21 should be blooded quickly ... give the chance to the likes of rossi , beardsly , spector , richardson and pique . 
add a few buys such as kompany , van den borre , and experienced players such as ballack and juninho pernambucana would be wonderful .
Come to think of it , a midfield pairing of Ballack and Juninho pernambucana would be wonderful .
omar shubeilat - amman , jordan
9/19/2005 12 : 10 : 30 AM
<cs-3>
hey , that was a pretty nice artivle , since chelsea have now the best midfield , i think sir alex needs to experienced midfielders as soon as possible , the leage is running away for the second time to chelsea , you have a good youth side ( fletcher ... ) but its not time to have test whether alan smith could play as a defensive midfielder , its the time man uinted get back strongly with 3 or 4 new signings juninho may lead them , again united must not let chelsea run away again , and the only way you can do that is to get a ( state-of-the-art ) midfield : ) , go united , halt chelsea 
</cs-3>
1_chelsea 3_midfield (best)
Dag - Coventry
9/18/2005 9 : 29 : 28 PM
I 'm a huge fan of arsenal , but i cant help it to say that chelsea are playing good football to get results , but not quite as pleasing to the eye as those presented by Arsenal during the unbeaten run , and Man U during the 1999 glory year .
One would deny that Chelsea sometiems do provide good entertainment ...
but just look at the stadium capacity during the match v anderletch .
Even the most optimistic of Chelsea supporter will have to admit , that sometimes , they do long for chelsea to play flair football but at the same time getting the result , which IMHO will never happen under Mourn-inho .
spandan - india
9/18/2005 8 : 24 : 43 PM
man u need to spend on defensive midfielders .
<cs-3>
they need atleast 2 solid ball winners ( parker ? , ze roberto , hargreaves , de rossi ) and one creative passing player ( ballack , alonso , pirlo , juninho ) .this apart they fantastic players like roonry , nistelrooy and saha playin upfront ... plus rio and co and rather solid as well although they do need look for a couple o full backs soon as gary neville is aging.this spending is necessary as no amount of flank play can replace the essence of a commanding central midfield ... .for all their money chelsea still lack a world class midfield creator and hence play boring counter attacking football ... .frank lampard is the best box to box midfielder as he can do everything ... tackle , shoot , score , pass and organise ... .so can essien ... makelele and geremi are perfect defensive shields ... but where is the instinctive creator in the centre ... like liverpools gerrard , hamann and alonso ( they won the european cup remember ) milans pirlo , seedorf and gattuso ( 2003 ) portos deco , costinha and maniche ( 2004 ) reals zidane , helguera ( 02 ) effenberg , jeremies and scholl ( 01 ) ... ... .point is every great european team needs a fantastic play maker , a ball winner and box to box player ... liverpool have that but they lack the width to exploit teams o the hilt ... .although they are defensively perfect chelsea are a boring side and they still have miles to go when it comes to the highest level of attacking european football ... like barca , milan and lyon ... they can be stopped and the fact that current cahmpions league has knockouts from the last 16 could mean that there could be teams that might jus defend their way thru and make it rather than suffer the difficulty of overcomin a tough second group phase ... 
</cs-3>

Dri Digi - Sydney , Australia
9/18/2005 5 : 04 : 19 AM
I support Arsenal but never thought they would seriously pose a threat to dethroning Chelsea , let alone coming second .
Yes , it 's too early in the season to make judgements but the fact is Chelsea win ugly .
Do we praise the manager for getting the result ? Good for Jose , but in terms of football play I 'd prefer to watch Man U than Chelsea go about there business .
It 's sad to see football played for a result rather than what people would like to see .
We all want to see goals and good defence .
In my opinion Chelsea will win either 2 - 3 trophies that include the premiership . 
They can grind out bore results that Ranieri before Jose could n't .
To see them fail in CL would make me happy because of what they stand for .
I think EPL managers should note that they must keep the British flavour in their squads because for those technically gifted , they lack the passion to win .
Why do you think Jose bought SWP ? Man U enjoyed success in 99 because their squad had that element .
We also forget that it 's the team that plays on the field .
We can put the best eleven on paper but still lose in any competition .
Lady luck will shine on those that dare .
Paulo - South Africa
9/17/2005 4 : 36 : 09 PM
It 's not the system that Man U play it 's using the players ronaldo would be perfect having a free role the way kaka plays for milan .
Emeka - Lagos Nigeria
9/17/2005 2 : 27 : 52 PM
You got it Bennett , Ronlado will just tkae the wrong option , Rooney will need some more time to comn=bine his talent and pssion to take on responsibility .
The problem with man u is that their team leaders are beyond their peak .
Keane , Giggs , beckham gone yorke no more , their replacement are either too young or just too unfocused like Ferdinand .
Matching the talent with responsbility of leading a world class team - Man u is imbalanced .
Chelsea are lloking very balanced now with serious reponsibilty takers like , Lampard , Terry , Makalele , Drogba , Duff , Essien .
Chelsea has it in attitude and focus as well as packing the midfield with unshakeable quality .
Chelsea will be an uphill task to dislodge for the next too season .
David Mfon - Akwa Ibom , Nigeria
9/17/2005 12 : 56 : 54 PM
Thats rights i agree with that , am a United fan , the problem we have right now is strentening our midfied with some key but young midfieders like Mikel Obi , we can also get Micheil Ballack or even Juninho can do the work well , we need to supply the much inform Van with the good passes , so that he can convert them to goals .
Dentor Farlar - Monrovia , Liberia
9/17/2005 12 : 40 : 41 PM
Hi I 'm Fan of Real Madrid :
Dear Mr editor
I 'm so happy with such a beautiful and perfect analysis betweent gaint and coming up gaint of the english football .
But this will be so pleasing to we the fans of the spanish lali ga , if u can agin beautifully analysis distinctly between nine time european champions Real Madrid and local arrival Bacelona .
As to if Real can still take full control of european and spanish football this season or Barcelona will agin dominate the spanish lali ga this season .
More over as for me , I will start by saying yes real can agin be european champion and spanish lali ga champion if they will do away with this their coach 4-4-2 system .
I 100 % do agree with former brizillian coach who say spanish football is quite a little bit differen from Brizillian football , what work in brizil can work in spain .
However Luxemburgur is a very good coach who have won more ofen with that system but will have to consider the fact that what happen yesteray is gone , but deal with what is happing today ok .
Mitsuo Suzuki - Sydney , Australia
9/17/2005 11 : 49 : 42 AM
Nonsense ! Nonsense ! Nonsense !
It 's all about 'transition football ' ! , the art of playing a brillaintly drilled back four and a defensive midfielder to win the ball and play it up the park as soon as possible ( Terry , Carvalho , Ferreira , Makelele etc. ) to faster midfieldiers who can play in 
2 v .
1 positions up the park , ensuring more space and options for the attacking team ( Duff , Cole , SWP , Robben etc. ) .
The reason Man Utd fail to get going is that their current so called '4-3-3 ' system which always seems to turn into a '4-5-1 ' , losing any attacking potential they could have .
Chelsea , are boring no doubt , but brilliant in what they do .
So Mourinho , I salute thee .
Przegrany Ryj - Poland
9/17/2005 10 : 36 : 09 AM
<cs-1>
Yes Yes blablabla.Of course chelsea have the better side that is nothing new in that.But what if i say that mourinho is not that good as he looks.What if i say that united is building a new team trying not to fall down too heavy ? Is that right that juninho form lyon is so good ? Is it ? Maybe ... but infact if he was i think he would be playing in serie A or as you say in mau utd right now.You will all see how good is lyon at the bernabeu stadium in a few weeks time . 
</cs-1>
1_chelsea 3_side (better)
Why noone see that chelsea has the luck to ommit the injuries ?
Let 's wait and see as the season ends who will be the champions and who will win the CL .
Best wishes
MANU - Australia
9/17/2005 7 : 39 : 44 AM
definitely rooney should be played just behind RVN or otherwise it would be a waste of his abundant talent .
Rightly said , man utd lack of that creative force .
A purcahse of Aimar would do good to the team
Chern Ann - KL , Malaysia
9/17/2005 7 : 13 : 10 AM
I agree with all the author had to say .
1999 was indeed Manchester United best year , not just because of the individual player 's quality , but more importantly how they complement each other .
<cs-3>
MU had the best attacking midfielder in Scholes , best dribbler in Giggs , best crosser in Beckham and best holder in Keane in that year . 
</cs-3>
1_MU 3_attacking midfielder in Scholes 3_dribbler in Giggs 3_crosser in Beckham 3_holder in Keane (best)
When they played together , it was simply amazing .
MU had since acquired Ruud van Nilsteroy , Rooney , Rio Ferdinand and Ronaldo .
<cs-3>
Beckham 's departure did not came as a suprise to me , as after Dwight Yorke and Andrew Cole were sold , Scholes is the only one left who is good at heading in goals from crosses . 
</cs-3>
1_Scholes 3_heading in goals from crosses (only one)
Beckham just do not fit in the team anymore .
I personally think that Ronaldo is an appropriate replacement .
In the long run , yes , MU needs new players to replace tha aging Scholes , Giggs and Keane .
<cs-2>
But now all of them are still playing well and should be fully utilised . 
</cs-2>
1_all of them 3_playing well (all of them)
I attribute the MU failures in recent years to strange tactics from Sir Alex Ferguson .
I have great respect for the man , but I fail to understand the strange tactics he has tried since 1999 - Scholes as a second striker , O Shea as a holding midfielder and Giggs as a striker .
And why is he benching Giggs now when creativity in the midfield is so apparently lacking ?
<cs-3>
In my opinion , the best formation for the current squad is still the traditional 4-4-2 , with Giggs , Scholes , Keane and Ronaldo playing in the midfield and Ruud and Rooney playing in the front . 
</cs-3>
1_4-4-2 3_formation (best)
I do not see any reason why this formation can not perform as well as the team in 1999 after having Ronalso replaced Beckham ; and Ruud and Rooney replaced Andrew Coles and Dwight YOrke .
Just a little comment before I end .
This article is about the power shift from MU to Chelsea .
It is about what MU can do to challenge Chelsea for the title .
Naturally Arsenal is not mentioned in the article .
There is no need for Arsenal supporters to be resentful - most people would acknowledge that Arsenal is still a contender for the title ( despite the recent defeat to Middlesbrough ) ; but this article is not about that ! ! And to be fair , with all due respect to Arsenal , the power in EPL never shifted from MU to Arsenal .
Arsenal had a few good seasons but they did not dominate long enough .
Moreover , correct me if I am wrong , they did not win the title back to back .
So to say that the power in EPL is shifting from MU to Chelsea is a fair comment .
Bas - Melbourne , Australia
9/17/2005 5 : 11 : 05 AM
Another astute article Matthew , well said .
Aside from the tactical side of the argument , the fact is that Chelsea can always field a 2nd team that 's capable of beating most full strength sides in the premiership , such is the lack of depth in this overrated excuse for a football league .
As for Man U , I think their best option would be to pick up any of Inter 's world class midfielders ( Stankovic , Pizarro , Solari , Veron , Figo , Cambiasso ) at the end of this season , one of whom will have inevitably proved to be a flop .
Melbourne Victory 's flair machine Michael Ferrante may also fill the void nicely .
Paulinho - Rio de Janeiro , Brazil
9/17/2005 1 : 55 : 09 AM
I agree with almost everything , expecially with Juninho , he would fit perfectly in every theam in the world , imagine him and van bommel in United 's midfield , chelsea would have some problems..
Powerhouse-United -
9/16/2005 11 : 21 : 56 PM
Lee , you give a typical Arsenal response .
In denial , flawed , weak and ignorant of the fact that Arsenal have become small and insignaficant .
Manchester United is still very much strong .
Even though I do n't like Chelsea but they are a strong team .
All you Arsenal fans can go get a clue .
<cs-2>
Arsenal will never be as strong as their 2003-04 season ever again . 
</cs-2>
1_Arsenal  (as strong as)
Arsenal will fail in the Premiership and Champions League .
Manchester United will prevail in both .
Redman has a point but again there 's the problem of money , and a players decision to actually make the move .
You need those to factors to work .
If you have the money but the player does n't want to go , it wo n't work .
If the player wants to come but you do n't have the fee ( considering that it might not be free ) it wo n't work .
For those who think this is a typical Man U article , go get a life and learn about Football and stop being cocky arrogant has been 's acting all big and bad that youre club is `` better '' ( notice the quotation marks ) 
MadridFan2389 -
9/16/2005 10 : 36 : 40 PM
To John : CHELSEA have no standard of football its like they play without goals it lacks creativity and flare no one watches them because quite frankly its boring u have 11 men holding the ball for 90 minutes and somewhere in that 90 minutes the manage to feed it to Drogba and socre the cheapiest goal lacks everything football has made to be ...
<cs-3>
If chelsea are the future theres going to be alot more Rugby fans ... including me 
</cs-3>
1_chelsea ()
Michael - Mesa , AZ .
9/16/2005 10 : 29 : 14 PM
I do n't think replacing a few players is going to do Manchester United a world of good .
It might help them improve a few aspects of gameplay , but overall , the squad needs their Beckhams , Giggs ' and whathaveyou , and that is something Man Utd does n't have anymore .
Rooney is great , despite his red-hot temperament , Ronaldo might be a notch below Rooney , but the inexperience of wingers and strikers does n't exactly inspire a team to win key matches . 
Perhaps Man Utd should 've stuck to their 4-4-2 instead of changing a winning team .
I wo n't say Man Utd began deteriorating after Beckham left , but they sure miss him .
Alex Ferguson is an astute manager , no doubt about it .
<cs-4>
I 'm hoping I get to see Man Utd reclaim the title before Chelsea win their second consecutive title . 
</cs-4> 
<cs-1>
As a Liverpool fan , I 'd rather want Man Utd to win than Chelsea .
</cs-1>
1_Man Utd 2_Chelsea (win)
Wolf - England
9/16/2005 9 : 27 : 30 PM
Another great article , very incisive
danielle - trinidad
9/16/2005 9 : 10 : 22 PM
<cs-3>
no john ... .sorry to tell u but chelsea are not the best ! any team can beat chelsea because they dont play attractive football . 
</cs-3>
1_chelsea (best)
todor veselinov - dobrich - bulgaria
9/16/2005 9 : 06 : 18 PM
<cs-3>
for me in this moment juventus and chelsea are the strongest teams of europe Forza Juve ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 
</cs-3>
1_juventus 1_chelsea 3_teams (strongest)
Christopher - Los Angeles , CA ( United States )
9/16/2005 8 : 34 : 44 PM
Of course , it seems that they tried that in Veron .
<cs-1>
It can be argued that he was never used properly in England , but the Premiereship just does not seem suited to anything like a traditional playmaker ( Lampard is closer to a Pirlo , except that he likes to ghost closer to the goal more , but still stays outside the 18 yard box ) . 
</cs-1>
1_Lampard 2_Pirlo (closer)
And finally , in my view , United 's problem is that they have never found a replacement for Keane .
redman - lagos
9/16/2005 8 : 05 : 50 PM
why does n't alex ferguson go for Michael Ballack or Michael Essien to replace Keane and Scholes ? Or even Riquelme from Villareal ?
fernandoBR -
9/16/2005 7 : 57 : 49 PM
good article , man utd needs young players who are explosive and play well .
i agree the problem is the midfield and agree that they need to cahnge the system .
however with the players they currently possess .
i cant see a good midfield
gora - India
9/16/2005 6 : 56 : 37 PM
With heize out goodbye to evrything M U
lee , - malaysia
9/16/2005 6 : 51 : 37 PM
a typical mu article.MU doesnt have the power and the money to acquire world class player.wait until next season , then only u start talking . 
<cs-1>
as for arsenal , i think they have a better team than chelsea if all their players are fit . 
</cs-1>
1_arsenal 2_chelsea 3_team (better)
<cs-1>
just because chelsea has a bigger squad for rotation , they can only last . 
</cs-1>
1_chelsea 3_squad for rotation (bigger)
chelsea results are not convincing too .
so u shouldnt draw the conclusion just yet
Che - Trinidad
9/16/2005 5 : 17 : 09 PM
Whatever is said on this forum does not reflect the obvious truth .
The man at the helm matters .
Mourinho-Chelsea , Benitez-Liverpool , Wenger-Arsenal , Ferguson-Manchester United , Houllier-Lyon , Capello-Juventus , etcetera etcetera .
The decision as to who stays , goes or enters the club is crucial to success .
Chelsea 's purchases at the beginning of 2004-2005 season speaks for itself , Juventus 's acquiring of Zlatan and Liverpool 's dependence and purchases for the midfield tell a lot .
<cs-2>
Arsenal 's failure to purchase high calibre players as well as Manchester United should only result in their eventual titleless season and even their elimination from the group stage of the UEFA Champs league . 
</cs-2>
1_Arsenal 1_Manchester United 3_failure to purchase high calibre players (as well as)
john - dublin
9/16/2005 5 : 16 : 22 PM
chelsea are simpley the best no one can handle our attacking game with makelale protecting the back 4 we are solid at the back.what have real madrid won scince he left NOTHING he is the key to our outstanding midfield thats why we were knocked out of the FA Cup last season he was rested.he is a big in why we conced so few goals , kean has got the legs to keep up with makelale 's high standard of football.SUPER CHELSEA
Powerhouse-United -
9/16/2005 5 : 12 : 19 PM
First of all , Jon S has no knowledge of Football .
How can Arsenal still be a challenge to Chelsea when they lost to them 1-0 this season and lost to Middlesbrough 2-1 ? Not only does Wenger have no idea what he 's doing in the factors of making Henry captain , leaving Bergkamp on the bench and making Van Persie a midfielder , but He was stupid enough to not try and fight to keep Vieira .
<cs-4>
Arsenal are officially out of this rivalry and it 's become a classic red vs . blue clash .
</cs-4>
Moving on , I completely agree with the article and have had the same opinion for a while myself .
To understand their midfield problem , you have to go back to the summer of 2003 .
Beckham departed , Veron left and Nicky Butt to Newcastle , United had a tough decision to make .
Youngster Ronaldo was put in there and that was a tough task for him to fill in Beckham 's position .
Quinton Fortune was also another who had to deal with the tough task of facing a quick transition from a youngster benched player who occassionally came on to an actual player in that midfield .
Roy Keane was aging but still well enough to play so to actual fact it was only Keane , Giggs and Scholes to guard that now damaged midfield and thus in that horrid 2003-04 season we did exceptionally bad .
<cs-1>
Coming to this season , United 's midfield , as the article said , is a bit stronger but fully . 
</cs-1>
1_United 3_midfield (stronger)
In my opinion , Alan Smith just can not fill Keane 's place .
Keane is a full midfielder , a great playermaker .
Smith is an attacker , or perhaps an attacking midfielder .
Smith receives passes , Keane makes passes .
They do n't combine .
4-3-3 is n't a good formation , again just as the article said .
That would mean 2 attackers , Van Nistelrooy and Rooney , attacking with a midfielder , either Ronaldo or Park .
4-4-2 seems very justifiable for Manchester United .
Ruud Van Nistelrooy and Wayne Rooney can conjure up excellent attacking pattern without having to assist a midfielder turned attacker and the midfield , not only have 4 players , would be having the sole job of providing the attackers with good passes and also falling back during opponent attacks .
Keane , Giggs , Park , Ronaldo , Scholes .
All those would get their proper roles and provide United with the midfield power it needs , of course we do require a top class midfielder to fill in Keano 's shoes .
This season , it will be a two horse race between Man United and Chelsea .
Sorry Arsenal fans but your squad this season is way too flawed and broken .
If you can even clinch the 4th Champions League spot from England , it 'll be something of a miracle Wenger might pull off .
Mourinho knows his midfielders like it was his own kid . 
He knows how to use them properly and how to execute their play to develop a proper tactic or else , before Mourinho came , barely anyone knew who Joe Cole was or Lampard or Drogba at that fact .
There 's my reflection on the article .
Well written Matthew .
Abs - London , England
9/16/2005 5 : 09 : 45 PM
<cs-3>
Give united one season ( im not saying its all over yet in this season ) n from next season theyll be up there , the best again , with Rooney and Ronaldo n Rvn as one of the best box strikers theyl surely regain top spot . 
</cs-3>
1_Rooney 1_Ronaldo 3_box strikers (best)
Well for Chelski there good but youl see they will never have the class of united ! ! ! !
John McEwans - Winchester , UK
9/16/2005 4 : 13 : 26 PM
Chelsea is leaving the Premiership miles behind .
The key to their success is that they do not play like a Premier League team .
In Serie A , they would challenge Milan and Juventus for the title and the same for Barcelona in La Liga .
Arsenal is a distant second , and I see Man United fighting it out for fourth place with Liverpool .
<cs-3>
Thats the best they can hope for .
</cs-3>
1_They (best)
The rest of the premiership doesnt even have a prayer .
I am embarrassed for Everton , if fourth place means anything  they are giving a bad name to the quality and level of English football .
I wish to God that Everton was not playing in any European competition this season .
The 7-0 loss to Arsenal last season was an indication of what was to come .
A 5-1 mauling by minnows Dinamo Bucharest after crashing out of the Champions League group stages against Villarreal is just not good enough . 
( We English can blame Colina all we want , but referees make mistakes all the time and if youre good enough for fourth place in the Premiership youre definitely expected to win a Champions League QUALIFYING game quite comfortably . )
Or maybe we are just disillusioned .
Theres Chelsea that can compete with everybody else in Europe and then theres everybody else in the Premiership .
Take that Mr .
Matthew Bennett  maybe you can address some of these alarming issues in your next article .
Diego - Caracas , Venezuela
9/16/2005 3 : 55 : 37 PM
I hope it will be as easy as the author makes it sound , the true deal is that Chelsea have an entire second team on the bench that is almost as good as their first team .
United has no real depth and even less with all the injuries . 
<cs-1>
United has better players in the three R 's than any player from Chelsea but they have the consistency . 
</cs-1>
1_United 2_Chelsea 3_players (better)
United should have broken the piggy bank for either Essien or Ballack or could have scooped up a temporary bargain deal like Van Bommel or Davids to cover Keane because I think Smith ca n't be on his own and Fletcher just suxx .
Let 's hope that Man U can once again rule English football and prove that heart can still battle the dirty Oil mafia money of Mr .
Abramovich .
ADAM F - SCOTLAND
9/16/2005 3 : 52 : 42 PM
JON S , CLEARLY KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL .
<cs-1>
The article is spot on if Man Utd had actually signed Gattuso they 'd be better if not necesarily stronger throughout the squad than chelsea . 
</cs-1>
1_Man Utd 2_chelsea 3_squad (better)
<cs-1>
Their passing model is far superior 
</cs-1>
1_Their 3_passing model (superior)
hassan kalkata - mogadisho , somalia
9/16/2005 3 : 52 : 11 PM
manchester is miracle team and will win the title of this season cos ronaldo 's dribling , rooney 's style of pushing kean 's tackling will help manunited to take the trophy
Dentor Farlar - Monrovia , Liberia
9/16/2005 3 : 50 : 04 PM
<cs-4>
So how can u now compare nine ( 9 ) time European champions Real madrid with present lali ga champion Barca . 
</cs-4>
Do u frimly belive that Real can agin carry campion league cup or lali ga this season ?
D'OgRe - China
9/16/2005 3 : 44 : 17 PM
Spot On Matt ... .G 'd on ya m8 ... btw Jon from San Francisco , ur Arsenal wont even finished top four this season ... the Gunners may have prosperous young lads but wont compete this time around with the big boys , maybe u should keep yourself away from the TV coz the Gunners will often get beaten by team such as Charlton , Bolton , City and Hotspurs .
KunaL - India
9/16/2005 3 : 38 : 52 PM
The article is quite true in the sense that the central midfield role of the reds needs a new entertainer , someone like juninho or ballack or roman riquelme .but thr is the other side of the coin wht is noteworthy is the number of 1-0 victories for chelsea last season and the similar trend of not so convincing victories over arsenal wigan etc.THe contribution of thr strikers is still not anything close to champions also u can not expect lampard to have a repeat of the last season with 17 goals , it smells of the luck factor which sure will fade .
Lastly about the 4-3-3 is the best formation for wide and pacy players used by the dutch , portugal national sides and with central predator like Ruud this is what will work best.Jus a need of a good playmaker who is a regular ficture in the team is important..
Greg Okonofua ( rockwitg @ yahoo.com ) - Akwa Ibom Sate Nigeria .
9/16/2005 3 : 35 : 19 PM
You can have the whole money in the world and assemble the best players but if you are not a tactical coach like the `` Special One '' Mourinho , you will not be ale to blend the team and make them look invincible .
<cs-3>
Look at Madrid for instance , the are the richest club in the world and they have the `` best of the best '' in their squad but so far they have not been able to get the desired results . 
</cs-3>
1_Madrid 3_club (richest)
<cs-3>
So it is not Chelsea 's buying poor that has really made them thick but the fact that Mourinho has been able to make the players in his kitty work together and have the psyche that they are the best in the world . 
</cs-3>
1_Chelsea (best)
for Fergie , well he is a good coach , has achieved a lot and should start thinking of retiring so his grandchildren can get to see more of him .
Wenger , well he is good but his invincibility with Arsenal has been broken by the `` Special One '' so hate it or love Chelsea will take over the world of Soccer .
In Lamps , Drogbazookas , Cech , Makelele , Essien , Robben , the world is theirs .
Tarek - Montreal
9/16/2005 3 : 34 : 02 PM
Its good the author does not include Arsenal in this dilemma , since they have nowhere near a competitive squad .
Dezarino - Jakarta , Indonesia
9/16/2005 3 : 29 : 30 PM
yup ... i agree with the editorial , but do n't forget that Manchester United is waiting for John Obi Mikel in the next january .
We all have watch him in the Junior World Cup , which he wons silver medallion and silver ball .
He gots all the quality .
Karan - India
9/16/2005 3 : 29 : 17 PM
This article is anything , but BS .
Bennett is right on the money when he says that United lacks creativity in central midfield .
Juninho seems perfect in that respect , not to mention the skill he possesses with dead balls .
<cs-1>
i also thought Rafael Van Der Vaart , though temperamental , would have been an excellent choice .
</cs-1>
1_Rafael Van Der Vaart (excellent)
BS - Singapore
9/16/2005 3 : 25 : 15 PM
I never trust the new generation of Man Utd 's supporters , they dont really know anything about football .
<cs-3>
All they think is that Man Utd is the only best club in the world . 
</cs-3>
1_Man Utd 3_club (best)
<cs-3>
They are ONE of the best , but not the BEST , rooney is supremely talented , but he is not the only talented youngster . 
</cs-3>
1_They (best)
Who are the other youngsters you may ask , well you 'll probably never heard of them because they dont play for MAN U .
Reuben - leeds england
9/16/2005 3 : 24 : 50 PM
^^^^^^^^^ doesnt know football
^^^ true story
RAYMOND BEN - MONROVIA , LIBERIA
9/16/2005 3 : 18 : 26 PM
IF CHELSEA CONTINUE IN THIS FORM THEY WILL RULE ENGLISH FOOTBALL FOR A VERY LONG TIME
aj - trinidad
9/16/2005 3 : 15 : 04 PM
if that 's the case what 's up with real ? Matthew knows his stuff , good reading i think .
Jon S .
- San Francisco , CA , USA
9/16/2005 3 : 09 : 33 PM
Typical United fan rubbish .
They 've finished third in the League three of the last four years and they 're aging . 
They need to do a massive rebuild , not just replace a couple of players and change formations as the author suggests .
Moreover , it is unclear whether they have the money anymore to purchase the right players .
United is up to their eyeballs in debt and the days of reaping millions of pounds by selling Bechham jersey 's to the Japanese is over .
<cs-1>
Despite Arsenal 's fitness problems and slow start this season , they are much closer to Chelsea than Man United is . 
</cs-1>
1_Arsenal 2_Man United 3_closer to Chelsea (closer)
Chelsea and Arsenal drew both matches last season , and Chelsea won 1-0 this year on what even their manager admits was a lucky goal .
<cs-4>
Thus , the discussion should really be Chelsea vs . Arsenal .
</cs-4>
I notice that the author did n't even acknowledge Arsenal 's existence .
The author , like so many United supporters , is living in the past ( i.e .
1999 ) and does not realize that the footballing world has changed .
Phil - Nottingham
9/16/2005 3 : 00 : 24 PM
A very good article , everything said was spot on .
<cs-1>
Manchester United desperately need new legs in central midfield and Juninho of Lyon would be a fantastic choice . 
</cs-1>
1_Juninho (fantastic choice)
Anton Pillay - Kampala Uganda
9/16/2005 2 : 43 : 18 PM
Bla Bla Bla .
Load of BS .
In todays football times , if you got the cash and the right players , then you win hands down .
************************************************************
Article on Coke vs. Pepsi: the new cola wars 
http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/10/pf/investing/q_cola/index.htm
***********************************************************
<cs-4>
Coke vs . Pepsi : the new cola wars
</cs-4>
Forget about how Vanilla Coke and Pepsi Blue taste .
Which stock is better : Coca-Cola or PepsiCo ? 
May 10 , 2002 : 6 : 22 PM EDT
By Paul R .
La Monica , CNN/Money Staff Writer
NEW YORK ( CNN/Money ) - The Beatles or the Backstreet Boys ? Star Trek or Star Wars ? Yankees or Mets ? They say you must like either one or the other .
And the same goes for Coke and Pepsi .
But while it may be true for the sodas , does it hold for the stocks ?
Shares of Coca-Cola ( KO : Research , Estimates ) and PepsiCo ( PEP : Research , Estimates ) have been on a tear this year , with each posting solid gains in an otherwise dismal market .
Coke has surged 20.3 percent year to date while Pepsi is up 7.2 percent .
The two currently are trading just a hair off their 52-week highs .
But some analysts and fund managers think the trendier Pepsi has more fizz left in its stock than Coke .
Coca-Cola is launching a new product , Vanilla Coke , next week ( May 15 ) while Pepsi recently announced that it will start selling a berry flavored cola , Pepsi Blue , in August .
With Vanilla Coke , the company seems to be banking on nostalgia .
( John Travolta 's character in `` Pulp Fiction '' ordered a Vanilla Coke at a 50 's themed diner , for example . )
<cs-4>
Pepsi Blue , on the other hand , seems to be a concerted attempt to reach out to the hipper , younger demographic that drinks Pepsi 's Mountain Dew . 
</cs-4>
And embracing that demographic has worked .
The launch of Code Red , a cherry-flavored version of Mountain Dew , last year helped Pepsi increase its market share .
<cs-4>
According to the Beverage Market Corporation , unit volume for all of Pepsi 's soda brands ( including Diet Pepsi and Mountain Dew for example ) increased 1.3 percent in 2001 while volume for Coke 's carbonated beverage brands ( Diet Coke , Cherry Coke and Sprite among others ) declined by .2 percent . 
</cs-4>
`` This is a mistake for Coke .
Pepsi is going after the right market . 
Younger audiences are going to buy more of Pepsi Blue .
I do n't see any edge in vanilla , '' says Ted Parrish , co-manager of the Henssler Equity Fund .
As of April 30 , Pepsi was the fund 's second-largest holding .
The fund does not own Coke .
Pepsi is not as pricey
<cs-1>
Regardless of which soda you like better though , Pepsi seems the better value than Coke right now . 
</cs-1>
1_Pepsi 2_Coke 3_value (better)
Coke is trading at a nearly 20 percent premium to Pepsi based on 2002 P/Es even though the two companies ' earnings growth rates are nearly identical .
<cs-1>
( Pepsi 's are actually a shade higher . ) 
</cs-1>
1_Pepsi (higher)
And when you look at revenues , the gap is even more dramatic .
Coke is trading at 7 times estimated 2002 sales while Pepsi is trading at 3.5 times 2002 revenue estimates .
Both companies are expected to post slight declines in sales this year and an increase of about 4 percent in 2003 .
Due to this disparity in valuation , Jeff Kanter , an analyst with Prudential Securities , says he has a `` buy ' rating on Pepsi and `` hold '' on Coke .
Prudential does not do investment banking .
<cs-3>
To be sure , Coke is still the market share leader in soft drinks . 
</cs-3>
1_Coke 3_market share (leader)
One of the main reasons the stock has outperformed Pepsi this year was because it reported a better than expected gain in unit volume in the first quarter .
And the company has taken steps to cement its carbonated beverage lead as well gain ground in the bottled water market . 
<cs-2>
( Coke and Pepsi both have their own brands of water , Dasani and Aquafina , respectively . ) 
</cs-2>
1_Coke 1_Pepsi 3_brands of water (both)
On Tuesday , Coke announced that it was acquiring the Seagram 's line of mixers , tonic , ginger ale and seltzer from Diageo and Pernod Ricard .
And last month , Coke entered into an agreement with Group Danone to distribute Evian bottled water in North America .
Some pretzels with that soda ?
But while Coke relies solely on beverages for growth , another factor in Pepsi 's favor is its diversity .
`` What attracts me to Pepsi is I have more faith in their ability to grow earnings .
Not only are they successful on the beverage side but they are successful with salty snack foods , '' says Crit Thomas , director of growth equity for National City Investment Management Co. , the subadvisor for Armada Funds .
As of March 31 , Pepsi was the seventh-largest holding in the Armada Tax Managed Equity Fund and the tenth-largest holding in the Armada Equity Growth Fund .
In fact , Pepsi 's carbonated beverages are not even the biggest generator of sales and earnings for the company .
Pepsi 's Frito-Lay brand of snack foods , which include Fritos , Doritos and Rold Gold , accounted for 61.2 percent of revenue and 65.3 percent of operating profits in the first quarter .
Pepsi 's soft drink business made up 19 percent of sales and 23.2 percent of operating profit .
Pepsi also owns Gatorade and Quaker Foods , having acquired Quaker Oats last year .
<cs-2>
One potential risk for both Pepsi and Coke is the economy .
</cs-2>
1_Pepsi 1_Coke 3_economy (both)
No , not if it goes back into a recession .
If the economy continues to improve , the stocks could fall victim to what is known as sector rotation , the selling of defensive companies like food and beverages in order to buy more economically sensitive companies in the financial services and technology sectors .
To that end , shares of Pepsi and Coke fell slightly on Wednesday during the Cisco-induced market rally .
Still , Thomas says signs that the dollar is starting to weaken compared to other currencies should prop up both stocks . 
That 's because a weaker dollar helps boost the profits of international subsidiaries , since profits made in a foreign currency are converted back to dollars . 
The majority of Coke 's sales are from its international operations , with just 38 percent of revenue coming from the U.S .
last year .
Pepsi is not as big globally but currency fluctuations are still a factor , as international sales accounted for 29 percent of revenue in 2001 .
More than just two soda stocks
But if you 're not a fan of either Pepsi or Coke , there actually are several other beverage stocks out there .
And they 're trading at lower valuations . 
Cadbury Schweppes ( CSG : Research , Estimates ) , the British confectioner , owns the Dr Pepper , 7 Up , A & W and Royal Crown brands of soda .
It too is joining the new round of cola wars , introducing Red Fusion , a fruit flavored version of Dr Pepper , Friday .
Red Fusion will hit the market in July .
Cadbury Schweppes ' stock trades at a sizable discount to Coke and Pepsi , with a P/E of 16.7 based on 2002 earnings estimates .
Earnings are expected to increase 12.5 percent this year .
<cs-1><cs-3>
Cott ( COTT : Research , Estimates ) , the largest maker of private label sodas , trades at 26 times 2002 earnings estimates but it 's growth prospects for this year and next are better than Coke and Pepsi . 
</cs-1></cs-3>
1_Cott 2_Pepsi 2_Coke 3_growh prospects (better)
1_Cott 3_maker of private label sodas (largest)
Analysts expect Cott 's earnings to increase 34.5 percent this year and 23 percent in 2003 .
Finally , for you Shasta fans out there ( we know there are some ) , there is National Beverage ( FIZ : Research , Estimates ) , which owns Shasta and Faygo , a brand of carbonated beverages popular in the Midwest .
The stock is thinly traded and has no analyst coverage , but for what it 's worth it is trading at less than one times last year 's sales . 
*******************************************
Article on Coke vs Pepsi
http://aol.fool.com/dripport/1999/dripport990818.htm
*******************************************
<cs-4>
Pepsi vs . Coke , Part 2
</cs-4>
Up close and personal
by Jeff Fischer ( TMF Jeff )
ALEXANDRIA , VA ( August 18 , 1999 ) -- Our second food and beverage study began with Coca-Cola and PepsiCo .
However , the two were not directly pitted against each other until Fools did so on the message board .
The competition has been tight , but lately more positive remarks are being made about Pepsi .
<cs-1>
PepsiCo ( NYSE : PEP ) -- The absolute monster in the snack food world has a lot in its favor : a strong management with new leaders in key positions , a new business structure , a better advertising campaign , more room to grow internationally ( if it can take market share from Coca-Cola ) , and a much more down-to-earth valuation by many common measures . 
</cs-1>
1_PepsiCo 3_advertising campaign 3_room to grow internationally 3_down-to-earth valuation (more)
<cs-3>
Coca-Cola ( NYSE : KO ) : The world leader in beverages still has strong management despite recent blips and , some say , hubris . 
</cs-3>
1_Coca-Cola 3_beverages (leader)
Also , the company still possesses tremendous growth opportunities in international markets -- if it can innovate the product line .
Coca-Cola runs a giant cash-generating machine ( as does Pepsi ) that -- in comparison to most business models -- holds minimal downside risk aside from the catastrophic .
( One catastrophe , for example : the public stops drinking soda . )
So , both companies have many positives . 
However , Coke currently sports more negatives .
Recent problems at Coca-Cola : management and public relations gaffes overseas , a poor advertising campaign ( in the opinion of many ) , and a lack of sales growth over the past four years .
Add to this a smattering of increased competition , foiled or compromised acquisitions , and a share price that many view as aggressive enough to limit significant upside for the next three to five years .
Both businesses have been wealth creators in the long term , and both will likely continue to do so .
Which will be better , though ? Right now , your votes are about 50/50 on which has stronger management and the most potential . 
This split vote is n't surprising .
In the past , Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have often swapped leadership positions as well .
One decade Coke may lead ; the next , it 's Pepsi out front .
It 's time to compare key metrics of the two companies for a clearer picture of where each stands . 
In the following numbers , stock prices are as of today ( 8/18/99 ) mid-day , and other numbers are as of the end of fiscal 1998 or the second quarter , June 30 , 1999 , as indicated .
Much of this data was obtained from the SEC Edgar Financials filings of Coca-Cola and Pepsi , which are arranged in an excellent , useful format on the Fool at http : //quote.fool.com .
The other data was found at http : //quote.fool.com as well , from Fool data .
That is a great deal of numbers .
It took over 90 minutes to compile .
A good 10 minutes is required to read , compare , digest and ponder them .
Print this page .
Bring it to the kitchen table .
Marvel over the numbers with your significant other .
<cs-3>
Convince him or her that you can see through these numbers to choose the best investment . 
</cs-3>
(best)
( Hide this paragraph under your hand. ) If you could decide which was better with these numbers , that 'd be something to marvel at indeed . 
Which stock will outperform the other remains anyone 's guess .
You 'll notice that Pepsi has lower profitability ratios than Coca-Cola .
Pepsi still had over $ 2 billion in sales from bottling operations in the first six months of this year , down from $ 3.3 billion last year .
The trend , though , is pointing to higher profitability .
In the second quarter of this year , Pepsi 's margins were on the rise .
Gross margin topped 59 % , up from 58 % in 1998 , and operating margin topped 14 % , up from 11 % last year . 
Pepsi 's average return on equity this year is also up , rising to 49 % thus far from 35 % .
If I had to choose , I 'm inclined to side with Pepsi .
This is based primarily on valuation , yield , and the recent growth -- or lack of growth -- in the companies ' respective key businesses .
The latest performance of management at each company is also significant .
All three of Pepsi 's divisions outperformed expectations last quarter and -- regarding the all-important long term -- Pepsi 's refined business model seems to be gaining traction . 
Meanwhile , Coca-Cola is largely operating the same business that it was five years ago . 
The company had neck-snappin ' traction ( hitting on all cylinders , growing sales and improving profitability , etc. ) in the late 1980s and early 1990s .
The past four years , however , the engine has been cooling while waiting for another boost .
Both companies move to our Finalist List .
When we get to that list , I 'll initially be biased towards Pepsi .
We have over a half-dozen other companies to consider first , however , beginning with The Big Gum Master , Wrigley ( NYSE : WWY ) .
Before that , if you have more thoughts on Pepsi and Coke , please post them on the Drip Companies message board .
Tomorrow will be a community-based column on the topic to the fullest extent possible . 
Fool on ! 
*****************************************************
Article on Coke vs Pepsi
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3718141/
*****************************************************
Arch rivals :
<cs-4>
Coca-Cola vs . Pepsi 
</cs-4>
Pepsi
Coke seeks growth overseas ;
rival targets snack foods
By Tom Costello
Sr .
Correspondent
Updated : 3 : 29 p.m .
ET Dec .
19 , 2003
<cs-2>
With the North American soft drink market saturated , both Coke and Pepsi are focusing now on other areas to grow their businesses . 
</cs-2>
1_Coke 1_Pepsi 3_focussing on other areas (both)
Coke is targeting international growth ; Pepsi is growing its snack business .
And both are going head-to-head in the rapidly expanding bottled-water business . 
<cs-3>
Their commercials are among the most innovative on television : Star power is often the common denominator . 
</cs-3>
1_Their commercials 3_innovative (most)
But when it comes to the soft drink wars , it is still very much a country divided between two familiar colors : Red and blue .
<cs-1>
`` In the U.S. , it 's a closer race between Coke and Pepsi ,  said Bonnie Herzog , an industry analyst with Smith Barney . 
</cs-1>
1_U.S. 3_race between Coke and Pepsi (closer)
<cs-1>
When you look outside the U.S. , I think Coke has the lead . '' 
</cs-1>
1_Coke (lead)
Indeed , 75 percent of Coke 's profits now come from the foreign markets it dominates .
While back home , the slugfest has gone on for decades .
`` I think it makes us all better ,  said Pepsis vice president of marketing , Katie Lacey . 
It 's one thing about working in a very competitive category .
You absolutely are on your toes .
We do n't let it dictate how we act or think every day .
We 're focused on how we 're going to grow our brands . ''
<cs-2>
With public opinion split , there 's another problem for both Coke and Pepsi . 
</cs-2>
1_coke 1_pepsi (both)
Volumes of carbonated soft drinks in North America are growing at less than 1 percent a year .
Meanwhile , sports drinks like Gatoraid are growing at 15 percent a year . 
And bottled water is expanding by 26 permanent annually .
In a saturated soft drink market , water is where the growth and money are , according to Herzog .
For now , Pepsi 's Aquafina is beating Coke 's Dasani in the water wars .
<cs-4>
It 's just the latest front in a battle between hundreds of Coke and Pepsi brands : Diet Coke vs . Diet Pepsi ; Sprite vs , Mountain Dew ; Nestea vs . Lipton , Tropicana vs . Minutemaid .
</cs-4>
And the list goes on .
But for Pepsi - it 's not all about drinks .
Some 60 percent of its profits come from its snack business .
From Fritos to Lays to Cracker Jacks and Tostitos , Pepsi has a virtual monopoly , with no competition from Coke .
`` They 're going after the younger consumer who purchases a single-serve product , at a convenience store like 7-11 ,  said Todd Stender , who follows the companies at Crowell Weedon & Co .
And that 's really where the profits are . ''
<cs-1>
Coke , meanwhile , just scored a big coup by winning the soft-drink business at Subway , a fast-food chain now bigger than McDonald 's , that had previously served only Pepsi . 
</cs-1>
1_Coke 3_soft-drink business at Subway (winning)
In the home office , analysts like both management teams . 
Both companies expense stock options , and both project revenue growth in the mid-to-high single digits .
**************************************************************
Free essay on Coke vs Pepsi
http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/180.html
**************************************************************
<cs-4>
Coke vs Pepsi Fighting for Foreign Markets 
</cs-4>
Introduction
The soft-drink battleground has now turned toward new overseas markets .
While once the United States , Australia , Japan , and Western Europe were the dominant soft-drink markets , the growth has slowed down dramatically , but they are still important markets for Coca-Cola and Pepsi .
<cs-2>
However , Eastern Europe , Mexico , China , Saudi Arabia , and India have become the new `` hot spots. '' Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi are forming joint bottling ventures in these nations and in other areas where they see growth potential . 
</cs-2>
1_Coca-Cola 1_Pepsi 3_joint bottling ventures (Both)
As we have seen , international marketing can be very complex .
Many issues have to be resolved before a company can even consider entering uncharted foreign waters . 
This becomes very evident as one begins to study the international cola wars .
The domestic cola war between Coca-Cola and Pepsi is still raging .
However , the two soft-drink giants also recognize that opportunities for growth in many of the mature markets have slowed .
Both Coca-Cola , which sold 10 billion cases of soft-drinks in 1992 , and Pepsi now find themselves asking , `` Where will sales of the next 10 billion cases come from ? '' The answer lies in the developing world , where income levels and appetites for Western products are at an all time high .
Often , the company that gets into a foreign market first usually dominates that country 's market .
Coke patriarch Robert Woodruff realized this 50 years ago and unleashed a brilliant ploy to make Coke the early bird in many of the major foreign markets .
At the height of World War II , Woodruff proclaimed that Awherever American boys were fighting , they 'd be able to get a Coke. @ By the time Pepsi tried to make its first international pitch in the 50s , Coke had already established its brand name and a powerful distribution network .
In the intervening 40 years , many new markets have emerged .
<cs-2>
In order to profit from these markets , both Coke and Pepsi need to find ways to cut through all of the red tape that initially prevents them from conducting business in these markets . 
</cs-2>
1_Coke 1_Pepsi (both)
This paper seeks to examine these markets and the opportunities and roadblocks that lie within each .
Coke and Pepsi in Russia :
<cs-3>
In 1972 , Pepsi signed an agreement with the Soviet Union which made it the first Western product to be sold to consumers in Russia . 
</cs-3>
1_Pepsi 3_Western product to be sold to consumers in Russia (first)
This was a landmark agreement and gave Pepsi the first-mover advantage .
<cs-3>
Presently , Pepsi has 23 plants in the former Soviet Union and is the leader in the soft-drink industry in Russia .
</cs-3>
1_Pepsi 3_soft-drink industry in Russia (leader)
Pepsi outsells Coca-Cola by 6 to 1 and is seen as a local brand .
Also , Pepsi must counter trade its concentrate with Russia 's Stolichnaya vodka since rubles are not tradable on the world market .
However , Pepsi has also had some problems .
There has not been an increase in brand loyalty for Pepsi since its advertising blitz in Russia , even though it has produced commercials tailored to the Russian market and has sponsored television concerts .
<cs-1>
On the positive side , Pepsi may be leading Coca-Cola due to the big difference in price between the two colas . 
</cs-1>
1_Pepsi 2_Coca-Cola (leading)
While Pepsi sells for Rb250 ( 25 cents ) , Coca-Cola sells for Rb450 .
For the economy size , Pepsi sells 2 liters for Rb1 , 300 , but Coca-Cola sells 1.5 liters for Rb1 , 800 .
Coca-Cola , on the other hand , only moved into Russia 2 years ago and is manufactured locally in Moscow and St . 
Petersburg under a license .
Despite investing $ 85 million in these two bottling plants , they do not perceive Coca-Cola as a premium brand in the Russian market .
Moreover , they see it as a `` foreign '' brand in Russia .
Lastly , while Coca-Cola 's bottle and label give it a high-class image , it is unable to capture market share .
Coke and Pepsi in Romania :
Romania is the second largest central European market after Poland , and this makes it a hot battleground for Coca-Cola and Pepsi .
<cs-3>
When Pepsi established a bottling plant in Romania in 1965 , it became the first U.S . product produced and sold in the region .
</cs-3>
1_Pepsi 3_U.S . product produced and sold in the region (first)
Pepsi began producing locally during the communist period and has recently decided to reorganize and retrain its local staff .
Pepsi entered into a joint venture with a local firm , Flora and Quadrant , for its Bucharest plant , and has 5 other factories in Romania .
Quadrant leases Pepsi the equipment and handles Pepsi 's distribution .
In addition , Pepsi bought 500 Romanian trucks which are also used for distribution in other countries .
Moreover , Pepsi produces its bottles locally through an investment in the glass industry .
<cs-2>
While the price of Pepsi and Coca-Cola are the same ( @ 15 cents/bottle ) , some consumers drink Pepsi because Pepsi sent Michael Jackson to Romania for a concert . 
</cs-2>
1_Pepsi 1_Coca-Cola 3_price (same)
<cs-1>
Another reason for drinking Pepsi is that it is slightly sweeter than Coca-Cola and is more suited for the sweet-toothed Romanians . 
</cs-1>
1_Pepsi 2_Coca-Cola (sweeter)
Lastly , some drink Pepsi because , in the past , only top officials were allowed to drink it , but now everyone can . 
Coca-Cola only began producing locally in November 1991 , but it is outselling all of its competitors .
In 1992 , Coca-Cola saw an increase in Romania of sales by 99.2 % and outsold Pepsi by 6 to 5 .
While Pepsi preferred to buy its equipment from Romania , Coca-Cola preferred to bring equipment into Romania .
Also , Coca-Cola brought 2 bottlers to Romania .
One is the Leventis Group , which is privately owned .
Coca-Cola has invested almost $ 25 million into 2 factories .
<cs-1>
These factories are double the size of the factory Pepsi has in Bucharest . 
</cs-1>
1_These factories 2_factory Pepsi has in Bucharest 3_size (double the size)
Moreover , Coca-Cola has a partnership with a local company , Ci-Co , in Bucharest and Brasov .
Ci-Co has planned an aggressive publicity campaign and has sponsored local sporting and cultural events .
Lastly , Romanians drink Coke because it is a powerful western symbol which was once forbidden .
Coke and Pepsi in The Czech Republic :
<cs-2>
The key to success in the Czech Republic is for both Coca-Cola and Pepsi to increase the annual consumption of soft-drinks . 
</cs-2>
1_Coca-Cola 1_Pepsi 3_increase annual consumptions (both)
<cs-1><cs-4>
Per capita consumption of beer , the national drink in the Czech Republic , exceeds that of soft-drinks by 3 to 1 ( 165 liters of beer per capita of beer versus 50 liters of soft-drinks ) .
</cs-1></cs-4>
1_beer 2_soft-drinks 3_Per capita consumption (exceeds)
<cs-2>
Both companies are trying to increase their market share because distribution for both products is no longer as limited as it was in 1989 . 
</cs-2>
1_Both companies 3_increase market share (both)
Coca-Cola and Pepsi face stiff competition from domestic producers , whose products are lower-priced .
Because of this , domestic producers have a market share of about 60 % .
Coca-Cola and Pepsi each have a market share between 10 % -25 % .
<cs-2>
Another problem in the Czech Republic is that many people think that Coca-Cola and Pepsi are produced by the same company . 
</cs-2>
1_Coca-Cola 1_Pepsi ()
Recently , Pepsi opened an office in Prague .
Coca-Cola , on the other hand , has been trying to convince local shop owners to stock and circulate its product .
<cs-1>
The main apprehension may be that the price of Coke is twice the price of locally produced colas and a little higher than Pepsi . 
</cs-1>
1_Coke 2_Pepsi 2_locally produced colas 3_price (twice)
Coca-Cola has arrangements with 4 domestic bottling companies and acquired a new plant in 1992 in which it has invested almost $ 20 million .
<cs-2>
This may be one reason why Coca-Cola is closing in on Pepsi 's lead in the Czech Republic . 
</cs-2>
1_Coca-Cola 2_Pepsi (closing)
Coke and Pepsi in Hungary :
<cs-1>
Traditionally , Pepsi held the lead in Hungary with a strategy of putting the infrastructure in place , upgrading it , and then marketing to the consumer . 
</cs-1>
1_Pepsi (lead)
Pepsi plans to invest $ 115 million which includes acquiring FAU , an Eastern European bottler .
<cs-1>
Because of this , Pepsi will have greater control over distribution and quality . 
</cs-1>
1_Pepsi 3_control over distribution and quality (greater)
In May of 1993 , Pepsi introduced Pepsi Light and had outdoor and television advertising blitzes .
Coca Cola , on the other hand , introduced Coke Light in the beginning of 1993 , but did not mention its product name during the first few weeks of promotional advertising .
Coca-Cola 's strategy was to advertise internationally for Central Europe .
Hungarians saw the 'Always Coca-Cola ' commercials , along with the rest of the world , in April 1993 .
<cs-1>
In 1992 , Coca-Cola lead Pepsi . 
</cs-1>
1_Coca-Cola 2_Pepsi (lead)
In addition , Coca-Cola participates in counter trade agreements with Hungary .
Coca-Cola trades its concentrate for glass bottles which are exported and then sold to bottlers .
Coke and Pepsi in Poland :
<cs-3>
Poland , with a population of 38 million people , is the biggest consumer market in central and eastern Europe . 
</cs-3>
1_Poland 3_consumer market (biggest)
<cs-4>
Coca-Cola is closing in on Pepsi 's lead in this country with 1992 sales of 19.5 million cases versus Pepsi 's sales of 26.5 million cases .
</cs-4>
The main problems in this area are the centralized economy , the lack of modern production facilities , a non-convertible local currency , and poor distribution .
However , since the zloty is now convertible , Coca-Cola realizes the growth potential in Poland .
<cs-3>
After Fiat , Coca-Cola is now the second biggest investor in Poland . 
</cs-3> (biggest)
1_Coca-Cola 3_investor in Poland
Coca-Cola has developed an investment plan which includes direct investment and joint ventures/investments with European bottling partners .
Its investments may exceed $ 250 million , and it has completed the infrastructure building .
Coca-Cola has divided Poland into 8 regions with strategic sites in each of these areas .
Moreover , it has organized a distribution network to make sure its products are widely available .
This distribution network , which Coca-Cola has spent a lot of money organizing , is extremely important to challenge Pepsi 's market share and to maintain a high level of customer service .
<cs-2>
Also , Coca-Cola , like Pepsi , signed counter trade agreements with Poland . 
</cs-2> 
Both trade their concentrate for Polish beer . (like)
1_Both 3_trade their concentrate for Polish beer
<cs-2>
All of this has helped Coca-Cola to close in on Pepsi 's lead in Poland .
</cs-2>
1_Coca-Cola 2_Pepsi (close in)
</cs-2>
Conclusion on Eastern Europe :
Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi are trying to have their colas available in as many locations in Eastern Europe , but at a cost which consumers would be willing to pay .
The concepts which are becoming more important in Eastern Europe include color , product attractiveness visibility , and display quality .
In addition , availability ( meeting local demand by increasing production locally ) , acceptability ( building brand equity ) , and afford ability ( pricing higher than local brands , but adapting to local conditions ) are the key factors for Eastern Europe . 
Both companies hope that their western images and brand products will help to boost their sales .
Coca-Cola has a universal message and campaign since it feels that Eastern Europe is part of the world and should not be treated differently .
Currently , it is difficult to say who is winning the cola wars since the data from the relatively new market research firms focusses on major cities .
<cs-1>
Pepsi had a commanding 4 to 1 lead in 1992 in the former Soviet Union . 
</cs-1>
1_Pepsi (lead)
<cs-4>
Without this area , Coca-Cola has a 17 % share versus Pepsi 's 12 % share in the soft drink industry . 
</cs-4>
While both companies have been in Eastern Europe for many years , the main task now is to develop the market .
<cs-2>
Coca-Cola and Pepsi are in a dogfight , but both will end up as winners . 
</cs-2>
1_Coca-Cola 1_Pepsi 3_winners (both)
In the end , the ultimate winner will be the Eastern Europeans who will have access to some of the world 's best soft drinks . 
Coke and Pepsi in Mexico :
The Mexican government recently freed the Mexican soft drink market from nearly 40 years of price controls in return for a commitment from bottling companies to invest nearly $ 4.5 billion and create nearly 55 , 000 jobs over the next 7 years .
Naturally , Mexico has become another battleground in the international cola wars .
In Mexico , Coca-Cola and Pepsi command 50 % and 21 % of the market respectively .
The cola war is especially hot here because the per capita consumption of Coca-Cola and Pepsi exceeds that of the United States ( Murphy , 6 ) .
<cs-3>
Mexico is the only soft-drink market in the world that can make this claim . 
</cs-3>
1_Mexico 3_make this claim (only)
<cs-3><cs-3><cs-4>
The face off in Mexico is between Gemex , the largest Pepsi bottler outside the United States , and Femsa , the beer and soft drink company that owns the largest Coca-Cola franchise in the world . 
</cs-3></cs-3></cs-4>
1_Gemex 3_Pepsi bottler outside the United States (largest)
1_Femsa 3_Coca-Cola franchise in the world (largest)
Femsa , however , may be at a disadvantage .
Despite being part of the conglomerate Grupo Vista , Femsa lacks financial punch because it plays only a small part in the conglomerate 's overall interests .
The challenge in Mexico is to win market share through distribution efficiency ( Murphy , 6 ) .
With this in mind , each company is undertaking strategic efforts designed to bolster their shares of the Mexican market .
Pepsi is moving in on the Coke-dominated Yucatan peninsula while Femsa , the Coca-Cola franchisee , is planning to invest $ 600 million more for 3 new Coca-Cola plants next door to Gemex 's Mexico City facilities .
The parent companies have joined the battles as well .
Coca-Cola has made a $ 3 billion long-term commitment to the Mexican market , and Pepsi has countered with a $ 750 million investment of its own .
Coke and Pepsi in China :
Coca-Cola originally entered China in 1927 , but left in 1949 when the Communists took over the country .
In 1979 , it returned with a shipment of 30 , 000 cases from Hong Kong .
<cs-3>
Pepsi , which only entered China in 1982 , is trying to be the leading soft-drink producer in China by the year 2000 . 
</cs-3>
1_Pepsi 3_doft-drink producer (leading)
Even though Coca-Cola 's head start in China has given it an edge , there is plenty of room in the country for both companies .
Currently , Coca-Cola and Pepsi control 15 % and 7 % of the Chinese soft-drink market respectively .
The Chinese market presents unique problems .
For example , 2 , 800 local soft-drink bottlers , many of whom are state-owned , control nearly 75 % of the Chinese market .
Those bottlers located in remote areas have virtual monopolies ( The Economist , 67 ) .
The battle for China will take place in the interior regions .
These areas are unpenetrated as most of the foreign soft-drink producers have set up in the booming coastal cities .
China 's high transportation and distribution costs mean that plants must be located close to their markets .
Otherwise , in a country of China 's size , Coca-Cola and Pepsi risk pricing their products as luxury items .
<cs-1>
In China , it is easier and politically safer to expand through joint ventures with local bottlers . 
</cs-1>
1_China 3_expand (easier, safer)
It is expected that , in China , the company that wins the cola war will win based on the locations of their bottling plants and the quality of the partners they choose ( The Economist , 67 ) .
Coca-Cola is bottled at 13 sites across China ; five of these are state-owned .
Also , Coca-Cola owns 2 concentrate plants in China .
By 1996 , Coca-Cola and its joint venture partners will have invested nearly $ 500 million in China .
Pepsi is planning a $ 350 million expansion plan that will add 10 new plants .
Both companies are ploughing profits straight back into expansion .
They reason that any returns will not come until the next century .
Coke and Pepsi in Sandia Arabia :
<cs-3>
In Saudi Arabia , Pepsi is the market leader and has been for nearly a generation . 
</cs-3>
1_Pepsi (leader)
Part of this is due to the absence of its arch-rival , Coca-Cola .
For nearly 25 years , Coke has been exiled from the desert kingdom .
Coca-Cola 's presence in Israel meant that it was subject to an Arab boycott .
Because of this , Pepsi has an 80 % share of the $ 1 billion Saudi soft-drink market .
Saudi Arabia is Pepsi 's third largest foreign market , after Mexico and Canada ( The Economist , 86 ) .
In 1993 , almost 7 % of Pepsi-Cola International 's sales came from Saudi Arabia alone .
<cs-3>
The environment in Saudi Arabia makes the country very conducive to soft-drink sales : alcohol is banned , the climate is hot and dry , the population is growing at 3.5 % a year , and the Saudis ' oil-based wealth `` make it the most valuable market in the Middle East '' ( The Economist , 86 ) . 
</cs-3>
1_Saudi Arabia 3_valuable market (most)
Coca-Cola , long known as `` red Pepsi '' , has finally started to fight back .
The battle for Saudi Arabia actually began 6 years ago , when the Arab boycott collapsed and Coca-Cola began to make inroads into the Gulf , Egypt , Lebanon , and Jordan .
The start of the Gulf War , however , temporarily stunted Coca-Cola 's growth in the region .
Pepsi 's 5 Saudi factories worked 24 hours a day to keep the troops refreshed .
The most significant blow to Coca-Cola 's return to the desert , however , came at the end of the war , when General Norman Schwarzkopf was shown signing the cease-fire with a can of diet Pepsi in his hand .
Coca-Cola aims to control 35 % of the Saudi market by the year 2000 .
Coca-Cola , which plans to pour over $ 100 million into the Saudi market , is focusing on marketing to get there .
Recently , it shipped some 20 , 000 red coolers into Saudi Arabia over the last 9 months . 
Also , Coca-Cola put $ 1 million into sponsoring the Saudi World Cup soccer team .
This alone has doubled Coca-Cola 's market share to almost 15 % .
America 's Reynolds Company is among the investors looking to cash in on Coca-Cola 's return to Saudi Arabia .
The company is among the investors in a new factory which , by 1996 , will be producing 1.2 billion Coca-Cola cans per year .
This equates to nearly 100 cans for every Saudi in the country .
Pepsi , trying to fight off the Coca-Cola onslaught , has responded with deep discounting .
Coke and Pepsi in India :
Coca-Cola controlled the Indian market until 1977 , when the Janata Party beat the Congress Party of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi .
To punish Coca-Cola 's principal bottler , a Congress Party stalwart and longtime Gandhi supporter , the Janata government demanded that Coca-Cola transfer its syrup formula to an Indian subsidiary ( Chakravarty , 43 ) .
Coca-Cola balked and withdrew from the country .
India , now left without both Coca-Cola and Pepsi , became a protected market .
In the meantime , India 's two largest soft-drink producers have gotten rich and lazy while controlling 80 % of the Indian market . 
These domestic producers have little incentive to expand their plants or develop the country 's potentially enormous market ( Chakravarty , 43 ) .
Some analysts reason that the Indian market may be more lucrative than the Chinese market .
India has 850 million potential customers , 150 million of whom comprise the middle class , with disposable income to spend on cars , VCRs , and computers .
The Indian middle class is growing at 10 % per year .
To obtain the license for India , Pepsi had to export $ 5 of locally-made products for every $ 1 of materials it imported , and it had to agree to help the Indian government to initiate a second agricultural revolution .
Pepsi has also had to take on Indian partners .
In the end , all parties involved seem to come out ahead : Pepsi gains access to a potentially enormous market ; Indian bottlers will get to serve a market that is expanding rapidly because of competition ; and the Indian consumer benefits from the competition from abroad and will pay lower prices . 
Even before the first bottle of Pepsi hit the shelves , local soft drink manufacturers increased the size of their bottles by 25 % without raising costs .
Conclusion :
The new battleground for the cola wars is in the developing markets of Eastern Europe ( Russia , Romania , The Czech Republic , Hungary , and Poland ) , Mexico , China , Saudi Arabia , and India .
With Coca-Cola 's and Pepsi 's investments in these countries , not only will they increase their sales worldwide , but they will also help to build up these economies .
These long-term commitments by both companies will raise the level of competition and efficiency , and at the same time , bring value to the distribution and production systems of these countries .
Many issues need to be overcome before a company can begin to produce its goods in a foreign country . 
These issues include political , social , economic , operational , and environmental topics which must be addressed .
When companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi effectively analyze and solve these problems to everyone 's liking , new foreign markets can translate into lucrative opportunities in the long run .
*******************************************
Article on Aocke vs Pepsi
*******************************************
Both Pepsi and Coke have finally taken to producing a cola sweetened with Splenda .
This is awesome , because Splenda is a 0-calorie ( though not 0-sugar -- be warned , diabetics ! ) sweetener , based on sugar ( it shows up on ingredients lists as 'sucralose ' ) so it does n't have that chemical aftertaste of aspartame ( Nutrasweet ) .
Now let me preface this by saying that I actually kinda liked Pepsi ONE ( when it had aspartame in it ) , at least much more than any other diet cola out there .
So I was really interested to taste it sweetened with Splenda .
Well , the aspartame aftertaste is gone .
<cs-2>
Unfortunately , the cola itself tastes like the original Diet Coke -- just awful . 
</cs-2>
1_cola 1_Diet Coke 3_tastes (like)
<cs-2>
However , Diet Coke with Splenda now tastes like old Pepsi ONE -- just without the aftertaste . 
</cs-2>
1_Ciet Coke with Splenda 1_Pepsi ONE 3_tastes (like)
It 's crazy . 
Or I 'll stick to Fresca ( which has aspartame , but it greatly tamed by the grapefruit flavor ) .
I do n't know what Coke was thinking , though .
Because they 've now introduced `` Coke Zero '' , which , near as I can tell , is basically old Diet Coke ( aspartame-sweetened ) , and Diet Coke is now Splenda-sweetened .
But be careful -- the Diet Coke with Splenda comes in a light blue and light yellow label , whereas the old Diet Coke still has the old silver label .
It seems like they'd 've been much better off making the new Splenda-sweetened stuff a new product line with a new name , rather than confusing the Diet Coke name ...
The Cola Battle Rages On ...
I have some friends who are die-hard Pepsi drinkers , and some friends/family that are die-hard Coke people ... so this seems as good as any topic to discuss in detail . 
So ... first things first ... lets make up some categories with which to judge :
Overall Taste , After Taste , Advertising Campaign , Merchandising Successfulness , Supporting flavours/products , and ...
usefulness as a weapon .
Lets begin ...
OVERALL TASTE :
This is a tough one , because everyone has their own opinion .
Do n't ever believe anyone who says they taste the same ... they do n't . 
<cs-1>
Here is my feeling : Pepsi is the lighter taste , where as Coke is much more syrupy . 
</cs-1>
1_Pepsi 2_Coke 3_taste (lighter)
1_Coke 3)syrupy (more)
So ... which is better ?
Well , everyone has their opinion on the matter .
If I were to walk to a refrigerator , and find both sitting there , my personal preference would be to grab a coke . 
Personally , I find that Coke tastes better most times .
Having said that , there are definitely times when I 'm not interested in drinking Coke at all , but I 'll get into that in a moment .
I give Coke the nod here ... feel free to disagree in the comments section , but this is really a personal preference thing .
Lets move on .
AFTER TASTE :
This is where I lean towards Pepsi in general .
I find Coke gives you that sticky taste in your mouth , and that your teeth hurt , and make weird noises when you rub them together after drinking Coke . 
Pepsi , not so much .
So , I give Pepsi the nod for after taste ...
ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN :
My biggest beef with Pepsi is their advertising campaign , and how they feel the need to specifically call Coke out in each commercial .
They rely on people to say Coke is the big company , and I do n't like big companies , so I should drink Pepsi .
<cs-1>
Clearly it is the better choice for the fact that big companies make money , and I do n't like companies that make money. 
</cs-1>
1_it (better)
That 's a great line of thinking .
I just find that Coke puts out commercials of people dancing , and drinking Coke , and loving it ... and Pepsi puts out commercials of ... people not drinking Coke .
It 's so silly .
Pepsi is like that kid running for high school students council who has no chance of winning , so instead of actually coming up with a reason why you should vote for them , they put up posters saying why you should n't vote for others . 
Vote for me , I 'm the alternative to this guy.
Shut up .
Sit down .
Go back to trying to copy Coke .
<cs-1>
Pepsi loses this one , despite generally having hotter girls in their commercials . 
</cs-1>
1_Pepsi (loses)
MERCHANDISING SUCCESSFULNESS :
<cs-1>
Coke clearly wins here .
</cs-1>
1_Coke (wins)
You see Coke anywhere you look ... trading cards , clocks , posters , telephones , cup holders , etc , etc , etc .
Unfortunately for Coke , the fact that they win this category is a bad thing in my opinion , because I 'm getting a little sick of seeing it .
I live with a guy who collects the stuff like it 's going out of style ... oddly enough , its the stuff that is 'classic ' that is most in style . 
So ... Coke being everywhere , and getting on my nerves more than Pepsi in this area , give the advantage to Pepsi .
( This category is great , because it will anger Elg beyond belief ) .
SUPPORTING FLAVOURS/PRODUCTS :
Here is the run down on how I feel about this ...
<cs-1><cs-4>
* Diet Pepsi vs . Diet Coke : Clearly Coke wins here ... no question in my mind .
</cs-1></cs-4>
1_Coke 2_Pepsi (wins)
<cs-4><cs-1>
 Vanilla Pepsi vs . Vanilla Coke Pepsi wins this one ... less sweet = better .
</cs-4></cs-1>
1_Pepsi 2_Coke (wins)
Still , who cares about vanilla anything .
<cs-4><cs-1>
 Dr . Pepper ( Pepsi ) vs . Anything Coke produces : Dr . Pepper , hands down .
</cs-4></cs-1>
1_Dr. Pepper ( Pepsi ) 2_Anything Coke produces ()
Moving on ...
<cs-1><cs-4>
 7-Up vs . Sprite : Pepsi wins this one again ... 7-Up is definitely better .
</cs-1></cs-4>
1_Pepsi 1_7-Up 2_Sprite (wins)
<cs-4><cs-1>
Powerade vs .Gatorade : Gatorade .  It has 'Gator ' in the name , it has to be better .
</cs-4></cs-1>
1_Gatorade 2_powerade (better)
<cs-3>
Juice comparison : Coke has Minute-Made , which is clearly the best . 
</cs-3>
1_Minute-Made (best)
No comparison .
Alright , enough of that ... lets give the nod to Pepsi on this one for having Dr . Pepper , which is , in itself , and amazing feat .
USEFULNESS AS A WEAPON :
Umm ... really , they both have about the same usefulness .
I did n't really think that through very well .
Coke bottles have that unique shape in them , and that makes me think that the bottom part of the bottle might more easily fit into someone eye-socket , causing more damage if thrown at the right velocity .
Advantage Coke .
FINAL THOUGHTS :
Overall Taste : Coke .
After Taste : Pepsi .
Advertising Campaign : Coke .
Merchandising Successfulness : Pepsi .
Supporting flavours/products : Pepsi .
Usefulness as a weapon : Coke .
Once again , we 're tied .
<cs-1>
I make the call that Coke wins this battle . 
</cs-1>
1_Coke 3_battle (wins)
<cs-1>
Overall , I think it tastes better , and is much more widely enjoyed . 
</cs-1>
1_it 3_tastes (better)
1_it 3_enjoyed
On a hot day , and ice cold Coke can taste pretty dang tasty ... though , you should all be drinking Dr . 
Pepper as a rule anyways .
<cs-4>
Comments ? Complaints ? Bring it . Soccer Vs . Football
</cs-4>
************************************
Article on Soccer vs Footbal 
************************************
<cs-4>
Soccer vs .Football by M .F. , Stoughton , MA  
</cs-4>
I feel as though a school system 's sports program should give equal funds to different sports so each team has equal athletic appreciation . 
I play soccer for my high school , and I feel as though soccer does not get equal funds to football .
For example , the soccer fields have not been mowed since the beginning of the season ( approximately two weeks ) while the football field has been mowed nine or ten times and the season has n't started .
Since the first soccer game , the nets have not been taken down , but the goal pads from the football games are taken down immediately after the game .
Both are of equal value and both need the same time to take down . 
I know that the football team charges to attend but that does n't equal the amount of extra work the football field gets .
The football field just got new bleachers for the visiting team spectators , while the soccer field does n't even have bleachers for the home town spectators , like they did last season .
( Who knows what happened to the ones that were there before. ) During home games there are many fans watching a very exciting , skillful game of soccer who must stand for an hour and a half !
************************************************************
Following sentences are a mix mainly from following reviews
DCRP Review Fuji FinePix F10
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_f10-review/
Review on Hummer H3 SUV
http://research.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?section=reviews&aff=national&makeid=363&modelid=7911&year=2006&revid=48494&revlogtype=18
DCRP Review on Fuji FinePix A210
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_a210-review/index.shtml
DCRP Review: Fuji FinePix Z1
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_z1-review/index.shtml
DCRP Review: Casio Exilim EX-Z750
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/casio/exilim_z750-review/
PC World - HP Pavilion dv4000 Review
http://pcworld.com/article/id,120924-page,1/article.html
Sys Technology Freestyle M7500
http://pcworld.about.com/news/Oct292005id123300.htm
Apple iPod nano ExtremeiPod - Find Articles
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zd2969/is_200509/ai_n15349085
Apple iPod 30GB
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdpcm/is_200510/ai_n15717051
************************************************************
The FinePix F10 ($399) is a bit of a departure for Fuji.
 While it uses the SuperCCD HR sensor like many other Fuji cameras of late, it does different things with the extra data collected by the sensor .
Fuji includes their FinePixViewer software with the F10.
The version numbers are 5.0 for Windows and 3.3 Mac OS 9 and OS X.
FinePixViewer is for basic image organizing and editing, and is no substitute for something like Photoshop Elements.
Also included is ImageMixer VCD2 for Mac and Windows.
This lets you create Video CDs from your still images and movie clips.
The F10's manual is fairly average for a digital camera.
It's complete, but a bit cluttered.
The FinePix F10 is a new design for Fuji and I like it.
<cs-4>
 It's not a super thin camera -- that's reserved for the FinePix Z1 -- but it's still quite compact .
</cs-4>
The body is made almost entirely of metal and it feels solid, save for the cheap plastic door over the battery/memory card compartment.
The important controls are well placed and I found it easy to hold and operate the camera with just one hand.
The FinePix F10 features a large 2.5" LCD display.
While large in size, this screen isn't big on resolution, with just 115,000 pixels.
While I could tell that the screen resolution wasn't the best, it didn't really bother me while using the camera.
Outdoor visibility is good with the screen brightness at its normal level and even better with it turned up (I'll show you how to do that in a second).
Low light visibility is about the same -- above average at normal brightness and very good with it turned up.
In case you didn't notice, the F10 lacks an optical viewfinder.
Whether that bothers you or not is a personal decision -- I like having one myself.
At the upper-right of the photo is the zoom controller.
This moves the lens from wide-angle to telephoto in just 0.9 seconds.
I counted eight steps throughout the 3X zoom range.
Below that are three buttons and the four-way controller.
The top two buttons are for entering playback mode and for opening the Photo Mode menu.
<cs-1>
 The Photo Mode menu has been toned down since the last Fuji camera I reviewed .
</cs-1>
2_last Fuji camera 3_Photo Mode menu (toned down)
Gone are the fancy colored menus -- this is kind of boring in comparison.
I want to talk about the F10's great high ISO shooting abilities.
Previously ISO 1600 was reserved solely for digital SLRs -- not anymore! The F10 can take full-sized shots all the way from ISO 80 to ISO 1600.
So what does this all mean?
I'll tell you in a second.
The natural light scene mode is really cool.
Ever take a photo indoors without the flash and have it come out like this?
It's hard to appreciate that beautiful orchid when it's all blurry! I didn't do any tricks with this photo -- this is a handheld shot without the flash at ISO 80, which is what I'd use in typical everyday shooting.
I didn't want to use the flash since it would wash things out.
On the bottom of the F10 you'll find the speaker, tripod mount, and battery/xD Picture Card compartment.
It's a shame that after building such a nice metal camera that Fuji cheaped out by using a plastic tripod mount and flimsy plastic door over the battery/memory compartment.
The included NP-120 battery is shown at right.
It's pretty big, though the photo makes it look larger than it really is.
Using the Fuji FinePix F10
Record Mode
The FinePix F10 starts up very quickly, taking just 1.4 seconds to extend the lens and "warm up" before you can start taking pictures.
With the high speed shooting feature turned off, autofocus speeds were about 0.3 - 0.5 seconds, which is about average.
Turn on the high speed shooting feature and things speed up greatly, making the F10 one of the fastest point-and-shoots I've seen recently.
Shutter lag was not an issue, even at slower shutter speeds where it sometimes crops up.
Shot-to-shot speed was very good, with a delay of around two seconds before you can take another picture.
There's no way to delete a photo immediately after it is taken, though.
You must enter playback mode to do that.
Now, let's take a look at the resolution and quality choices available on this camera.
<cs-3>
 As I said at the beginning of the review, this is the first SuperCCD HR-based camera (along with the FinePix Z1) that doesn't give you the interpolated 12MP mode like previous models .
</cs-3>
1_this 3_SuperCCD HR-based camera (first)
The camera still takes the 6.3 Megapixels worth of data and interpolates it up to 12MP (it has to due to the design of the sensor), but then it brings it back down to 6.3MP again.
This is, in my opinion, a good thing.
With that out of the way we can now take a look at the high ISO performance from that same night shot.
If you ignore the overexposure in the last three images you'll see that details are mostly still intact, even at ISO 1600.
That's amazing for a point-and-shoot camera, and Fuji deserves kudos for that.
If I could've used a faster shutter speed the results would've been even better.
One area in which the F10 isn't so hot is in the redeye department.
As you can see, it's pretty bad, and that's with redeye reduction turned on.
While your results may vary, you can expect to deal with redeye at least part of the time.
There's almost zero barrel distortion at the wide end of the F10's lens.
I see no evidence of vignetting or blurry corners here.
Overall the photo quality on the FinePix F10 was excellent.
<cs-2>
 This little camera produces images that in some cases rival output from a digital SLR .
</cs-2>
1_little camera 2_digital SLR 3_images (rival)
1_This little camera 2_digital SLR 3_images
Colors are accurate, exposure is generally good (though I would probably adjust the exposure compensation by -1/3EV), and noise levels are low (though things are a bit grainy).
Purple fringing is above average unfortunately, but I think most people are willing to put up with a little of that in exchange for everything else this camera can do.
I want to write more about the high ISO performance.
I took the same shot with the F10, the Sony DSC-H1, and the Nikon D70s.
<cs-2>
You're probably saying "why did you compare the $400 F10 against the $900 (body only) D70s?  I did so because it shows just how well the F10 performs when up against something like a D-SLR .
</cs-2>
1_F10 2_D70s 3_performs (up against)
This is the chair (with junk on it) cropped from the above photo.
This shot was taken at ISO 80 with the FinePix F10.
Do note that I brightened the levels a bit on the crops so you can better make out the details.
The full size images are untouched.
The next two images show the same chair at ISO 400, first on the F10 and then on the Sony DSC-H1.
I'm not picking on the H1 here -- I'm just using it as an example of how a typical camera would perform in these situations.
<cs-1>
 You don't have to be a rocket scientist or even a digital camera reviewer to notice that the F10 beats the H1 easily here .
</cs-1>
1_F10 2_H1 (beats)
The FinePix F10 is a fairly compact camera made almost entirely of metal.
As is usually the case, the plastic door over the battery and memory card is fragile and could break off if forced.
The camera fits well in your hand and I had no problem operating it with one hand.
The F10 has a large 2.5" LCD with so-so resolution, but good visibility in low light -- plus you can brighten the screen at the push of a button.
Do note that there is no optical viewfinder on the camera.
One thing I don't like about the F10's design is its silly "terminal adapter" for getting at those I/O ports.
Surely Fuji could've figured out a way to get the I/O ports on the camera itself.
The camera does support the USB 2.0 High Speed protocol, though.
Camera performance is very good in almost all areas.
It starts up quickly, focusing times are good (especially with the high speed mode on) and shutter lag was not an issue.
The flash is very powerful for a camera this size, though unfortunately redeye was a problem.
<cs-2>
Battery life was amazing as well, with a CIPA battery life score of 500 shots per charge.
</cs-2>
1_Battery life 3_amazing (as well)
Photo quality on the F10 was excellent.
I was consistently impressed with the output from the F10 -- and this is coming from someone who hasn't been a big fan of Fuji's recent efforts.
If I was to complain about something it would be the above average purple fringing and occasional overexposure of some photos.
The area in which the F10 really stands out is when the ISO is cranked up.
If you're tired of blurry pictures, then this is the camera for you.
The F10 can go all the way to ISO 1600 and the photos are still usable, though you probably won't want to print them at 8 x 10 or larger due to the noise.
You can set the ISO yourself or just put the camera into natural light mode and let it pick the right sensitivity for you.
Two final things I like about the F10 include an excellent movie mode (640 x 480, 30 fps) and the AF-assist lamp.
There are a few other things that I dislike about it as well.
I think the menu system is clunky -- they are harder to use than they should be.
I wish the camera had a few more manual controls.
While I appreciate the custom white balance option, shutter speed, aperture, and focus controls would've been really nice.
The F10's continuous shooting mode isn't great, either.
And finally, the 16MB xD card that comes with the camera is just too small for a 6.3 Megapixel camera.
All-in-all though I really liked the F10 and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants a point-and-shoot camera with great photo quality, low light shooting abilities, and a nice movie mode.
****************************************************
****************************************************
Joe Wiesenfelder
The H3's timing could be better; gasoline prices have been relatively high for months leading up to the model's introduction, and they show no sign of dropping.
Things could also be worse.
Reacting to complaints about the larger H2's fuel economy before the price spikes, Hummer fitted the H3 with a five-cylinder engine.
The torque peak of 225 pounds-feet comes at 2,800 rpm, reasonably early for this engine's 6,300-rpm redline.
The power improves as the engine speed increases, but not dramatically  not as much as I wanted.
The four-speed automatic does the job.
<cs-1>
 It doesn't react as quickly as some of GM's transmissions do, but it's still better than average in terms of kickdown lag .
</cs-1>
* 1_It 2_GM 3_kickdown lag (better)
The launch and steady pull up to speed are similar to the manual's.
I must say, the 3.5-liter engine is relatively smooth for a five-cylinder, but it isn't quiet.
<cs-4>
 In place of the H2's V-8 roar, partly caused by the engine-mounted cooling fan, the H3's inline-five sounds more like an engine working hard .
</cs-4>
Its cooling fan also is driven off the crankshaft, which raises the question of how well it can keep both the engine and cabin cool while crawling over rocks at less than 1 mph.
On an offroad excursion in Moab, Utah, last year, I found that the H2 SUT's air conditioning couldn't keep up with the midday heat.
Hey, GM: Electric cooling fans  they aren't just for front-wheel drive anymore.
The H3 shudders after each bump or dip it traverses.
<cs-4>
 Nowhere is the solidity that added to the H2's macho composition .
</cs-4>
There may be people out there who like this, who think it makes a truck feel like a truck.
To me it makes the H3 feel like a lesser vehicle  more so than its size or price.
<cs-1>
 One area where the H3 improves on the H2 is its interior .
</cs-1>
1_H3 2_H2 3_interior (improves)
The design and materials quality are a step up, maybe two.
The complaint one could make is that it no longer says Hummer.
I don't mean text.
I mean you could see this interior in another GM truck and it wouldn't seem out of place.
You'll need to get the optional power driver's seat if you want to adjust the cushion height  unfortunate because the H3 has dreadful rear visibility.
(Yep, it's a Hummer).
<cs-4>
 Hummer has eliminated the cargo limitations imposed by the early H2's spare tire by mounting the H3's on back of the swing gate .
</cs-4>
<cs-1>
 This is a simpler solution than the H2's: a swing-out spare tire bracket over a liftgate .
</cs-1>
1_This 2_H2's 3_solution (simpler)
A swing gate is intended to be easier for shorter folks to operate.
A gas-charged spring helps open the gate on the H3  actually, it doesn't help; it opens the gate.
I suspect that smaller folks might need help closing it instead.
I haven't gone into the offroading issue because, though it's a defining Hummer characteristic, it's exploited by few owners.
<cs-2>
 From all accounts, it's exceptionally capable off road, as a Hummer should be .
</cs-2>
1_it 2_Hummer 3_capable off road (as)
<cs-1>
 It combines the ginormous tires and long suspension travel of the H2 with a smaller size, making it more versatile still .
</cs-1>
1_H2 3_versatile (more)
As with all Hummers, the H3 has permanent all-wheel drive, a dual-range transfer case and an optional locking rear differential.

The latest model from General Motors' Hummer brand was created to attract a broader range of potential buyers.
<cs-1>
 Like the mammoth H1 and the large H2, the new H3 promises authentic Hummer style and offroad capabilities in a smaller, more fuel-efficient package .
</cs-1>
1_new H3 2_H1 2_H2 3_fuel-efficient package (like)
<cs-2>
 Hummer claims the H3 is about the same length as a typical midsize sedan  and therefore is able to maneuver through urban traffic .
</cs-2>
1_H3 2_midsize sedan 3_length (same length as)
The H3 is easily identifiable as a Hummer due in part to its short overhangs, pronounced fender flares, upright windshield and windows, wide track and immense tires.
Flat, chiseled surfaces also make the H3 noticeable.
A seven-slot grille that's flanked by round headlights within square openings sits up front.
Front tow hooks are standard.
The rear swing gate incorporates fixed glass and a door-mounted full-size spare tire.
<cs-1>
 Compared with the Hummer H2, which is based on a GM full-size truck platform, the H3 is 16.9 inches shorter overall and 6.5 inches narrower .
</cs-1>
1_H3 2_H2 (shorter)
<cs-1>
 Its height is 6 inches lower .
</cs-1>
1_Its 3_height (lower)
Two tire types are available: a 32-inch all-terrain Goodyear tire and a 33-inch Bridgestone tire.
Six-lug 16-inch aluminum wheels are standard, but chrome wheels are available.
A sliding sunroof is optional.
With the optional 33-inch tires, the maximum breakover angle is 25 degrees.
Offroad enthusiasts may also need to know that the H3's maximum approach angle is 40 degrees and the peak departure angle is 37 degrees.
The H3 can ford 16 inches of water at 20 mph or up to 2 feet if it slows to 5 mph.
It can also climb 16-inch vertical steps and rocks.
Built on a ladder-type frame, the H3 has an independent front torsion-bar suspension and semi-elliptic leaf springs at the rear.
The underbody includes four protective shields.
An Off-Road Adventure Package enhances the vehicle's offroad capabilities.
Five occupants fit in sporty bucket seats up front and a 60/40-split, folding rear bench.
The driver faces a perforated leather-wrapped steering wheel and bright-accented instruments.
Brushed, machine-finished trim plates are included.
Controls on the center stack are arranged horizontally in four rows.

I don't know how they do it, but Casio manages to get great battery life out of their cameras.
Using the included NP-40 lithium ion battery (which has just 4.6 Wh of energy) the camera can take a whopping 325 shots per charge!
<cs-4>
 Compare that with 160 shots on the Canon SD500, 270 shots on the Nikon Coolpix 7900, and 370 shots on the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P200 .
</cs-4>
My usual complaints about proprietary batteries like the one used by the EX-Z750 apply here.
They're expensive ($45 a pop), and you can't put in a set of alkalines to get you through the rest of the day like you could with an AA-based camera.
The camera dock is used for battery charging, transferring photos to your PC, or viewing photos on a television.
While there's no option for transferring photos without the dock, Casio does sell a video out cable that connects directly to the camera for a whopping $25.
To charge the battery just pop the camera into the cradle and you're set -- it takes about 3 hours to fully charge the NP-40.
An external battery charger is sold separately.
The Z750 has a built-in lens cover so there is no clumsy lens cap to worry about.
As you can see, this is one small camera.
The only accessories that I could locate for the Z750 include an external battery charger ($50), the aforementioned video cable ($25), and a carrying case ($20).
The Z750 includes Casio's PhotoLoader and Photohands software.
PhotoLoader is used to download and view stills and movies from your camera.
The Mac version is not OS X native, but works in Classic mode.
Photohands is for Windows only, and is used for retouching and printing images.
The Z750 isn't the smallest or lightest camera in the group but nobody's going to call it "bulky" or "heavy".
Enough numbers, let's start our tour of the camera now!
The EX-Z750 features an F2.8-5.1, 3X optical zoom lens.
The focal range of the lens is 7.9 - 23.7 mm which is equivalent to 38 - 114 mm.
The lens is not threaded and conversion lenses are not supported.
That little hole just above the lens (and next to the optical viewfinder) is the AF-assist lamp which is also used as a visual self-timer countdown.
The AF-assist lamp helps the camera focus in low light situations.
The only other thing to see on the front of the camera is the built-in flash, located to the upper-left of the lens.
This is a pretty weak flash, with a working range of 0.4 - 2.9 m at wide-angle and 0.4 - 1.6 m at telephoto.
 The competition from Canon, Nikon, and Sony all beat the Exilim in this department .
You cannot attach an external flash to the Z750.
One of the big features (no pun intended) on the EX-Z750 is its large 2.5" LCD display.
While it's big in size, it's not big in terms of resolution -- it has just 115,200 pixels.
I could certainly notice the lower resolution while using the camera, but I expect that most people will not be bothered by this.
In low light situations the screen doesn't gain up (or at least not very much), making it quite hard to see your subject.
At least you've still got an optical viewfinder.
And speaking of which, thankfully Casio didn't take away the optical viewfinder when they added that big screen.
The one here may be the smallest one I've ever seen, but hey, something is better than nothing, right? Naturally it's missing a diopter correction knob, which you'd use to focus what you're looking at.
On this side of the camera you'll find the speaker as well as two buttons.
The buttons are for continuous shooting mode and the EX menu.
There are three continuous modes on the EX-Z750.
The first one, called normal continuous shutter mode, took just two photos in a row at 1.1 frames per second at the highest image quality setting.
The camera will continue taking pictures at a slower rate after that.
In addition, the LCD "blacks out" between shots which can make following a moving subject a little challenging (though at least there's the optical viewfinder).
The second continuous mode, called zoom continuous, is a little bizarre.
First you select an area of the frame that you want to zoom in on by using the four-way controller.
You then take the picture and two images are saved: one image of the whole scene, and another "zoomed in" view of the area you selected (using digital zoom apparently).
I have no idea why anyone would want this feature.
Anyhow, the last continuous option is called 25-shot stop action mode, and it does just what it sounds.
The camera takes 25 shots in a row at a very high rate of speed and it saves them into one 1600 x 1200 image.
It's sort of like a collage.
The EX, or shortcut menu gives you quick access to the most commonly used camera settings, including image size, white balance, ISO, and autofocus area.
You can also adjust these settings in the main recording menu.
On the bottom of the Z750 you'll find a plastic tripod mount, the dock connector, and the battery/memory card compartment. The dock connector is also where you'll plug in the optional video cable. A separate USB cable is not available -- you must use the dock for that.
As you can probably guess, you cannot swap memory cards while the camera is on a tripod.
The included NP-40 battery is shown at right.
The startup speed on the EX-Z750 is amazing -- just one second!
Focusing speeds were also very good, with typical times of 0.2 - 0.4 seconds at wide-angle, and barely longer at telephoto.
Low light focusing was good thanks to the Z750's AF-assist lamp.
Shutter lag was not a problem, even at slower shutter speeds.
Shot-to-shot speed was also great, with a wait of around 1.5 seconds before you can take another photo, assuming that you've turned off the post-shot review feature.
Unfortunately there's no way to delete a photo immediately after taking it -- you must enter playback mode.
To say that a larger memory card is needed is an understatement.
Why even bother with built-in memory if you're going to include just 8.3MB?
Images are named CIMG####.JPG, where # = 0001 - 9999.
The file numbering is maintained even if you replace and/or format memory cards.
Now, onto the menus!
You'll still get pretty good results at ISO 100.
At ISO 200 details start to get destroyed but I think the image is still very usable.
The ISO 400 image is pretty messy but good noise reduction software may be able to salvage it.
Our distortion test shows moderate barrel distortion at the wide end of the Z750's lens.
While the test shows some corner softness, I didn't find this to be a major issue in my real world photos.
I didn't see any real evidence of vignetting (dark corners) either.
Unfortunately redeye was a nightmare on this camera, at least in my testing.
While your results will certainly vary, I would expect to deal with this annoyance at least some of the time.
Overall I'd rank the "straight of the camera" image quality as good.
With a little tweaking it can be "great".
The biggest problem I have with the photos are the Disneyland-like oversaturated colors.
The colors are so vivid that they're totally unnatural.
The zoom and scroll feature lets you zoom up to 8X into your photo and then move around in it.
Just like everything else on the Z750, this feature was nice and snappy.
One very interesting thing the Z750 can do in playback mode is adjust the white balance of an image you've already taken.
While this is easy with RAW images, the camera doesn't have one! Unfortunately this feature didn't live up to its billing -- if anything it made things worse based on my experiences with it.
The camera offers an image brightness adjustment (-2 to +2) in playback mode, as well.
If that's not enough, you can also rotate, crop, or resize your images right on the camera.
A movie editing feature lets you cut unwanted footage from what you've recorded.
You can also create a still image from a movie frame using something that Casio calls Motion Print.
In fact, you have two choices: you can just grab a single frame (which will be saved at 640 x 480) or you can create a nine-image collage of sorts which has one big image in front with eight other frame grabs behind it (see above).
The collage is saved at the 1600 x 1200 resolution.
By default, the camera doesn't show much information about your photos.
But press the display button and the Z750 displays exposure information and a histogram too (see above).
The camera moves through photos instantly -- very nice.
How Does it Compare?
The EX-Z750 has plenty of features to talk about as well.
It has tons (and I mean tons) of scene modes that even extend to movie mode.
If you want manual controls, they're all here, though I don't like the limited aperture choices.
Speaking of movie mode, the Z750's is excellent.
You can record high quality VGA (30 fps) video until the memory card is full.
Thanks to Casio's use of the MPEG-4 codec file sizes are small and a high speed memory card is not required.
The downside is that Mac compatibility isn't the best.
The camera offers several movie modes and you can edit your "films" when they're done or grab frames from them.
I have a few more complaints that don't really fit anywhere else.
I don't like how the camera requires you to use the (included) camera dock for transferring photos to your computer.
The Z750's flash is on the weak side when compared to other cameras in its class.
The continuous shooting modes leave much to be desired -- you can take just 2 shots in a row at 1.1 fps at the highest quality setting.
The Z750 has an appallingly low amount of built-in memory, which is really inexcusable on a 7.2 Megapixel camera like this.
And finally, I'd like my full camera manual in print, thank you!
Overall, the EX-Z750 gets my recommendation.
<cs-4>
A lot of people are trying to choose between the Z750 and the Canon SD500, and here are some things to consider.
</cs-4>
<cs-3>
 For an easy point-and-shoot camera that takes great pictures right out of the box, the SD500 is probably the best choice .
</cs-3>
1_SD500 3_choice (best)
<cs-1>
If you want manual controls and the ability to tweak camera settings, choose the Z750.
</cs-1>
1_Z750 3_manual controls 3_ability to tweak camera settings (choose)
 For low light shooting I preferred the SD500 due to its LCD that "gains up" in those conditions .
<cs-1>
 The SD500 had a more powerful flash as well, though the Z750's Flash Assist feature makes up for its weaker flash .
</cs-1>
1_SD500 3_flash 2_Z750 (more)
<cs-1>
 If battery life is paramount then the Z750 wins by a large margin .
</cs-1>
1_Z750 3_battery life (wins)
On July 1st I placed an order for a v2000z from Costco, and an identical L2000 from HPShopping.com as there were no models in retail stores at the time to base my decision.
The L2000 totaled $1168, the v2000z  $1102.
They both arrived FedEx the same day 10 days later.
HP supplied tracking info, Costco did not.
When it came to weighing the various laptops there was one surprise, and I can't explain it.
All were weighed with no battery, 2x512MB Simms, empty CD-Rom.
Why the V2000Z is one ounce heavier I don't know.
The 6-cell battery was 11oz and the 12cell battery was 1lb 6oz.
The battery from the n400c was a mere 8oz.
So equipped with a 6-cell in each of these notebooks you are looking at 5.5 lbs of weight, and a 12-cell battery puts you up past 6lbs.
<cs-2>
 All three laptops had the same 14" BrightView widescreen with a native resolution of 1280x768 .
</cs-2>
1_All three laptops 3_14" BrightView widescreen with a native resolution of 1280x768 (All)
<cs-2><cs-4>
 Both Compaq machines had one pixel out, the L2000 had zero bad pixels .
</cs-2></cs-4>
1_Both Compaq machines (Both)
The shiny surface of the screen took a minute to get used to, but for free or a $25 upgrade it's the way to go -- I highly recommend this option.
The first thing to do with these notebooks to improve screen appearance is turn OFF the Windows ClearType setting, why that is on by default I don't know, I can't stand it.
<cs-2>
 All three units share the same speakers, even with the different sound cards, I couldn't tell any difference when playing MP3s or DVDs .
</cs-2>
Heat sensor used to take heat measurements (All)
I pulled the 512MB out of the L2000 and put it in the V2000Z so the Compaq battle was fairer.
I think 1GB is the place to be on a laptop that loses 128MB to the shared video memory.
It makes sense to order the 512MBx1 with the laptop, and throw in a $40/$50 stick of memory from Newegg.com.
<cs-1>
I don't suggest ordering it configured with 1GB as HP is always going to charge more than an online retailer in the business of just selling memory, and it's simple to install memory so you might as well take that route to save money.
</cs-1>
1_HP 3_charhe 2_online retailer (more)
As you will see from the benchmarks, these are not gaming laptops.
Just like I don't take my Dell PC tower on the airplane, I don't play games on laptops.
If you want a small gaming laptop start reading another review.
Benchmarks
I've included all the benchmarks, as that's what a comparison review is all about.
Take your time comparing what you see as important.
For me it's the encoding scores that garner interest, as well as the battery tests.
I loaded the AMD with 2 512MB sticks to keep it fair, so both units ran with 1GB RAM.
Both models were tested with a 12-cell battery installed.
Super Pi:
I ran the Super Pi test to calculate how long it took each processor to calculate Pi to 2 million digits both before and after running Windows Update, I say that because the results may surprise you.
I don't know what Windows update did, but the AMD processor notebooks sure didn't like it, the processor calculation speed dropped by 10+ seconds, a degradation of nearly 10% performance.
Ouch.
HDTune:
Measurement  V2000Z Fujitsu 5400RPM 60GB V2335 Toshiba 4200rpm 100GB
Transfer Rate Minimum  17.3 MB/sec  13.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Maximum  34.4 MB/sec  28.1 MB/sec
Transfer Rate Average  27.8 MB/sec  22.4 MB/sec
Access Time  17.9 ms  18.8 ms
Burst Rate  66.3 MB/sec  62.8 MB/sec
CPU Usage  5.9%  4.3%
Battery Eater Pro 2.51:
I ran these tests at the native resolution of these laptops 1268x768 32bit.
Brightness is maxed, wireless (Bluetooth and Wifi) are enabled.
For the Classic test the "Always on" Windows power scheme is used to keep the CPU pegged at 100%.
Screen savers are turned off, and all setting set to "never" so the machine doesn't turn off the LCD, the HD or go into standby.
I also took some rudimentary temperature measurements from the base of the laptop (see pics).
For the idle test, the "laptop" power scheme is used so that each processor takes advantage of it's speed stepping.
Both machines were tested with (optional) 12cell batteries, this raises the base of the laptop up off the desk, allowing much cooler operation.
HP L2000
The keyboards, however, are not the same.
The L2000 has a great, solid black keyboard with white letters/numbers.
That makes life easy in a low light situation, as keys are slightly easier to pick out.
<cs-2><cs-4>
 The keyboard flex on both Compaq units makes them feel cheap, and I was surprised how different the HP L2000 was to the two Compaq keyboards .
</cs-2></cs-4>
1_both Compaq units 3_keyboard flex (both)
<cs-2>
 Perhaps the L2000 keyboard is the same HP keyboard on the dv1000 notebook that everyone likes so much .
</cs-2>
1_L2000 keyboard 2_HP keyboard on the dvd1000 notebook (same)
The other difference is cosmetic, the fonts and symbols on some keys are slightly different (see pics).
Input and Output Ports
<cs-2>
 All three units have identical ports .
</cs-2>
1_All three units 3_parts (all)
I'll list them for informational purposes:
3 USB 2.0
1 Audio - headphone-out
1 Audio - microphone-in
1 Video - VGA (15-pin)
1 Video - TV-Out (S-Video)
1 RJ-11 (modem)
1 RJ-45 Ethernet (LAN)
1 Expansion port 2
1 IEEE-1394 Firewire (4-pin)
Wireless
The L2000 and V2000Z clones use integrated Broadcom 802.11b/g WLAN and Broadcom Bluetooth wireless.
The V2335 uses the Intel Pro/Wireless 2200 802.11BG and Broadcom Bluetooth wireless.
Wireless is enabled and disabled by a button above the keyboard, or by using HP's included management software.
I fired up Netstumbler on each machine, and let them each sit in the same place for 10mins.
The V2335 (Intel) found 19 Access Points
The V2000Z (Broadcom) found 9 Access Points
My old N400C found 7 Access Points (802.11 B only)
Customer Support
<cs-2>
 It's the same tech support number for all three .
</cs-2>
1_all three 3_tech support (Same)
Complaints
The keyboards on the Compaq units are not up to standard.
I would go so far as to order a keyboard from an L2000 as a replacement if I knew it might work.
For me, the black lid, silver case look on both Compaq's is a mistake, it should be all silver.
The yellow and grey graphics are a necessary branding evil on the HP L2000 LiveStrong branded notebook, they are ugly, but they can be removed easily enough (use plastic safe acetone).
<cs-1>
 Fan noise on both the L2000 and V2000Z is noticeably louder and more frequent than on the V2335 .
</cs-1>
1_L2000 1_V2000Z  3_Fan noise 2_V2335 (louder, more)
All three laptops would benefit from retractable feet on the back of the base to help get air to the fan, and also make typing more comfortable.
Praises
<cs-1>
 The Compaq V2335 stands out among the three laptops, even though I didn't necessarily want it to .
</cs-1>
1_Compaq V2335 2_three laptops (stands out)
It won where it should have: battery life and temperature.
It tied where it counted: performance and raw power.
It lost in the only area that doesn't really matter: 3D gaming.
The unexpected dominance in the wireless field for the v2335 was an added bonus.
Conclusion
For me, the impulse buy V2335 stays, and the others have to go back, which is good, as CompUSA is not as great about returns as Costco and HPShopping.com.
That's why I gave each of those laptops a first crack, having great return policies make me that much more likely to buy from them again.
<cs-1>
 With the prices being so similar, the two AMD offerings could not keep up with the Compaq Intel offering in my opinion, if there was a more pronounced price difference (i.e. the AMD based notebooks were cheaper) it's a tougher decision .
</cs-1>
1_AMD based notebooks (cheaper)
I don't think you can go too wrong with any of these laptops.
<cs-1><cs-2>
 They all compete well with much pricier offerings from Sony and IBM .
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_Cony 1_IBM 3_offerings (pricier)
1_The all 3_compete (all)
If I could have one laptop it would be the V2335, in black, with the ATI graphics card.
<cs-1>
 No need to sell the AMD stock yet, but when it comes to mobile CPUs, Intel is still the clear winner .
</cs-1>
1_Intel 3_mobile CPUs (winner)

Acer TravelMate 8100
Wider screen.
Sleeker case.
Easier upgrades.
<cs-1>
 The Acer TravelMate 8100 offers several advantages over its predecessor, last year's impressive TravelMate 8000, which the company is still selling .
</cs-1>
1_Acer TravelMate 8100 2_TravelMate 8000 (advantages)
<cs-1><cs-2>
 The 8100 weighs about the same--6.4 pounds including an integrated DVD burner--yet boasts an impressively large 15.4-inch wide-aspect screen for working on documents side by side more easily .
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_8100 3_working on documents (more)
1_8100 3_weighs (same)
(The native 1680-by-1050-pixel resolution renders screen elements slightly small but crisp and perfectly readable.)
 The unit slopes to a slim 1.3 inches in front, and the lower case is slightly deeper than the closed screen to protect it from bumps and to leave exposed the front ports .
Those connections include microphone and headphone jacks in addition to a five-in-one card reader and handy Bluetooth and Wi-Fi buttons that both control wireless communications and serve as glowing status indicators.
<cs-1>
 In fact, you can work with higher-resolution photographs, more spreadsheet columns, and more tiled documents simultaneously on the Inspiron 6000 than you can on some 17-inch wide screens .
</cs-1>
1_Inspiron 6000 2_some 17-inch wide screens 3_resolution photographs 3_spreadsheet columns 3_tiled documents (more)
(The Inspiron 6000 is also available with a 1280-by-800-pixel WXGA screen or a 1680-by-1050-pixel WSXGA+ screen for $150 less or $50 less, respectively.)
This 6000 has a lot more going for it than just its extra-high-resolution screen.
We didn't test the 6000's standard six-cell battery; but we did test the nine-cell battery (a $99 option), and it lasted an impressive 5 hours and 7 minutes on one charge, making the 6000 an excellent candidate for the road--if you don't mind its 7.5-pound weight (sans power adapter).
An extra-fancy external power gauge helps you keep track of when you'll need to recharge.
The Inspiron 6000 is a smoothly designed, handsome laptop with a sloped front and cream-colored trim.
Our unit had a multiformat DVD burner, plus FireWire and TV-out ports and four USB 2.0 ports, all placed for easy use.
The 6000 accepts user upgrades easily.
Like many laptops, it has two memory slots located in a compartment on the bottom of the laptop.
 But instead of residing in dovetailed slots, the modules lie side by side--an unusual arrangement that makes them more accessible than most .
The hard drive is a breeze to remove, too: Just unscrew its bottom panel and tug the drive out through the right side of the case.
Though the optical drive doesn't have a lever for popping it out, you can boost it out by its lower edge after removing a security screw on the bottom of the case.
The 6000 disappointed us in only a few areas.
We missed having an external switch for controlling Wi-Fi scanning (you have to use a software utility instead).
And the 6000's memory card reader accepts only Secure Digital cards for exchanging data with PDAs, cameras, and other digital equipment, leaving Memory Sticks, CompactFlash cards, and other media incompatible.
Our biggest reservation, however, relates to the Inspiron's keyboard.
 The layout is typical of a Dell portable--well designed and roomy--except that <Delete> is buried in a cluster of <Fn>-size keys .
Two big, easy-to-press mouse buttons complement the touchpad.
But the keys on our test unit were so stiff initially that we had to type forcefully.
As we continued to type, the keyboard seemed to limber up, and we made fewer mistakes.
But we still felt that we had to type more carefully than usual, not a good omen for a long-term relationship with a keyboard.
If possible, try out the keyboard before buying.
You'll like the 6000's panel of dedicated CD controls and its surprisingly good stereo sound.
(Only one other model in our roundup, the Fujitsu LifeBook N6010, offered better audio.)
There's no instant-on button for playing discs without using Windows, but you can play CDs while the lid is closed, because the music buttons and speaker outlets remain exposed.
Pressing one of the buttons momentarily lights the entire music panel's bright blue LEDs, a helpful feature in dark environments.
<cs-1>
 The 2-GHz Pentium M 760-equipped review unit did well in our speed tests, earning a WorldBench 5 score of 89, about 8 percent above the average for systems equipped with the same processor .
</cs-1>
1_2-GHz Pentium M 760-equipped review unit 2_systems equipped with the same processor 3_ WorldBench 5 score (above average)
An Acrobat manual on the hard drive covers the 6000 thoroughly, right down to coverage of how to install new screen hinges and a new keyboard.

Sys Technology Freestyle M7500
Don't have thousands of dollars to spend on an entertainment notebook decked out with a 17-inch wide screen, TV tuner, and subwoofer? If you can live with its rough edges, the Sys Technology Freestyle M7500 makes a reasonable substitute.
This 6.8-pound (sans power adapter) notebook packs a bright 15.4-inch wide-screen LCD, decent stereo speakers, a handheld remote control, and CyberLink's PowerCinema entertainment center software package--all for $1395.
The best knockoff of the Windows XP Media Center 2005 operating system I've seen yet, PowerCinema closely resembles the real thing with its blue-hued main menu.
But because it's a quick-boot Linux-based application, it lets notebooks operate as movie, music, video, and slide-show players without sucking up as much battery power as Windows does.
Performance was a mixed bag.
<cs-1>
 The M7500's battery, which forms the rear of the unit, lasted 2.6 hours on one charge, about 50 minutes shorter than average .
</cs-1>
1_M7500's battery (shorter)
<cs-4>
 But speed was about right for a 1.86-GHz Pentium M 750-equipped notebook with 512MB of RAM .
</cs-4>
<cs-4>
 The M7500 earned a WorldBench 5 score of 85, whereas a similarly equipped Asus W3V posted a mark of 89 .
</cs-4>
The M7500 is user-upgradable, with memory slots and a hard drive situated in easily accessible bottom compartments.
<cs-4>
 The maximum amount of RAM it can use is 1GB, however--that's half the 2GB ceiling available with most current notebooks .
</cs-4>
In addition to PowerCinema, the notebook bundles such business software as the WordPerfect 11 Productivity Pack and Quicken 2003, along with a hodgepodge of lesser applications like Diskeeper Lite and Eudora Pro E-Mail.
The M7500's users manual, available only in printed form, is rife with misspelled words and awkward translations ("lanuch keys are locatted...").
Still, I found it useful overall.
Any manual willing to address the specifics of system upgrades gets a gold star in my book.

HP Pavilion DV 4000
One of these days I'm going to buy a laptop that's a lot more multimedia savvy than my four-year-old Dell Inspiron 2500.
When I do, I will seriously consider a portable like the $1189 HP Pavilion dv4000.
This machine covers all the basics--attractive black and silver case, good keyboard, 15.4-inch wide screen (with BrightView option), and reasonable 6.7-pound weight (without AC adapter, power cord, and optical drive)--plus it acts as a stand-alone DVD and CD player.
Movies looked good on the 1280-by-800-pixel wide-aspect screen.
The Linux program for playing CDs without booting Windows isn't fancy, but at least it's easy to use.
Kick back and control the action with an included credit-card-size remote, which you can store in the PC Card slot when you aren't using it.
To help you also get some work done, HP bundles Microsoft Works 8.
I work off-site a lot, so the longer the battery life, the more I like a laptop.
<cs-1>
 Although it had a better-than-average showing, the dv4000's 3.3-hour battery life still felt a tad disappointing compared with the performance of portables that lasted 4 or 5 hours on one charge .
</cs-1>
1_dv4000's 3.3-hour battery life 2_portables (better)
The 1.86-GHz Pentium M 745-equipped dv4000's WorldBench 5 score of 77 wasn't outstanding, either, but it was within a statistically insignificant 8 percent of the T43's score of 84.
<cs-2>
 In other words, it's just as fast at most operations .
</cs-2>
1_it 2_operations (as fast as)
Canon Pixma iP4200.
<cs-1>
 The iP4200's silver plastic case feels solid and looks less boxy than other recent Canon models .
</cs-1>
1_iP4200 2_Canon models 3_silver plastic case (less)
<cs-2>
 A direct-print port lets you print straight from a PictBridge-compatible digital camera, though--like most other inkjets these days--the iP4200 doesn't have a media card slot .
</cs-2>
1_iP4200 2_other inkjets 3_media card slot (like)
<cs-3>
The iP4200 posted the best overall speed numbers of the five inkjets we tested in its group .
</cs-3>
1_iP4200 3_speed numbers (best)
<cs-3>
Text printed at 6.9 pages per minute--one of the fastest rates we've seen from an inkjet--And plain-paper graphics emerged at a very fast 25 ppm.
</cs-3>
3_Text printed (fastest)
When printed at best-quality settings, our test photo emerged in just 56 seconds.
Along with the 150-sheet-capacity paper tray in the printer's base, there is an upright feeder at the back with a equivalent capacity; it's a convenient arrangement if you frequently switch between two types of media, such as plain paper and photo paper, or between different sizes of photo stock.
A switch on the front lets you choose the default paper source, or you can select which one to use from the software driver.
The built-in duplexer lets you create double-sided prints, but you'll be sacrificing speed for paper economy: The iP4200 waits about 15 seconds for the first side to dry before sucking it back in to print the other side.
Because it's a printer with office-oriented features, we expected the iP4000 to produce top-notch print quality on plain paper, but it fell a little short of this.
Though text appeared dark and solid, we noticed misaligned letters in rows generated from multiple sweeps of the print head.
Similarly, vertical lines wavered in our line art test, and we also noticed some strange diagonal patterns in blocks of close horizontal lines.
<cs-2>
 In color graphics printed on plain paper, the posterization looked very similar to what the $50 Canon Pixma iP1600 printed .
</cs-2>
2_Canon Pixma iP1600 3_posterization (similar)

HP Deskjet 450wbt.
<cs-1>
 Portable printers cost more than their desk-bound counterparts, but if you have to print while you travel, you won't find a better printer than HP's $349 Deskjet 450wbt .
</cs-1>
1_Portable printers 2_desk-bound counterparts 3_cost (more)
The 450wbt runs on battery or AC power, and it weighs less than 5 pounds with its ink cartridges installed and its lithium ion battery attached.
When closed, it's easy to carry, measuring 13 inches wide, 7 inches deep, and 3 inches thick.
Its paper tray folds down and snaps shut to close the printer securely when it's not in use; the tray holds 45 sheets.
The 450wbt doesn't have an output tray--finished print jobs simply slide out onto your desk, your car seat, or even a picnic table.
The model we tested includes Bluetooth, but if you don't need that capability, you can buy the base model with USB 2.0, parallel, and infrared ports for $100 less.
<cs-3>
 In PC World's testing, the Deskjet 450wbt operated a little slower than most recently tested desktop inkjets .
</cs-3>
1_Deskjet 450wbt 3_operated (slower)
<cs-4>
 It printed text at 3.8 pages per minute, whereas general-purpose inkjets averaged 4.9 ppm .
</cs-4>
<cs-3>
 Text looked slightly grayish in spots, but letters were well formed and clean--on a par with most of the desktop inkjets we tested .
</cs-3>
3_letters (on par with)
(When we printed on higher-quality inkjet paper, the 450wbt printed heavy black text that bled a little).
It generated documents of mixed text and graphics at 0.8 ppm, compared with the average of 1.2 ppm.
When we installed the optional $25 photo ink cartridge, the 450wbt turned out great glossy photos in both gray-scale and color.
Color glossies looked somewhat oversaturated but had superb detail, while gray-scale photos looked equally sharp and showed realistic textures.
Even the color documents we printed using lower-quality plain paper and the standard ink cartridges looked attractive, with realistic color and sharp focus, though there was some banding.
The 450wbt fared poorly on line art, however: Narrow parallel lines bled together, and diagonal lines looked particularly jagged.
<cs-2><cs-4>
 In our tests to gauge consumables costs, the 450wbt's ink costs matched those of the other mobile printer we tested, the Canon i80: 5.1 cents per black page (versus 5.3 cents for the i80), and 13.6 cents per page of color plus black (versus 13.4 cents for the i80) .
</cs-2></cs-4>
1_450wbt 2_other mobile printers 3_ink costs (matched)
HP Deskjet 5740
 The 5740's print quality was good across the board .
<cs-1>
 Text looked sharper than that of the other HP printers we reviewed in December 2004, but bleeding between closely spaced bold lettering was noticeable .
</cs-1>
2_other HP printers 3_Text (sharper)
Line art looked excellent, with nice straight lines and no banding.
Our plain-paper color graphics displayed reasonably faithful colors and had enough detail in dark areas, but they were a bit grainy upon close inspection.
<cs-1>
 On photo paper, the printer performed even better, generating sharp images, natural colors, and plenty of contrast even in darker areas .
</cs-1>
1_the printer 3_performed (better)
The grayscale image had a slightly greenish tinge, with smooth gradations and fine detail.
A new set of print heads comes embedded in each ink cartridge, extending the life of the printer, but increasing the cartridges' price: The black cartridge costs $30; the tricolor and photo cartridges, $25 each.
The 5740 comes with a USB 2.0 port for connecting it to your PC, but no parallel port.
If you have a digital camera, you may be disappointed that the printer has neither a PictBridge port nor a media card slot.
HP software guides you through printing photos, enlargements, and album pages.
HP Deskjet 5440
<cs-3>
 The $80 HP Deskjet 5440 handles everyday printing tasks well, and is among the least-expensive printers we've tested that includes a direct-print port on the front for printing from PictBridge-compatible cameras .
</cs-3>
1_HP Deskjet 5440 3_expensive (least)
A slightly slower twin to the Deskjet 5940, the 5440 generated text pages at 5.1 pages per minute and graphics pages at 1.6 ppm, versus the 5940's 5.8 ppm for text and 2.2 ppm for graphics.
 On the other hand, it printed our 5-by-7-inch color photo on glossy paper in just 44 seconds, the fastest time turned in by any printer in our latest batch of inkjets; the 5940 printed the same photo in 45 seconds .
<cs-2>
Both printers have the same basic features and paper capacity: a simple three-button control panel, and a 50-sheet output tray at the front of the printer that flips up so you can access the 100-sheet input tray.
</cs-2>
1_Both printers 3_basic features 3_paper capacity (Both)
<cs-4>
( The 5440 doesn't have low-ink warning lights on its chassis, however, as the 5940 does ).
</cs-4>
<cs-2>
Both models use a two-cartridge ink system and can print banners up to 8.5 by 24 inches .
</cs-2>
1_Both models 3_use a two-cartridge ink system 3_print banners up to 8.5 by 24 inches (Both)
Print quality on plain paper was excellent for a printer this inexpensive.
<cs-3>
 The 5440 is the only printer we tested this month that earned a Very Good for all of its prints on plain paper .
</cs-3>
1_5440 3_printer (only)
<cs-1>
It surprised us by printing sharper text and line art than the more expensive 5940 did .
</cs-1>
1_It 2_5940 3_text and line art (sharper)
Text looked crisp and dark.
Line art printed with well-defined edges, and banding was minimal.
Color graphics impressed us with their accurate colors and contrast, though some areas looked a little grainy.
Glossy photo prints, however, showed more-pronounced graininess, especially in skin tones; some narrow banding was evident, too, and colors looked washed out.
Our grayscale photo came out too light, and its graininess contributed to an overall flat look.
When we printed the grayscale photo at higher quality settings than the "Fast Normal" setting recommended by HP, the print quality was much more pleasing, but the print speed fell significantly.

HP Deskjet 5940
<cs-1></cs-2>
 The $100 HP Deskjet 5940 works a lot like its sibling, the HP Deskjet 5440, but has a more attractive metal cover and costs $20 more .
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_HP Deskjet 5940 2_HP Deskjet 5440 3_metal cover 3_costs (more)
1_HP Deskjet 5940 2_HP Deskjet 5440 3_looks (like)
<cs-1>
 The main things you get for the extra $20 are slightly better speed and greater productive capacity (3000 pages per month versus 1000) .
</cs-1>
1_extra $20 3)speed 3_productive capacity (better, greater)
<cs-1><cs-2>
 Both models come with a pair of ink cartridges that supply four HP Vivera inks between them, but the 5940 accepts larger-capacity cartridges .
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_5940 2_Both models 3_cartidges (larger)
1_Both models 3_pair of ink cartridges (Both)
 The 5940's plain-paper output quality wasn't as good as the 5440's, and both printers' color photo prints on special photo paper were disappointing .
<cs-4>
 Paper handling is pretty typical for a medium-priced inkjet: Up to 100 sheets in a single input paper tray and 50 sheets in the output tray .
</cs-4>
You can make borderless prints on paper as large as 8.5 by 24 inches.
<cs-2>
Like the Deskjet 5440, this model lets you swap out the pigment black ink cartridge, designed for strong text printing, in favor of an optional photo color cartridge (adding light cyan and light magenta) for six-color photo printing.
</cs-2>
1_this model 2_Deskjet 5440 3_swap out the pigment ink cartridge (Like)
<cs-4>
 The photo color cartridge comes with a plastic clip to protect partly used cartridges while they're out of the printer; but unlike previous models, the 5940 lacks a cartridge storage bin under the cover .
</cs-4>
<cs-1><cs-4>
 On plain paper, print quality was acceptable for most personal uses, but failed to match that of the less expensive Deskjet 5440 .
</cs-1></cs-4>
2_Deskjet 5540 3_print quality ()
Text characters were nicely formed and sufficiently dark; line art, however, had a slightly gritty texture and exhibited horizontal banding every quarter-inch or so.
We were especially impressed by the color accuracy and shadow detail of color photos printed on plain paper.
On glossy paper, however, we noticed some narrow horizontal banding.
(The prints improved significantly when we bumped the quality controls in the driver above the Fast Normal settings that HP recommended for our testing, although printing then took longer.)
Our grayscale image escaped the banding problem, showing good tonal changes and plenty of sharp detail.

Sony KDS-R60XBR1 LCOS HDTV
Geoffrey Morrison, November, 2005
I just can't resist poking fun at Sony's seemingly unending supply of strange and unpronounceable nomenclatures.
It has no direct bearing on a product, per se, but keeping track of all of the acronyms, abbreviations, and manufactured words takes up a sizable chunk of the already overtaxed (and undersized) mind of a reviewer.
Regardless, Sony wasn't content just using the name LCOS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon) to describe their version of the technology.
They instead call it SXRD (sex-erd?), or Silicon X-tal Reflective Display.
Believe it or not, the "X-tal" is short for crystal.
I'm not saying that JVC's name for their version of LCOS is any better: D-ILA.
(This is an even less logical abbreviation: Direct-drive Image Light Amplifier? It doesn't amplify anything.)
Each company takes pains to describe how different their version of the technology is from everybody else's.
To be fair, this is true.
<cs-4>
 Each of the two companies' core design and manufacturing are different .
</cs-4>
To be perfectly honest, the KDS-R60XBR1's contrast ratio absolutely stunned me.
<cs-3>
 At 13,330:1, this is the best contrast ratio of any non-CRT product we've measured .
</cs-3>
1_this 3_contrast ratio (best)
<cs-1><cs-3>
 That's nearly three times better than the next-closest display (a DLP front projector, mind you) and of a magnitude better than most of the displays we've measured .
</cs-1></cs-3>
1_That 2_DLP front projector3 (better)
1_That 2_displays (closest)
True, the majority of this is thanks to a bit of electronic and mechanical manipulation called an auto iris, or, as Sony calls it, Advanced Iris.
This fast-moving iris closes on dark scenes and widens on bright ones.
So, on a full-on/full-off contrast-ratio test, this device performs to its maximum extent.
On regular video material, if you are looking for it, you can see this auto dimming in action.
You really have to be looking for it, though.
With the Advanced Iris turned off, so that the iris remains stationary at whichever of its six levels you set it, the contrast ratio measures between 3,100:1 in the "max" iris mode and 5,000:1 in the "min" iris mode.
These numbers on their own would be impressive, and that's with the display intentionally handicapped not to perform to its fullest.
<cs-3>
 This is also the first product we've measured with a contrast ratio that exceeds the manufacturer's numbers .
</cs-3>
1_This 3_product with contrast ratio that exceeds the manufacturer's numbers (first)
For that matter, it's the first one to even get close.
Its black level is just as impressive, as low as 0.006 foot-lamberts.
This obviously goes a long way toward explaining the contrast-ratio numbers, but let's put that 0.006 into context.
The best plasma we've measured had a black level of 0.023 ft-L; the best RPTV we've measured was 0.080 ft-L.
Most of the front projectors we've measured have a higher black level than this 60-inch RPTV.
Suffice it to say, I was impressed.
To be sure, I plan to get in a production unit, and I'll post the new measurements at www.hometheatermag.com.
Processing is a mixed bag.
The display picks up the 3:2 sequence fast enough, but video processing, on the other hand, leaves a little to be desired.
Jagged edges are apparent on the ubiquitous flag-waving test scene.
This is disappointing but certainly not a deal breaker.
 The display scales quite well, especially when you consider that it has to "create" six times as many pixels as a DVD supplies .
A good upconverting DVD player may be a little sharper, but it's extremely close.
Transitions from light to dark are fairly smooth, with a little noise in the shadowy areas.
<cs-4>
 Even when I sat close, I only noticed a subtle difference between a similarly sized 720p display and the KDS-R60XBR1 .
</cs-4>
It's subtle but noticeable.
Everything is just a little more detailed, a little sharper.
For example, the space shuttle in the opening of the D-VHS version of Digital Video Essentials had more visible texture to its skin than I've seen before.
As cameras and telecines get better, this difference will probably be even more noticeable.
How does a direct 1080p source look?
Well, it doesn't.
Like the other 1080p displays we've reviewed, this one doesn't accept a 1080p signal.
Even if there aren't many 1080p sources available now (an HTPC being the only one), it won't be that way forever.
Sony says that the KDS-R60XBR1 lacks a 1080p input because the copy protection hasn't been worked out yet for the 1080p sources.
This is disappointing, as early adopters miss out again.
When products do ship with a 1080p output, you won't be able to input the display's native resolution.
How bad is this, really? As most 1080p material runs at 24 frames per second, as long as the TV performs 3:2 pulldown well (in this case, it does), then you really shouldn't notice much difference, if any.
More disappointing is that you can't expand a 1,280-by-720 signal (or any other resolution) on the RGB input, so there is no way to fill the screen on that input.
The Other Stuff

Sharp 56DR650 DLP HDTV
Geoffrey Morrison, October, 2005
A rear pro from the front-pro experts.
Someone at Sharp noticed a gap.
They make all sorts of flat-panel LCD units, from dinner-plate size to plasma size.
Then they have two DLP projectors that handle the huge-screen market.
(In fact, we gave the XV-Z12000 our Best Overall Projector RAVE Award for last year in our May 2005 issue).
But there's this gap, you see, above 45 inches for flat panels and below 80 or so inches for front projectors.
What to do?
How about rear projection?
The remote is one you've seen 100 times before if you're a regular reader of HT.
Although it normally comes with receivers and pre/pros, it works great as a TV remote, as well.
Direct-input access buttons and a blue backlight go a long way toward making a good remote.
The TV's menus are DOS-esque, three-color jobs that don't look very cool, but they get the job done.
Light in the Dark
The 56DR650's processor picked up the 3:2 sequence on both test patterns and actual video material very quickly.
All in all, it deinterlaces very well.
It also processes video well, as evidenced by how it handled the waving flag on the Video Essentials DVD.
There were barely noticeable jagged edges on the flag.
From a normal viewing distance, I couldn't even see them.
This display also scales nicely.
When scaling a DVD, the picture is very detailed.
Still, there was some increase in apparent detail when I used a good scaling DVD player.
Gradations from light to dark are fairly smooth, with some noise present, especially in the low end.
This noise was especially visible in chapter 5 of The Fifth Element.
While Bruce Willis' character was sitting on his bed rubbing his face, a strange shadow appeared along his jaw and neck.
It looked like a quantization error.
There is a shot on Video Essentials of a young man sorting vegetables (or something).
I saw the same problem here.
These artifacts pretty much disappeared after I carefully set the brightness levels.
The 56DR650 made this difficult, though, as it ignores "below-black" info.
So, no matter what your DVD player is capable of, you're not going to see PLUGE.
When I switched to the Bravo D2 using the HDMI input, the artifact went away.
(It was still visible with different DVD players using the analog inputs).
HD looked really good.
Thanks to a decent contrast ratio, the black level seems deep when the scene is brightly lit and only portions are dark.
These types of scenes are the 56DR650's strong suit.
Color was a little rich but very watchable.
<cs-2>
 While there was plenty of detail, it wasn't as sharp (no pun) as other TVs I've seen in this size, but only by a small amount .
</cs-2>
1_it 2_other TVs 3_sharp (as sharp as)
Disappointingly, the 56DR650 doesn't have an aspect-ratio control for HD sources.
As the Color Wheel Turns
 The tuner has a slightly faster-than-average channel scan .
 Its sensitivity is about average .
With an inexpensive indoor antenna, it tuned in most of the stations in the Los Angeles area, but not all.
There were periodic breakups (although that could have been in the content of the crappy daytime TV I was watching).
I used an inexpensive indoor antenna, because, if I used our big outdoor antenna, every tuner would get every channel.
Keep in mind that your reception will vary.
The 56DR650 switches between channels pretty fast, as well.
My concerns about the new TI chip seem to be unfounded.
I didn't see any artifacts that I could trace to the horizontal interlacing of pixels.
<cs-4>
 While the 56DR650 didn't have quite the detail of some other 720p RPTVs (although it was close), I can't conclusively trace that back to the chip .
</cs-4>
Apple iPod 30GB with Video
<cs-1>
( The current 60GB model is roughly 10 percent slimmer than the older 20GB model ).
</cs-1>
1_The current 60GB model 2_older 20GB model (slimmer)
<cs-4>
 This may not seem like a big difference on paper, but we were impressed with the new model's slimmed-down figure when we held the two side by side .
</cs-4>
<cs-1>
 The 2.5-inch backlit LCD, at 320 by 240 pixels, is noticeably bigger than the previous 2-inch 220-by-176 screen .
</cs-1>
1_2.5-inch backlit LCD 2_2-inch 220-by-176 screen (bigger)
Apple also eliminated the 9-pin remote-control connector in this version, which means third parties such as Griffin and Belkin will have to update their accessory lines.
Apple's reasoning was that accessories should go through the already-present dock connector rather than through a second proprietary port.
<cs-2>
 The iPod's interface is mostly the same, though Podcasts and Audiobooks are now located in the Music menu .
</cs-2>
1_iPod 3_interface (same)
A new Videos menu offers access to video playlists, Movies, Music Videos, and Video Podcasts.
<cs-4>
The Video Settings menu (also accessible in the Videos menu) lets you enable or disable TV output, toggle between NTSC and PAL format, and turn the widescreen on and off.  The stopwatch and screen lock that were introduced with the iPod nano are also present, although you can now have up to three lap timers on the screen at once, thanks to the larger LCD .
</cs-4>
On our battery rundown test, we measured 16.5 hours of continuous audio playback for the 30GB model, using a real-world mix of MP3 files encoded at from 128 to 320 Kbps.
The device is rated at two hours of video playback, but we got 2 hours and 25 minutes using several video podcasts and an episode of Lost, listening with the included earbuds with the volume at normal listening level.
The specs on the video are as follows: File format support includes MOV, MP4, and M4V (Apple's DRM-protected video content).
The iPod plays H.264 (Baseline Profile) video at up to 768 Kbps, 320 by 240 pixels, and 30 frames per second, as well as MPEG-4 (Simple Profile) at up to 2.5 Mbps, 480 by 480 pixels, and 30 fps.
The stereo audio portions of videos are in 48-kHz AAC-LC format at up to 160 Kbps.
According to Apple, you can fit roughly 75 hours of video on the 30GB model and twice that on the 60GB version.
Basically, you can put your own videos and existing content on the new iPod, but you may need to use QuickTime Pro ($29.99 Direct) to convert the files first via the new Export to iPod function, depending on what codec was used to encode the files.
Of course, movies created in iMovie are supported as well, which should dovetail nicely with Apple's new iMac line with built-in iSight cameras.
There are also several tips that have appeared online for how to get TiVo and DVD content onto your iPod.
Of course, Apple provides some content at the iTunes Music Store, including 2,000 music videos, multiple episodes of five TV shows, six Pixar animated shorts, and plenty of free video podcasts.
<cs-2>
 The iPod's photo capabilities remain largely unchanged, though there are now some new 3D transitions for your slide shows .
</cs-2>
1_iPod 3_photo capabilities (unchanged)
The iPod's main focus is still music, and Apple (once again) quietly enhanced the headphone output quality.
Most users won't hear the difference in Apple's stock earbuds, but if you use better headphones, you'll hear slightly more robust bass and less distortion.
We like that during audio playback, album artwork and lyrics now stay on the screen, rather than the device returning to the Now Playing screen.
 One impressive new feature (which won't be new to those users who installed a Linux-based OS on their iPod) is the ability to record in stereo at 44.1 kHz in WAV format via the dock connector .
Of course, this will require a third-party adapter or microphone with a dock connector, but the feature has been in demand for quite some time and vastly improves upon the previous version's weak 8-kHz sample rate.
Recordings you make are accessible two ways: An auto-sync feature in iTunes grabs them from your iPod and puts them right into your iTunes library, restriction-free; the files are also stored in an unhidden folder on the iPod, so you can access them in disk mode as wellwhich could be very handy for offloading onto a device that has a USB host port or a PC that doesn't have iTunes on it.
<cs-4>
 Unlike the last two generations of the iPod (and perhaps more notably the iPod nano), the new iPod ships with a slipcover to protect your precious player from scratches, which show up easily on the black model .
</cs-4>

iriver T10
The menus are fairly easy to use, but accessing some of them is a bit quirky.
To change between Music, FM, Record, File Browser, and Settings modes, you hold down the center select button for a couple seconds.
If you're in music playback mode, pressing that button briefly takes you to the folder structure.
Pressing the record button while in Music mode takes you to the different shuffle and repeat options screen, which is a bit odd, but no big deal once you're used to it.
The T10's extra features include variable-speed playback, A-B repeat (also known as looping); an alarm clock that also lets you schedule recordings, which we like; adjustable voice detection for voice recording, and a Study mode that lets you set how far back or ahead in the current track the player jumps when you hit the track-skip buttonsan extremely helpful feature for students and musicians reviewing lectures or songs.
You can also delete files directly on the device, but you can't create playlists on the go.
The integrated FM tuner is of average strength and retains up to 20 presets.
Audio file format support is broad, including MP3, WMA, OGG, and ASF.
The player syncs with Windows Media Player 10, and is certified in Microsoft's PlaysForSure program for both subscription and download services.
You can set recording quality to high, medium or low (128 Kbps, 64 Kbps, and 32 Kbps, respectively, as our analysis found) for voice and FM.
High produces very clear voice and FM recordings.
<cs-1>
 Medium quality isn't bad, but there is a lot more hiss .
</cs-1>
3_hiss (more)
Low introduces a lot of annoying compression artifacts.
Sound quality using the included earbuds is goodmusic sounds clear, with good subjective bass response and clear mids.
Highs, however, aren't quite crisp and seem a bit suppressed.
For sound enhancement, you get two options: User EQ and SRS WOW.
The custom 5-band graphic equalizer gives you 15 dB in either direction for each band, and we found that boosting the highs and the bass really punched up the sound.
The SRS WOW parameters are easy to set, and you can adjust focus, TruBass, and frequency boost, as well as the overall amount of processing to apply.
The player is set to SRS WOW by default, so if you prefer a flat, unprocessed sound (which the T10 is very capable of producing), you'll want change the setting to User EQ, making sure all bands are set to 0 dB.
Believe it or not, you can view images on the tiny (1-inch) display, but it supports only BMP files (up to 24-bit).
A color screen that size is simply too small even for novelty purposes and makes the device more expensiveit just isn't necessary.
Overall, we like the T10 for its good sound quality, versatility (especially that Study mode), exceptional battery life, and rugged durability.
We were a bit surprised that the included headphones are standard earbuds rather than something more workout-oriented, and we wish iriver had included some kind of splash-proofing instead of a color screen, as this could have brought the price down a bit.

Iomega Mixx
Lots of digital storage companies have been jumping into the MP3 player game lately, including big names like SanDisk and Lexar.
Now Iomega has joined the fray with its Iomega Mixx, a "sports-oriented" flash-based player that runs on a single triple-A battery with mostly unimpressive results.
<cs-1>
 At $129.95 list for 1GB, the Mixx isn't expensive, but there are better choices available in the same price range, such as the MobiBlu DAH-1500i .
</cs-1>
1_MobiBlu DAH-1500i 2_Mixx 3_choices (better)
The company also offers 512MB and 256MB versions for $89.95 and $59.95, respectively.
The Mixx has plenty of extras that are becoming standardat least on non-Apple playersincluding an FM tuner with 30 presets, a voice recorder with a built-in mic, and FM recording capability.
It also does A/B repeat, which is a favorite feature of ours.
File format support is limited to MP3, WMA (unprotected only), and WAV, and it also supports ID3 tags so you can see information about the current song.
You can even view lyrics (.lrc) files while you're listening to music.
Butand this is a biggieyou can't browse songs by ID3 tag, and there's no directory structure either; you can only use the track skip buttons to navigate your collection.
This may have been fine in the days of 128MB players, but it's very annoying with 1GB worth of music.
The player also doesn't work with any online subscription or download services.
When we listened to the Mixx with the included earbuds, the subjective bass response wasn't terrible, but the rest of the music sounded muffled.
We got the best results using the Jazz equalizer preset, which boosts the high and low frequencies.
Our formal testing showed that the frequency is mostly flat, with dips at the top and bottom.
We noticed significant harmonic distortion with the Pop and Rock EQ presets engaged at any volume, indicating a possible digital-signal processing problem.
With the EQ flat, the player puts out a clean signal up to 27 on its 31-step volume scale.
One area where the Mixx impressed us is in sheer volume; with our rock test track blasting at full volume (and distorting quite a bit), the Mixx drove the included earbuds to a deafening 107 dB with peaks of 111 dB.
Though this will certainly drown out other noises, you'll definitely damage your hearing quickly if you listen at top volume for long.
Voice recordings are in WAV format at a dismal 8 kHz, suitable only for taking notes.
Even then, you'll have to speak very clearly, as our test recordings were of poor sound quality.
FM recordings were also of low quality, though the FM tuner picked up strong stations fairly well.
While we like the idea of cheap MP3 players, too many corners were cut on this one.
<cs-1>
If you can find one cheap enough, the MSI Mega Player 521 is a better choice if you need something light and rugged.
</cs-1>
1_MSI Mega Player 521 3_choice (better)
And of course, if extra features are your thing, the MobiBlu DAH-1500i is hard to beat.

MobiBLU DAH-1500i
What's just slightly bigger than a caramel, lets you rock out to radio hits or 1GB of your favorite music, can make its own recordings, and is available at Wal-Mart? The bite-size, full-featured MobiBLU DAH-1500i is billed as the "world's smallest" digital audio player, and we're pretty sure that's truefor now, at least.
And it does a lot more than just play MP3s.
We're so impressed with the DAH-1500i that while we were testing it, our iPod shuffle started whining and giving us puppy-dog eyes.
<cs-3>
 The DAH-1500i's headphone jack is unique among players we've seen in that it doubles as a USB 2.0 port .
</cs-3>
1_DAH-1500i 3_headphone jack (unique)
The included charge/sync cable has a standard USB connector at one end, and at the other end is a 3.5-mm headphone-type plug with three bands instead of two.
Those bands plus the lead correspond to the four USB pins, meaning that the player syncs with your PC and charges via the same jack it uses to output audio.
We only wish the package included a wall plug adapter so you could charge the player when you're not near a PC.
There isn't much room on the 1.2-inch screen, so the file navigation system is understandably bare-bones.
Pressing the menu button takes you to navigation mode, where you can browse folders in a tree structure.
Holding down the menu button provides access to extras, including a fairly sensitive FM tuner (with up to 20 presets), an FM/voice recorder, and various sound-enhancement options.
Our biggest gripe concerning the controls is that you lock and unlock them by holding down the lock button for half a second instead of using a switch.
That was fine when we were wearing the player around our neck, but when we slipped the DAH-1500i into our pocket, the controls accidentally became unlocked.
<cs-4>
 The player's sound quality is very good, though it doesn't have the power or accuracy of the iPod shuffle (see our article, "Shuffle's Got a Secret") .
</cs-4>
With the included earbuds, the DAH-1500i produces sufficiently deep bass (frequency response is flat, with a roll-off below about 40 Hz), strong mids, and adequate if not exceptional highs.
On some tracks, using the included earbuds, we found ourselves pushing the volume all the way up on the 30-step scale, but the player maintains remarkably low distortion even when pushed to the limit.
When we swapped out the included earbuds for canalphones, including the Etymotic ER6i, Shure E2c, and Ultimate Ears super.fi 3 Studio (check back for our upcoming review), the player handled all three admirably.
There are a handful of equalizer presets available, as well as a custom five-band EQ that offers quite a bit of adjustment in either direction in unusually fine increments.
The DAH-1500i also offers SRS and TruBass sound enhancement; these actually liven up the sound with the included earbuds, especially if you're in a noisy environment, but for home listening with better headphones, we found it unnecessary and artificial-sounding.
<cs-2>
 Overall, we're amazed that a package so small contains so many featuresand well-implemented ones, to bootat the same price as the iPod shuffle ($129) .
</cs-2>
2_iPod shuffle 3_price (same)
<cs-4>
 Sure, the DAH-1500i doesn't have a cute name or quite the sonic power and accuracy of the shuffle .
</cs-4>
<cs-3>
 But it's more than adequate for its intended market, and all the extra features (not to mention a screen and freedom from proprietary software) make this the most compelling choice among the current crop of flash players .
</cs-3>
1_it 3_choice (most)
There's also a 512MB version available for $99.
A note to parents with small children: Be carefulsome of the 6 colors that it comes in make it look very much like candy.

Apple iPod Nano
One of the biggest additions for Microsoft Windows users is that the iPod nano syncs with Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express contacts and calendars (in addition to those from iCal, of course).
We had absolutely no trouble doing so, and contacts are sortable by first or last name.
Games include the same old Brick, Music Quiz, Parachute, and Solitaire.
The stopwatch, however, is a very cool new feature, especially considering that the nano is ultratiny and flash-basedideal for working out.
It can record lap times as well, and then saves them along with a date and time stamp.
When you go back and view your recorded times, it also shows you your shortest, longest, and average lap in addition to your total time and individual lap times.
The iPod nano also boasts a world clock which displays the time in analog or digital.
Another handy feature is being able to adjust the audiobook reading speed.
Apple added a security measure called Screen Lock, which is a graphical combination lock for which you create a 4-digit code.
The click wheel provides just the right amount of sensitivity so you don't scroll through the numbers too fast.
After you set the lock, you can still use the Play/Pause button but nothing else.
Your code pops up on the screen each time you choose Turn Screen Lock On from the menu as a reminder; this is handy but doesn't provide particularly robust security.
Photos sync easily and quickly via iTunes; just select the iPod tab in Preferences, and then choose Photos.
<cs-1>
 The 176-by-132-pixel 1.5-inch screen is about 0.2 inches smaller than the iPod mini's, but it gains color; photos look sharp and vivid, though we're still wishing for pan and zoom capabilities .
</cs-1>
1_76-by-132-pixel 1.5-inch screen 2_iPod mini (smaller)
Format support is still admirably broad, encompassing JPEG, BMP, GIF, TIFF, PSD (Mac only), and PNG.
It can do slide shows with music, customizable slide times, and several different transitions.
Naturally, there are already a few accessories for the nano, including lanyard headphones (yes, it's wearable, via the headphone jack on the bottom of the device), a nano Dock, nano armbands, and nano Tubes (silicone cases).
The cases are a good idea, as we've already covered our shiny new nano in fingerprints.
And we're sure third parties will begin shipping other add-ons soon.
Thankfully, the nano retains other iPod models' standard 30-pin dock connector, so it'll work with many existing accessories.
It also ships with a plastic insert so you can use the nano with your existing iPod docks.
Apple did not include any voice-recording features, however, so you won't be able to plug in third-party microphones.
Nor will you be able to use add-ons that use the other iPods' 4-pin remote control connector, which is missing on the nano.
(That means no remote, either).
At $199 for the 2GB version and $249 for the 4GB version (both available in black or white), we feel that Apple has made an incredibly satisfying product.
We were so impressed that we're awarding it our Editors' Choice award.
Sure you can get a 20GB full-size iPod for $299, but the benefits of an extremely small size and no moving internal parts easily justify the price.
<cs-4>
 Where previous cameras using this sensor would use the SuperCCD sensor to create high resolution (12MP) images, the FinePix F10 uses it for low noise high ISO shooting 
</cs-4>
<cs-3>
 In other words, the camera can shoot at 6.3 Megapixels at ISO 1600 -- something no other point-and-shoot camera can do 
</cs-3>
1_the camera 3_shoot ()
Gone is the option to shoot at 12MP, though I won't miss it personally since the image quality just wasn't there.
Other features on the F10 include a compact metal body, a 3X zoom lens, a large 2.5" LCD display, and a unique "natural light mode" for taking sharp pictures in lower light conditions without having to resort to the flash.
How does this unique camera perform? 
Find out now in our review! 
What's in the Box? 
The FinePix F10 has an average bundle. 
Fuji includes a 16MB xD card with the camera, which holds a grand total of three images at the highest quality setting. 
So you should plan on buying a larger card right away. 
xD cards are currently available as large as 1GB, and I think 256MB or even 512MB are good starter sizes for most people. 
Be warned that xD cards tend to be more expensive than CompactFlash and SD cards.
The NP-120 lithium-ion rechargeable battery included with the FinePix F10 packs a punch, with 7.0 Wh of energy. 
<cs-3>
 That translates into an excellent CIPA battery life score of 500 shots per charge, which is higher than just about every other camera on the market, big or small 
</cs-3>.
3_CIPA battery life score (higher)
I should mention the downside to proprietary batteries like the one used by the F10. 
For one, they're expensive, with this one costing at least $40 for a spare. 
Secondly, you can't just drop in a set of alkaline batteries when the rechargeable dies like you could on a camera that uses AA batteries.
When it's time to charge the NP-120 you plug the included AC adapter into the terminal adapter and four hours later you're set. 
What is the terminal adapter, you ask? I'll explain later. 
If you want an external battery charger, Fuji would be happy to sell you one for a whopping $60.
A lens cover is built-in to the F10 so there's no clumsy lens cap to worry about.
There are just a few accessories available for the F10. 
The most interesting is the WP-FXF10 waterproof case, which lets you take the camera up to 40 meters underwater. 
For those who want to protect their camera on land consider the SC-FXF10 soft case. 
The only other accessory of note is that $60 battery charger than I mentioned earlier.
Here's a look at how the F10 compares in terms of size and weight with the competition.
As you can see, the FinePix F10 falls right in the middle of the group, though I'm not exactly sure what group it's in. 
It's a little too big for ultra-compact and a little too small for midsize. 
Oh well!
Enough numbers, let's start our tour of the camera now, beginning with the front.
The FinePix F10 features a F2.8-5.0, 3X optical zoom Fuji lens. 
The lens has a focal range of 8 - 24 mm, which is equivalent to 36 - 108 mm. 
The lens is not threaded and conversion lenses are not supported.
Those two holes below the lens and next to the FujiFilm logo make up the camera's microphone. 
To the upper-right of the lens are the self-timer and AF-assist lamps. 
The AF-assist lamp is used by the F10 as a focusing aid in low light conditions.
Above those is the F10's built-in flash, which is very powerful for a camera this size. 
The working range of the flash is 0.6 - 6.5 m at wide-angle and 0.6 - 4.0 m at telephoto. 
You cannot attach an external flash to the F10.
Here's the same shot using natural light mode. 
By boosting the ISO sensitivity (as high as 1600) the FinePix F10 can take sharp pictures even in dim light without using the flash. 
The catch is that there may be a bit of noise in the photos, especially if the ISO is cranked all the way up. 
You can't see any noise in this shot since it was downsized considerably. 
You probably won't notice the noise in 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 inch prints -- but at 8 x 10 or larger you certainly will. 
And since most people are printing at those smaller sizes, this is one feature that is truly useful. 
I'll have a bit more on the F10's high ISO performance later in the review.
The long exposure mode lets you manually select a shutter speed ranging from 3 to 15 seconds. 
This is just what the doctor ordered for the night shot that you'll see later in the review. 
Regular night mode won't go any slower than 3 seconds which may not be enough for long exposures like that.
The only thing to see here is the I/O port, which is under that plastic cover. 
And now I can tell you about the terminal adapter!
In one of the dumber design decisions of the year, the F10 requires you to use this adapter if you want to use any of the I/O ports. 
That includes USB, A/V out, or DC-in. 
So if you plan on using any of those, you'll need to bring the adapter with you.
The F10 supports the USB 2.0 High Speed standard.
There is no RAW or TIFF mode on the FinePix F10.
It results in EPA-estimated fuel economy of 16/20 mpg (city/highway) with the standard five-speed-manual transmission and 16/19 mpg with the optional four-speed automatic. 
<cs-2>
 This falls right in line with other midsize, body-on-frame sport utility vehicles equipped with four-wheel drive (which is standard on the H3) 
</cs-2>.
1_This 2_sport utility vehicles ()
As always, better fuel economy comes at a price: acceleration. 
Or does it? My first drive was in a manual H3, which has a nice, substantial gearshift that's simple to operate. 
It launches pretty nicely, and the five forward gears seem well chosen, but it's not a quick truck. 
(That's not code for "it's a slow truck." It's just not quick).
<cs-2>
 The H3 felt like it lacked get-up-and-go, no doubt, but when I looked at the reported numbers, I found that its 0-60 mph times were almost identical to the H2's 
</cs-2>
1_H3 2_H2 3_0-60 mph times (identical)
So why did the new model's acceleration stand out? 
Do we expect smaller vehicles to be quicker? 
Is the H3 noisier than it is quick?
 ... What are you looking at me for? 
I'm asking you!
The H3 handles reasonably well. 
It feels stable, and, when equipped with the automatic, adds the peace of mind that comes with Hummer's first application of StabiliTrak, GM's electronic stability system. 
The H3 also seemed to turn an exceptionally tight circle. 
I checked the numbers, and this time I'd been tricked in the other direction  it wasn't as great as I'd thought. 
<cs-1>
 At 37 feet, the turning diameter is slightly larger than those of the Chevrolet TrailBlazer and Ford Explorer, and 1 foot smaller than the Honda Pilot's 
</cs-1>
2_Chevrolet TrailBlazer 2_Ford Explorer 3_turning diameter (larger)
2_Honda Pilot 3_turning diameter
My No. 1 disappointment with the H3 involves ride and structural rigidity. 
<cs-2>
 Hummer aficionados were thrilled that the only thing the GM-engineered H2 seemed to share with its platform mate, the Chevy Tahoe, was its urbane ride quality 
</cs-2>
1_GM-engineered H2 2_Chevy Tahoe 3_urbane ride quality (share)
<cs-1>
 In short, it felt more refined than its tough-guy exterior let on
</cs-1>
1_it 2_tough-guy exterior let on 3_refined (more)
 The same thing has happened again, except this time the Hummer is based on the compact/midsize pickup truck platform of the Chevy Canyon and GMC Colorado 
As a result, the H3's structure is about as rigid as an erector-set structure that's short on hardware. 
<cs-1>
 It has more twist than Chubby Checker, more jiggle than Kirstie Alley 
</cs-1>. 
1_It 3_twist 2_Chubby Checker (more)
(I know there's a reality TV show in this somewhere).
GM promised potential dealers something a few years ago when the H2 was in development: a more affordable model with mass-market appeal. 
What is difficult to tell is whether the H3 is what the masses want, what current owners want... 
or what anyone wants. 
<cs-2>
 While fuel economy is in line with other midsize truck-based SUVs , fuel prices have hurt sales of full-size and even midsize models 
</cs-2>. 
2_other midsize truck-based SUVs 3_fuel economy (in line with)
Hummer points out that people don't buy Hummers to go fast or to get great fuel economy. 
I suspect they're right. 
Hummers are image vehicles, and this one seems to carry that torch just fine.
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
The camera names files as DSCF####.JPG, where # = 0001 - 9999. 
The camera maintains the numbering even if you erase the memory card.
The FinePix F10 has a new menu system and I don't care for it. 
The layout is strange and navigating the menu just doesn't feel right. 
<cs-1>
 The old menu system that Fuji has used in the past was better in my opinion 
</cs-1>
1_old menu  (better)
The F10's custom white balance feature lets you use a white or gray card as a reference to get perfect color under any lighting.
There are three continuous shooting modes on the F10. 
Top 3-frame is your standard burst mode: the camera takes three shots in a row at 2.1 frames/second (my timing). 
Final 3-frame lets you keep taking pictures at the same frame rate for up to 40 frames -- when you release the shutter release button the last three shots taken are saved to the memory card. 
The long-period continuous mode will keep shooting until 40 shots are taken. 
Unfortunately the frame rate wasn't consistent in this mode. 
It would take two shots quickly, then you'd wait three seconds for the  next one, and so on. 
All-in-all I wasn't thrilled with any of the continuous modes. 
At least the LCD doesn't black out between shots.
The AF center mode always focuses on the center of the frame, while AF multi will pick an area of the frame automatically. 
Continuous AF will keep focusing at all times, which is handy for tracking a moving subject.
There's also a setup menu, of course, which is accessed from the record or playback menu.
The FinePix F10 did an excellent job with our macro test subject. 
The colors look good and the subject is very sharp. 
The custom white balance was helpful here as my 600W quartz studio lamps can often fool the preset white balance.
You can get as close to your subject as 7.5 cm at wide-angle and 30 cm at telephoto while in macro mode, which is about average.
The night shot turned out nicely as well, though there's quite a few hot pixels to be found here. 
The buildings are sharp and noise levels are low. 
There's a bit of purple fringing but it wasn't bad enough to be concerned about in my opinion.
Before we look at the ISO comparison for the night shot, I need to explain something. 
As you'll see as you scroll down, the pictures get brighter and brighter instead of staying about the same. 
That's because the user can only manually adjust the shutter speed when it's slower than 3 seconds. 
As the ISO hit 400 I needed to go faster than 3 seconds but there is no way to do that, which is why things are so much brighter on those shots.
 <cs-2>
 While details are being eaten away by noise on the H1, the image produced by the F10 is still perfectly usable 
</cs-2>
1_F10 3_image (still)
The last two crops show the F10 and D70s both at ISO 1600. 
The results may surprise you.
<cs-1><cs-2>
 While the D70s won this battle, it's amazing just how well the $399 FinePix F10 did against it 
</cs-1></cs-2> 
The good news is that if you use noise reduction software like Noise Ninja you can make these photos look even better.  (against)
And remember what I said earlier: although these photos look pretty bad at 100%, they'll still make excellent smaller-sized prints.
Well that's all for the photo quality discussion. 
If you want to see more photos taken in a variety of conditions, check out our extensive photo gallery. 
Remember, only you can decide if the F10's photo quality meets your expectations
Movie Mode
The FinePix F10 has an excellent movie mode. 
You can record movies at 640 x 480 (30 frames/second) with sound until the memory card is full. 
That doesn't take very long with the included 16MB card -- it holds just 13 seconds of video. 
A 512MB xD card holds about 7.4 minutes worth. 
If you want longer movies and don't mind a lower resolution then try the 320 x 240 (30 fps) mode which doubles your recording time.
As is usually the case, you cannot use the zoom lens during filming.
Movies are saved in AVI format, using the M-JPEG codec.
Here's an exciting sample movie for you, taken at the high quality setting.
Playback mode on the F10 is typical of those on other cameras. 
Basic features are here, including slide shows, DPOF print marking, image protection, thumbnail mode, voice annotations (30 seconds worth), and zoom and scroll.
The camera is PictBridge-enabled for direct printing to a compatible photo printer.
The zoom and scroll feature lets you enlarge your image by up to 4.5 times, depending on the resolution of the photo, and then move around in the zoomed-in area.
Other features include in-camera image rotation and trimming (cropping).
The F10 only shows you basic exposure information for your photos. 
More info would've been nice, such as the shutter speed and aperture used.
The camera movies through images at a good clip. 
There's about a 1/2 second delay between photos, with no low resolution placeholder used.
How Does it Compare?
In case you haven't figured it out already, I like the Fuji FinePix F10. 
A lot. 
<cs-1><cs-2>
 While it may look like just another compact point-and-shoot camera, it's much more than that 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_it 2_camera (more)
1_it 2_camera (like)
Its most notable features include its great photo quality, high ISO shooting ability, large LCD display, and stellar battery life. 
It's got a few downsides but the positives outweigh them in a major way.
<cs-2>
 When necessary, however, the H3 can demonstrate Hummer's famous crawling and climbing abilities just like its larger siblings 
</cs-2>
1_H3 2_larger siblings 3_crawling and 3_climbing (like)
The H3's ground clearance is 9.1 inches, and it can turn in a 37-foot circle.
This is the first Hummer offered with either a manual or an automatic transmission. 
Its four-wheel-drive system is augmented by standard traction control and GM's StabiliTrak electronic stability system, which is also standard in H3s with an automatic. 
Sales began in spring 2005.
Four radio systems are available, and each is compatible with GM's OnStar communication system and optional XM Satellite Radio. 
Cloth upholstery and remote keyless entry are standard, and three 12-volt power outlets are installed. 
Options include heated leather seats and a DVD-based navigation system.
The H3 is powered by a 3.5-liter inline-five-cylinder that develops 220 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 225 pounds-feet of torque at 2,800 rpm. 
<cs-2>
 Hummer claims the H3's acceleration matches the pace of the larger H2's for most driving conditions 
</cs-2>
1_H3 2_H2 3_acceleration (matches)
Either a five-speed-manual gearbox or a four-speed automatic can be installed. 
The automatic unit includes shift modes that are specific to low-range operation.
The new BorgWarner two-speed, full-time, four-wheel-drive system has a 2.64-1 gear reduction for low range in order to yield satisfying control during offroad obstacle climbing. 
For ultimate climbing capabilities, an optional 4.03-1 ratio is available. 
A locking rear differential is optional. 
A Neutral position is included for flat-towing the vehicle.
Antilock brakes incorporate Dynamic Rear Proportioning. 
Side curtain-type airbags with a rollover system are optional. 
Daytime running lights and a tire-pressure monitoring system are standard.
The Casio Exilim EX-Z750 ($440) is an ultra compact camera with a 7.2 Megapixel CCD, 3X optical zoom lens, large 2.5" LCD display, high quality movie mode, and much more. 
For better or for worse the market is suddenly becoming crowded with small, high resolution cameras like this: Canon, Nikon, and Sony all have similar models. 
That means that the Z750 has its work cut out for it. 
How does it perform? 
Find out now in our review!
Casio is one of those camera manufacturers who doesn't include a memory card with their camera. 
Instead, they build some memory right into the camera. 
Unfortunately Casio gives you an absurdly low amount of built-in memory on this 7 Megapixel camera -- just 8.3MB. 
You can fit one -- yes, one -- photo (at the highest quality setting) into that amount of space, so consider a larger memory card to be a requirement. 
I'd recommend a 512MB or larger Secure Digital (SD) memory card to start with. 
A high speed card is not necessary based on my own experiences and also because Casio doesn't mention such a requirement anywhere.
Ulead Movie Wizard SE VCD (say that three times fast) is a Windows-only product for editing the videos produced by the Z750 and then burning them to a Video CD (VCD). 
Mac users are left out in the cold in this department. 
More on this subject later.
<cs-2>
 Casio has been imitating Olympus in the manual area in recent years 
</cs-2>. 
1_Casio 2_Olympus 3_manual area (imitating)
They include a skimpy "basic manual" in the box, leaving the full manual on CD-ROM. 
My question is: if you're going to print a basic manual, why not print the whole thing and do the right thing for your customers? The quality of the manuals themselves is about average for a digital camera (read: not great).
The Exilim EX-Z750 is an ultra-compact camera made almost entirely of metal. 
With the exception of the usual cheap-feeling door over the battery/memory card compartment, it feels very solid. 
It fits well in the hand, though the positioning of the mode dial right where your thumb rests could lead to accidentally putting the camera in the wrong shooting mode. 
Being an ultra-thin camera the Z750 can go anywhere that you do.
Also above the LCD are the buttons for switching between playback and record mode.
As you can see, the Z750 has a ton of automatic shooting modes plus three manual modes. 
If you can't find a Best Shot scene for your situation then you can create your own. 
The anti-shake Best Shot mode is an interesting one. 
No, it's not an image stabilization system. 
Instead the camera lowers the resolution down to 1600 x 1200 and boosts the ISO as needed. 
The manual modes let you choose any shutter speed, but you're stuck with only two aperture choices at any point in time. 
At the wide end of the lens your choices are F2.8 and F4.0 and at telephoto they're F5.1 and F7.4. 
In-between there will be other values. 
Why couldn't they let you access the full range? Also, I would've preferred to have the A/S/M modes as separate items on the mode dial, but I guess you can't have everything.
Back to the tour now. 
Below the mode dial you'll find the Menu and Display buttons plus the four-way controller. 
The four-way controller is used for menu navigation, exposure compensation (-2EV to +2EV in 1/3EV increments), selecting manual settings, and adjusting the focus manually.
On top of the Z750 you'll find the power and shutter release buttons as well as the zoom controller. 
The zoom controller moves the lens from wide-angle to telephoto in just one second. 
I counted six steps throughout the 3X zoom range. 
I do like how the camera shows the available focus range on the LCD when you operate the zoom.
<cs-4>
 The EX-Z750 has a slightly different menu system than other Casio cameras I've used recently 
</cs-4>
Instead of Rec, Memory, and Setup tabs there is now Rec, Quality, and Setup. 
I'll combine the first two into the list below and save the setup items for later.
The manual white balance option lets you use a white or gray card so you can get perfect color even under the most unusual lighting.  
<cs-2>
 Flash assist is similar to the Digital Flash feature on HP cameras or D-Lighting on Nikon cameras 
</cs-2>
2_Digital Flash feature on HP cameras 2_D-Lighting on Nikon cameras 3_Flash assist (similar)
This will brighten up any flash pictures that may be underexposed due to the limited range of the camera's built-in flash. 
Do note that this option will increase noise levels a bit.
Our macro test subject looks great except for one thing -- the colors are too saturated! 
This is going to be a recurring theme in this section of the review. 
If you ignore that issue you'll find that the subject is very sharp -- heck, I might even turn the in-camera sharpening down a notch here.
In macro mode you can get as close to your subject as 10 cm at wide-angle and 50 cm at telephoto, which isn't spectacular. 
As I mentioned before, the camera shows the available focus range on the LCD when you zoom in or out.
The EX-Z750 did a great job with our night test shot. 
The camera took in plenty of light thanks to the manual control over shutter speed, and the buildings are all very sharp. 
Both noise and purple fringing levels were very low.
The EX-Z750 has a top-notch movie mode. 
You can record video at 640 x 480 / 30 frames/second with stereo sound until the memory card is full. 
That takes just 17 seconds when you're recording to the built-in memory, so you'll want a memory card for serious video recording (a 256MB card holds about 8.5 minutes worth). 
Believe it or not, Casio doesn't say anything about needing a high speed memory card to use this mode, so that should save you some money.
To record longer movies you'll have to lower the movie quality. 
The "normal quality" mode still records at 640 x 480 / 30 fps, just at a lower quality. 
A "long play" mode cuts the resolution to 320 x 240 and the frame rate to 15 frames/second.
There are three other movie modes as well. 
Best Shot movie lets you choose one of five scenes (portrait, scenery, night scene, fireworks, backlight, silent) and the camera uses the best settings for the situation. 
In the Past Movie mode the camera is always saving video to its buffer memory. 
When you press the shutter release button, the last five seconds of buffered video is saved to the memory card. 
<cs-2>
 The Short Movie function is similar to the "hybrid" movie mode on the Sony DSC-M1 
</cs-2>
2_Sony DSC-M1 3_Movie function (similar)
The camera records a total of 8 seconds of video -- up to 5 seconds before the shutter release is pressed and up to 6 seconds after. 
I guess this gives your movies some "context".
You cannot use the zoom lens during filming.
As you can see, this adjustment makes a big difference. 
While not perfect I would personally use the -1 setting if I owned the EX-Z750.
Something else that bugged me (but may not bother you) is that images were a little too sharp. 
So again (my opinion only here) I'd turn the in-camera sharpening to -1. 
Otherwise things look pretty good. 
Noise levels are mostly under control, though the indoor shot seemed worse than average in that area. 
Purple fringing levels are reasonable.
With that out of the way, I invite you to have a look at the photo gallery for the EX-Z750. 
Look over the images and print them if you'd like, and then decide if the photo quality meets your expectations! Remember, what looks good to me may not look good to you -- and vice versa!
The EX-Z750 saves movies in the AVI format using the MPEG-4 codec. 
The MPEG-4 codec allows for high quality movies that take up much less disk space than other (older) codecs. 
This means smaller file sizes, longer movies, and no high speed memory card requirement.
Mac users take note: you cannot play these movies using QuickTime, and you cannot bring them into your favorite video editor -- at least not easily. 
The only thing I found that could play them was VLC. 
Some other ideas for viewing the movies can be found on this page.
The Exilim EX-Z750 has a full-featured playback mode. 
The basic features like slide shows, DPOF print marking, zoom and scroll, voice annotations (30 secs), and image protection are all here. 
The camera is PictBridge-enabled for direct printing to compatible photo printers.
The Casio Exilim EX-Z750 is a very nice 7 Megapixel ultra-compact camera with a few annoying flaws. 
First, the good points. 
The Z750 is compact, made of metal, and is well constructed. 
It fits easily in your pocket and can go anywhere you do. 
The camera has a large 2.5" LCD display and a tiny optical viewfinder. 
While the screen is big, the resolution is not, and low light visibility is not very good either. 
Camera performance is excellent. 
The Z750 starts up in just one second and focusing, shutter lag, and shot-to-shot speeds are all very good. 
The camera's AF-assist lamp helped it focus well in low light situations. 
<cs-3>
 Battery life is superb compared to most other ultra-compacts 
</cs-3>
3_Battery life ()
Image quality is very good if you tweak a few settings. 
The biggest problem in this area is the very oversaturated colors in nearly all of my photos. 
Thankfully there's a workaround -- change the saturation setting in the record menu to -1. 
And while I'm at it, I'd also suggest reducing the sharpness to the same number, as photos were a little too sharp for my eyes. 
Redeye was also a big problem, as is usually the case with ultra-compact cameras. 
<cs-4>
 Aside from that, the news is all good: exposure was accurate, purple fringing levels were low, and noise levels were comparable to other cameras in this class 
</cs-4>
<cs-1>
 In terms of continuous shooting performance the SD500 wins easily, though it has no "fast shutter speed" or shutter priority mode like the Z750 does 
</cs-1>
1_SD500 3_continuous shooting performance (wins)
Regardless of which of the two cameras you end up with, both are good choices. 
Take what you've learned in this review and the SD500 review and decide which is best for your needs.
Within an hour of the laptops arriving, I was so surprised by the heat they both generated that I went to CompUSA and purchased a v2335us for $1379 that came with $180 in rebates, so the net price was $1200. 
<cs-1>
 While there the salesman explained how the "Turion is much better" and I should buy an L2005 they carry, until he realized they were out of stock, and he then all of a sudden he was more than happy sell me the v2335us I wanted 
</cs-1>
1_Turion (better)
That seemed like a great deal, even though they likely gouged for the 1GB that was included, and the 4200rpm drive it came with will need to be sold and upgraded (so it's not a bottleneck for overall performance) which will cost me money.
After my trip to CompUSA I all of a sudden in the space of a day had 3 new laptops when I only needed one. 
In my possession now were the HP L2000 (AMD powered), Compaq v2000z (AMD powered) and Compaq v2335us (Intel powered).  
But only one could stay as a keeper.  
I pushed and poked and ran benchmarks on each laptop to get the results for a winner. 
And with 3 laptops in my hands, an AMD versus Intel battle, I figured it was a good time to do a review!
<cs-2>
 All three laptops have the same exact shell 
</cs-2>. 
1_All three laptops 3_shell (all)
<cs-4>
 The L2000 has a slightly different keyboard (more on that later), and has splashes of yellow over its black case and black keyboard 
</cs-4>
The two Compaq's are silver, with light grey keyboards, black lids and bases. 
<cs-1>
 In my opinion, the all black look of the L2000, even with the ugly yellow (most of which can be removed), is the clear winner in aesthetics 
</cs-1>
1_L200 3_aesthetics (winner)
Using one color ties the laptop together, and gives it a much more professional look.
<cs-4>
 They are a huge step up from the tiny speaker on my n400c, and impressive for a laptop in my eyes (or ears I suppose I should say?) 
</cs-4>.
Processor and Performance
Each machine took about 30 seconds to get from the pushing of the power button to on to the Windows welcome screen.
The AMD powered notebooks, the L2000 and v2000z, were handled by a 2.0GHz Turion (Lancaster) ML-37 processor.  
The Compaq v2335 was moved along by an Intel Pentium M 750 processor clocking in at 1.86GHz. 
The specs are detailed below. 
<cs-4>
 From the photos you can see a slightly different fan setup between the Intel and the AMD machines 
</cs-4>
Both processors sit down at 800MHz while idle in portable/laptop power mode. 
For browsing, word processing and most normal activity the processors both stayed down at 800MHz of clock speed, which as we will see later saves a lot of battery life, while maintaining very acceptable performance.
The AMD laptops carried Fujitsu 60GB 5400rpm drives, a nice balance of performance, speed and capacity.
The V2335 came with a Toshiba 100GB 4200rpm drive, which I did not find noticeably slower. 
The capacity is overkill for me, as I don't store content on the laptop. 
If I keep the V2335 I will pull it, sell it, and buy an Hitachi 7k60 7200rpm drive for not much more than I will likely be able to sell the Toshiba drive. 
For me speed wins over capacity when it comes to encoding.
This test shows that if you run each machine as hard as you can, you can expect the V2000Z to last just under 2 hours, while the V2335 will last another 40 minutes for just over 3 hours (on the 12 cell). 
<cs-1>
 So the AMD powered unit will result in approximately 20% less battery life when the CPU is maxed 
</cs-1>
1_APU is maxed 3_battery life (less)
This test is run with the CPU throttling enabled, but the screen still never turns off, nor does the HD stop. 
The Pentium M helps add 2+ hours to the expected battery life, that's about a 35% improvement. 
So the low power Intel really shines while running down at 800MHz.
Keyboard and Touchpad
Compaq v2000z keyboard
I am used to the "eraser head" that is common on the ThinkPad series of notebooks and also my Compaq n400c, but I found the touchpad on these new notebooks of mine usable.  
With the wide screen, adjusting the sensitivity of the touchpad allows you to scroll across the screen without 3 swipes at it.  
The default setting on all touchpads that allows tapping as a double-click alternative drives me crazy, that's the first thing I disable.
HP L2000 keyboard
However, this is a comparison, and there is no difference between each machine's touchpad, except the L2000 has an ugly yellow paintjob.  
They all allow you to disable the touchpad with the press of a button.  
That's a bonus, allowing me to type away without bumping the cursor, while my Bluetooth mouse sits on the side ready to use.
<cs-4>
 I'm not sure what's more surprising, the fact that there were 20 Access Points within range of my home, or that the Intel chipset and antenna combo was so much more sensitive 
</cs-4>
<cs-2>
 Bluetooth modules are the same Broadcom units on all three machines 
</cs-2>.
1_all three machines 3_Broadcom units (same)
Battery
The machines share the same battery, so you can use either a 6cell or 12cell.
See the test results in the benchmark section for battery performance. 
<cs-1>
 It's a clear win for the Intel setup; it puts up the same or better performance numbers than the 2GHz AMD, but uses anywhere from 20-35% less power to do it 
</cs-1>
1_Intel setup 2_2GHz AMD 3_performance numbers (win)
<cs-1>
 That's the difference between lugging around a 1.5lb 12-cell battery versus making do with a lighter 1lb 6-cell battery 
</cs-1>.
1_1lb 6-cell battery 2_1.5lb 12-cell battery (lighter)
The 12-cell not only adds double the power, but it also raises the back of the laptops up to provide a comfortable angle for typing.  
However the battery only runs across of the back, making it a little unbalanced when you are trying to rest it on your lap.
Operating System and Software
Included discs for documentation
The L2000 and V2000Z can be configured with XP Pro too, so no comparison to be made.
<cs-2>
 The software package appears to be the same, most of which I deleted 
</cs-2>
1_software package 3_appears (same)
Included programs that I axed were things such as iTunes, Office trial and so on.
<cs-4>
 Three of the four USB 2.0 ports now sit on the right side of the case instead of the left, a welcome change for right-handed folks like me 
</cs-4>
The 8100 is fully user upgradable: You can access both RAM slots, and although the hard drive does not slide out of the side (as it does on the 8000), it's still easy to reach in a compartment on the bottom. 
<cs-1>
 Also, the 8100's battery pops off the rear, not out of a bottom bay--another small improvement 
</cs-1>
1_8100 (improvement)
<cs-1>
 The 8100 isn't superior to the 8000 in every way: For example, its battery life was actually slightly lower than that of its older sibling: The 8100 lasted a little over 4 hours on one charge in our tests, about a half hour shorter than the TravelMate 8000 we tested last year 
</cs-1>
1_8100 2_8000 3_battery life (lower)
1_8100 2_8000 3_lasted
Still, that's well above average. 
<cs-1>
 On our test bench, the 8100 performed well, doing better than its sibling 
</cs-1>
1_8100 2_sibling (better)
It pulled down a WorldBench 5 score of 94 (compared with the 8000's score of 89), about what I would expect from a 2-GHz Pentium M 760-equipped laptop loaded with 1GB of RAM. 
(A Toshiba Portg S100 with the same processor but only half the RAM earned a score of 83). 
Although Acer advertises the 8100 as its mainstream laptop, it's loaded, with a capital L. 
It has a removable right-side double-layer DVD burner that swaps out for a second hard drive or a second battery, it has a FireWire port, and it offers three ways to connect an external monitor (via VGA, S-Video, and DVI-D). 
Those who prefer key cards to fingerprint readers for thwarting break-ins at the BIOS, password, and file levels will appreciate the 8100's smart card slot, stacked atop a standard PC Card slot on the left side of the case. 
You get two cards with your purchase, including one that can be set up as a one-time-use emergency card. 
(After that, you have to return the laptop to a dealer for resetting, which is one reason I slightly favor a biometric security solution.) 
The TravelMate's ergonomic keyboard curves 5 degrees upward on the ends so you end up positioning your elbows in a way that experts say helps prevent carpal tunnel syndrome. 
It's an acquired taste. 
Besides that, I like everything else about the keyboard, including its short, hard 2.7-millimeter key depression (rather than the standard 3mm) and handy set of four user-programmable shortcut buttons. 
Acer includes some nice software extras. 
For instance, the proprietary power management utility makes it extremely easy to specify customized power schemes, including whether the FireWire port and wireless scanning are enabled. 
Acer's GridVista, based on Dritek System's utility for dragging and dropping applications into preset windows on the extrawide screen, looked worthwhile, but I couldn't get it to work on our unit.
The only area in which the 8100 stumbles is entertainment. 
Letterboxed DVD movies looked fine on the wide-aspect screen, but sound from the front-mounted stereo speakers was too faint. 
Hardware volume control is limited to annoying combination keystrokes. 
Looking up information in the user manuals could be simpler, too. 
The Acrobat manual preinstalled on the hard drive is more detailed than the basic printed manual, but it has no index. 
At first, I thought that it also lacked a contents page, but that page simply turned out not to be bookmarked. 
Dell Inspiron 6000
<cs-3>
 You can see more on the Dell Inspiron 6000's wide screen than on most other 15.4-inch displays thanks to its WUXGA resolution of 1920 by 1200 pixels 
</cs-3>
1_Dell Inspiron 6000's wide screen 3_see  (most)
Without turning on the notebook, you can launch PowerCinema from the M7500's keyboard or remote control. 
I had no trouble moving between and controlling entertainment applications. 
You don't even have to go through the PowerCinema main menu for some activities; just press the quick-launch button for the appropriate application in the upper right keyboard; these double as PowerCinema hot buttons for when you want to watch a movie, listen to MP3 files, or manage digital photos. 
Audio CDs require a separate player that you must launch from the PowerCinema menu, unfortunately.
<cs-3>
 Nicely designed overall, the M7500 is the first notebook I've seen with a front USB 2.0 port--an excellent feature 
</cs-3>
1_M7500 3_front USB 2.0 port (first)
The notebook's microphone and headphone ports conveniently appear on the front of the case, too, next to separate LED buttons for controlling and monitoring the status of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi wireless communications. 
Two other USB ports and a four-in-one card reader sit on the right side of the case, while a DVD burner occupies the left.
I liked the keyboard's feel and layout, which includes a roomy touchpad and a four-way scroll button. 
The top right corner is wasted on the <Pause/Break> key (with the more important <Del> key in second position), however, and the application/PowerCinema hot keys are so small and recessed that they're hard to read and I was never sure whether I was pressing them hard enough.
<cs-3>
 The screen is more readable than most thanks to its native resolution of 1280 by 800 pixels, which made icons plenty big and crisp 
</cs-3>.
1_screen 3_readable (most)
Alongside the DVD and CD quick-play buttons at the top of the keyboard, you get a handy set of volume buttons and a Wi-Fi switch, each backlit with a bright-blue LED. 
You can change or stop CD tracks with a set of function keys that are grouped together and clearly labeled; because they're function keys, though, they require combination keystrokes--still, they're better than nothing. 
<cs-4>
 The dv4000 offers fairly robust sound for a laptop 
</cs-4>. 
In addition, it features a side connection for HP's $299 Xb2000 desktop expansion base, a terrific docking station that includes excellent built-in Harman Kardon speakers and a bay for adding a second hard drive. 
All of the dv4000's connections are on the sides or front where they're easy to reach. 
The multiformat DVD player is on the right, like most. 
Aside from its multimedia capabilities, the dv4000 fulfills my other dream-laptop requirement by including a six-in-one media card reader, so I can use everything from Memory Sticks to SD Cards (although not CompactFlash, unfortunately). 
The unit also features the new ExpressCard slot for memory and device cards that will be coming down the pike. 
The dv4000 is RAM and hard-drive upgradable. 
The only user-accessible part I had trouble with was the battery, which had a sticky release and was difficult to fit back in its bay--it's a good thing batteries don't have to be removed often. 
The keyboard has a hard, quiet feel, with <Ctrl> and <Delete> sitting in opposite corners, just where I like my frequently used keys to be. 
The rectangular touchpad with textured scroll zone and generously sized mouse buttons work well together. 
 The Canon Pixma iP4200 prints high-quality glossy photos quickly, but it's just as well suited for printing office documents 
For $130, you get strong black text, double-sided printing, and dual paper trays. 
<cs-1>
 In our tests the iP4200 printed documents at breakneck speed, but the quality of its plain-paper output barely improved on that of its predecessor, the iP4000 
</cs-1>
1_iP4200 2_iP4000 3_plain-paper output (improved)
<cs-2>
 This model's print engine resembles its predecessor's, relying on five inks from individual cartridges 
</cs-2>
1_model print engine 2_predecessors (resembles)
You get dye-based ink for the regular colors and for the black used in photos. 
<cs-1>
 The pigment-based black ink used for plain paper documents comes in a larger (and more economical) cartridge 
</cs-1>. 
1_pigment-based black ink 3_cartridge (larger)
In our print quality tests, color photos exhibited sharp details, even in areas of shadow, with plenty of contrast. 
Skin tones, however, appeared a little too vivid and had an orange cast. 
Our grayscale photo printed a little on the dark side, but showed good contrast and sharp details overall; skin tones in this print could have looked smoother.
One inconvenience to keep in mind: The 450wbt holds only two ink cartridges at a time, so to switch between printing documents and printing photos you have to swap cartridges and run the manual alignment procedure. 
A little plastic case that keeps the removed ink cartridge from leaking or drying out costs $15. 
Also, PC World didn't test the life of the lithium ion battery, but HP's specs say that it should last 350 pages and take only 90 minutes to recharge. 
An extra battery will cost you $79.
The $100 HP Deskjet 5740 is a simple, reliable inkjet printer. 
Though not particularly eye-catching, it produces nice-looking prints.
Paper feeds from a 100-sheet-capacity tray at the front that sits below the 50-sheet-capacity output tray. 
You don't need special perforated paper to print borderless 4-by-6-inch photos: You can use standard 4-by-6-inch photo paper--and the 5740 can print without borders on letter-size paper too. 
Beneath the cover you'll find slots for two ink cartridges. 
With the printer you get a black cartridge and a cartridge containing three colored inks, for general-purpose printing. 
The printer can perform six-color printing, too, but this requires a photo color cartridge (with light versions of cyan and magenta inks) that you have to buy separately and then substitute for the black cartridge.
The 5740 doesn't break any speed records. 
In our tests, text pages printed at a moderate 5.8 pages per minute, and graphics at 1.5 ppm. 
<cs-2>
 Both speeds are slightly above average among inkjets we've tested recently 
</cs-2>
1_Both speeds 3_above average (Both)
<cs-4>
 Unlike the 5940, the Deskjet 5440 can't use high-capacity ink cartridges 
</cs-4>
The pigment black and tricolor cartridges that come with the 5440 hold only 5 milliliters of ink each, and cost $15 and $20, respectively--that's $3 and $4 per milliliter of ink. 
In contrast, cartridges for the Deskjet 5940 come in several capacities. 
The largest-capacity cartridges hold 21 ml of black ink and 14 ml of color ink at a cost of $30 and $35, respectively, or $1.43 and $2.50 per milliliter--a significant savings. 
<cs-2>
 Even though the larger-capacity cartridges are the same shape and size as the 5440's regular cartridges, its firmware won't let you use them 
</cs-2>
1_larger-capacity cartridges 2_5440's regular cartridges 3_shape 3_size (same)
<cs-2>
 The 5440 can, however, use the same optional 13 ml photo cartridge ($25) as its sibling; this cartridge, which you swap with the black cartridge, permits you to print with six colors, by adding light cyan and light magenta 
</cs-2>
1_5440 2_sibling 3_13 ml photo cartridg (same)
The printer we tested came with preproduction software. 
The installation procedure for HP's excellent package of drivers and ImageZone software didn't match the instructions on the included setup poster and Windows XP generated some unexpected messages. 
Still, after we clicked Cancel a few times, the installer led us through the process.
<cs-2>
 Gone too is the additional bypass slot in the output tray, which printers like the HP Deskjet 5850 use to print envelopes and snapshots without requiring the user to empty the main paper feeder 
</cs-2>
1_printer 2_HP Deskjet 5850 3_print envelopes and snapshots (like)
The simple control panel has a power button plus buttons for canceling and resuming print jobs. 
Two lights warn you when the ink cartridges are running low. 
Below them on the left side of the case is a USB direct-print port that permits printing from a PictBridge-compatible digital camera. 
<cs-4>
 There are no memory slots, and you can't upload images from the camera to your PC, which some inkjets allow you to do 
</cs-4>
The 5940 proved fairly quick in our speed tests. 
On plain paper, it printed out 5.8 pages per minute for text (a little above average) and 2.2 ppm for graphics. 
<cs-2>
 Our 5-by-7-inch test photo appeared on glossy letter-size paper especially quickly--in 45 seconds, nearly equaling the speed of our top performer to date, the 5440 
</cs-2>
2_5440 3_speed (equaling)
We tested the final version of the printer, but it came loaded with preproduction software. 
HP has changed its installation procedure from the one used for earlier models, such as the Deskjet 5740. 
Unfortunately, the new procedure differed from the description on the setup poster, which told us to connect the USB cable before inserting the CD-ROM; doing so triggered confusing messages from both Windows XP and the HP installer. 
Once we figured it out, however, we were able to run HP's excellent package of drivers and ImageZone software without further incident.
When it comes down to it, though, the proof is in the pudding, or, in this case, the RPTV.
The first product available with Sony's version of LCOS was the Qualia 004 front projector. 
Coming in at around the price of a BMW 3 Series, it was admittedly beautiful in design and performance. 
For that kind of money, one would hope so. 
Next was the Qualia 006, a 70-inch RPTV that was far more affordable: about the price of a Kia Rio. 
Sony was certainly headed in the right direction, and, this year, they have come out with the KDS-R60XBR1. 
The XBR line is kind of like Sony's Acura or Lexus. 
<cs-1>
 They're slightly more expensive than other displays in the same size range, but, for that extra money, you are said to get a better aesthetic and better performance 
</cs-1>
1_They 2_other displays 3_expensive 3_aesthetic 3_performance (more)
The past few XBRs we've reviewed have lived up to this promise. 
The question is, does the KDS-R60XBR1 live up to its XBR brethren? 
Does it live up to the hype of LCOS (and SXRD)?
<cs-2>
 Aesthetically, the KDS-R60XBR1 shows a family resemblance to other Sony RPTVs 
</cs-2>
1_KDS-R60XBR1 2_other Sony RPTVs 3_Aesthetically (resemblance)
That is to say, it is attractive, without being flashy. 
It appears as though Sony forged the remote from a solid piece of billet aluminum (they didn't), and it's hefty enough to throw as your first line of defense against intruders (don't). 
The layout is typically Sony; it's functionally easy to use and shows a complete lack of most of the features you would like to see on a remote. 
There is no direct input access and no backlight. 
I hoped that the tiny button with the eighth-note icon on it would play music. 
It didn't.
There is a copious number of menus. 
While they're time consuming to navigate, the wide range of adjustments is wonderful. 
In a strange twist, there is no way to check how much lamp life is remaining.
Getting On With It
HD, as you can imagine, looks stunning. 
Deep blacks share the screen with bright highlights, an abundance of color, and twice the number of pixels you're used to. 
This makes for a fantastically watchable image. 
PBS's Rudy Maxa has never looked so good. 
<cs-2>
 The added detail of the 1,920-by-1,080 panels is not as big of a jump from a 720p display as you might expect 
</cs-2>
1_1,920-by-1,080 panels 2_720p display 3_jump (as)
<cs-2>
 It's not like the jump from 480p to HD 
</cs-2>
1_It 2_480p to HD 3_jump (like)
The built-in tuner is mediocre. 
It picked up all of the local channels but didn't do a very good job pulling them in to watch. 
This was with our cheap indoor antenna. 
Depending on your area, you may need to upgrade your antenna. 
However, this TV switched between digital channels faster than most displays.
There are a few final issues. 
On test patterns, there were some color-linearity issues. 
One side of the screen had a bluish-green tint, while the other side had a reddish-orange tint. 
On regular video material, this wasn't noticeable. 
My biggest complaint about this TV is the screen. 
It added a noticeable sheen or shiny graininess to the image. 
<cs-2>
 This is true of almost every RPTV I've seen 
</cs-2>
1_every RPTV (every)
With the resolution that this TV affords, it's disappointing that you can't sit closer before the screen's shininess becomes too distracting. 
I found that a seating distance of about 11 feet offered the best compromise between resolution and screen grain. 
If the screen noise doesn't bother you, you may be able to sit closer. 
Do look for that sweet spot, though, so you can sit as close as you can to this TV. 
Don't let that 1080p go to waste.
As you can tell, I was most impressed with the KDS-R60XBR1. 
It is quite simply one of the best RPTVs we've ever reviewed, regardless of what it's called.
Color is cause for an argument somewhere. 
The KDS-R60XBR1 isn't accurate, but, as far as inaccurate color points go, this is how to do it. 
Red and green are oversaturated, but they're not off in any other direction. 
<cs-4>
 So objects may look really green, but they're not greenish-yellow or greenish-blue like the colors that many digital displays can produce 
</cs-4>
The result is an incredibly vibrant picture. 
Everything looks almost too lush and inviting. 
It may not be accurate, but it sure is pleasing to look at. 
Sony has said that the oversaturation is particular to this preproduction model and that the colors of units shipped to stores may not deviate as much from the SMPTE specifications.
Using DLP, Sharp has come up with two new rear-projection sets to fill in the gap between their flat panels and their front-projection displays. 
The model pictured here, at 56 inches, is a great size for most rooms. 
If you have a bigger room, or a bigger appetite for screen inches, there's also a 65-inch model. 
Both rear pros use the 0.55-inch 720p HD3 DMD chip from TI. 
This chip is quite interesting, as its actual resolution (that is, the number of micromirrors on the chip) is 640 by 720. 
An additional large mirror vibrates, shifting the image back and forth slightly, which allows each micromirror to address two horizontally adjacent pixels on the screen. 
The result is a 1,280-by-720 image. 
<cs-1>
 The benefit of such a chip is that it's smaller, which means it's cheaper, which means you end up with a cheaper display 
</cs-1>
1_chip 3_diplay (smaller)
Hewlett-Packard created this technology, which they call "wobulation." (TI calls it SmoothPicture.) 
Since I heard about this chip, I've been curious to see how it performs. 
Does it make the screen wobble? 
Does it produce new artifacts? 
If I put a glass with ice, tequila, and mix on the display, will it blend me a margarita? 
Questions, questions, questions. 
Mmmm, Pretty 
At first glance, you could easily confuse the 56DR650 with one of Sharp's LCD panels. 
In the space below the screen, speakers are hidden behind a plastic mesh. 
Since the mesh covers essentially the entire space below the screen, it breaks up what would otherwise have just been the obvious front of a rear pro. 
<cs-3>
 This, coupled with the elegant stand, helps make the 56DR650 one of the most attractive rear-projection sets I can remember 
</cs-3>
1_56DR650 3_attractive rear-projection sets (one of the)
<cs-2>
 Amazingly, the TV is not as bright as I expected 
</cs-2>
1_TV (as)
After a run of displays that measured more than 100 foot-lamberts, it was a welcome change to get only 83 ft-L from the Sharp. 
<cs-4>
 It's bright enough to see fine in a well-lit room and not fatiguing to watch for a long period of time in a dark room 
</cs-4>. 
You really don't need any more light than this. 
Since it doesn't have a screaming light output, the 56DR650 also has a pretty low black level. 
<cs-3>
 The 0.08 ft-L I measured on a full-black screen is better than most LCD flat panels and better than all two of the rear-projection sets we've tested since we started measuring displays' contrast ratios 
</cs-3>
1_0.08 ft-L I 2_LCD flat panels (most)
With regular video material, it looks punchy and has a good black level. 
With letterboxed material, when you really notice the black bars, it looks OK. 
It's not quite as dark as a good front projector or a dark plasma, but the bars are far less noticeable than they are with most other RPTVs, LCD panels, and some of the high-black-level plasmas. 
There was some loss of detail in the darkest blacks, but it wasn't a lot. 
With Master and Commander, on the other hand, the black level was all too apparent. 
The dark, below-deck scenes at the beginning of the movie are a dark gray. 
Worse, when the screen is mostly dark, I saw occasional, small reflections from the inside of the cabinet. 
It's dim enough that you can only see it when that part of the screen is totally dark. 
No, the picture didn't wobble. 
Unless someone told you, you'd never be able to tell that there weren't 1,280 by 720 micromirrors on the chip. 
And, no, it didn't make me a margarita. 
I mean, come on, let's be realistic here.
Like I would waste perfectly good tequila by diluting it in a mixed drink. 
Although it requires careful setup (to avoid that weird shadow artifact), there is a lot to like about the Sharp 56DR650, not the least of which is its price. 
For an MSRP of $3,300, you get a 56-inch display with great processing and a decent contrast ratio (for an RPTV). 
This makes for a very watchable image. 
Add in a beautiful cabinet, and you've got one impressive TV that can hold its own with Sharp's stable of LCD and DLP displays.
Don't call it the Video iPod, the vPod, or anything that indicates that this is a video player. 
It's the new iPod, period. 
Though it does have video-playback capabilities, Apple has chosen to keep the iPod's focus on audio (for now). 
<cs-1>
 That said, video looks excellent on the new model's 2.5-inch screen, and the thinner profile not to mention new audio capabilities such as high-quality stereo recording makes it more versatile than previous generations 
</cs-1>
1_new model's 2.5-inch screen 2_previous generations3_profile 3_versatile (more)
<cs-2>
 Consider that you can now get the 30GB model for the same price as the previous-generation 20GB model, and you have a pretty impressive product 
</cs-2>
1_30GB model 2_20GB model 3_price (same)
<cs-1><cs-2>
 The new 30GB iPod is 30 percent thinner than the previous 20GB color model, but the height and width are the same 
</cs-1></cs-2>
1_new 30GB iPod 2_previous 20GB color model (thinner)
1_new 30GB iPod 2_previous 20GB color model 3_height 3_width (same)
.
Your mileage may vary depending on content, listening volume, how long you've had your iPod (yes, rechargeable batteries lose capacity over time), operating temperature, playback mode, and EQ setting. 
The 60GB version offers 20 hours of audio or three hours of video per charge.
Despite Apple's focus on audio, the first thing everyone wants to know is how video looks on the new iPod. 
We downloaded an episode of Lost and a few video podcasts from the iTunes Music Store, and, to our surprise, the viewing experience was remarkably comfortable. 
Brighter shots look very clear and crisp, though, as with most devices that play back compressed video, you can often see compression artifacts like blockiness and banding in dark areas. 
We wouldn't want to watch subtitled content or sports (the wide camera angles would probably make players a bit too small, not to mention a hockey puck), but everything we watched looked sharp and smooth. 
One thing we really like is that the iPod remembers where you stop watching a video, so any time you go back to it, you can simply resume from where you left off. 
You can also scrub through video, though not in real time; you scroll through a progress bar, and the video jumps to the point where you stop scrolling.
<cs-1>
 The bigger screen, however, does let you see more of your photos than before 
</cs-1>. 
1_bigger screen 3_see photos (more)
We'd like to see Apple add support for panning and zooming in images. 
<cs-3>
 Photo format support is still one of the broadest in the biz, with JPEG, TIFF, GIF, PSD (Mac-only), PNG, and BMP
</cs-3>
3_Photo format (one of the)
Of course, we're sure third-party cases will be available soon as well. 
Apple also released another accessory: The new Apple Universal Dock (optional) supports an IR remote and A/V-mini-jack-to-RCA or S-video output for watching your video content on a big screen. 
The catch is you have to use a $20 Apple AV cable; other AV cables, though they fit in the appropriate jacks, will not work. 
The iPod ships with a dock adapter so the iPod fits securely in the Apple Universal Dock.
Overall, we're very happy with this new release, though we'd still like to see a few things like photo pan and zoom, a custom graphic equalizer, on-the-fly calendar editing, and the ability to delete files directly on the device. 
Combined with Apple's video offerings (which include plenty of free video podcasts as well as for-pay content), we think video support is a very good addition to an already excellent music player.
The iriver T10, the latest flash player from iriver, is clearly geared towards workout enthusiasts, as evidenced by its rugged looks and included accessories. 
It runs on a single double-A battery (which, the company claims, delivers up to 45 hours of playback!) and offers up to 1GB of storage. 
The T10 doesn't exude sex appeal, but it does offer very good sound quality and some of the nice extras we've come to expect from iriver, such as an FM tuner and voice recording. 
But at $149.99 list for the 512MB version, which we tested, and $199.99 for 1GB, we think you'd do better buying a cheaper player with either more storage or no color screen.
The T10 is shaped like a bent rectangle, and we're not really sure what the ergonomic benefit of this design is. 
The odd shape and integrated belt loop make the device look like a bit like some kind of miniature stun gun. 
<cs-1>
 The relatively bulky plastic body measures 3.4 by 1.6 by 1.2 inches and weighs 2.6 ounces with the battery, making it heavier than the MSI Mega Player 521 and the RCA Lyra RD2212 
</cs-1>
1_it 2_MSI Mega Player 521 2_RCA Lyra RD2212 (heavier)
The included earbuds use a straight plug rather than an L-shaped one, creating a very awkward profile in your pocket, since the player's headphone jack is on the side, though this makes less difference if you're using the included armband.
Analog controls include a four-way rocker (with a center select button) on the front for volume and track skip, with the play/stop, A-B repeat, and record buttons on the side. 
Also on the front is a hold switch on a collar around the rocker. 
The 1-inch, 65,000-color LCD is bright and easily readable, and there's a built-in mic next to it. 
The USB 2.0 port is covered by a soft plastic flap that doesn't really close, which may be an issue if you use the T10 in a dusty, sandy, or sweaty environment. 
An integrated sport clip lets you hook the player onto your clothing.
<cs-3>
 Our formal tests concluded that, like most players worth their salt, the T10's frequency response is flat with a gentle rolloff in the lowest two octaves, indicating reasonably robust bass 
</cs-3>
1_T10 3_frequency response (most)
We did note a dropoff in the highest audible frequencies (from about 16 kHz to 20 kHz), which probably contributed to the suppressed highs as much as the included earbuds did. 
Remarkably, the bass portion of the signal remained clean even at maximum volume, and overall harmonic distortion stayed well below 0.1 percent. 
Using the included earbuds, we measured a sustained 99 dB with peaks of 104 dB when playing our rock test track. 
That should suffice even in noisy gyms.
The Mixx is small and very light, measuring 3 by 1.5 by 0.9 inches and weighing just 1.3 ounces with the included battery. 
The foot-shaped plastic body seems sturdy, but the battery cover pops off too easily. 
The rubber buttons are a bit scattered and don't respond well; we often had to press them multiple times to get them to work. 
We're also surprised that this player lacks a hold switch or control lock to prevent accidental button presses when you're exercising (or just walking around with it in your pocket).
The monochrome LCD is backlit in blue, though the default setting is too faint. 
We turned the brightness setting up all the way, but it resets to the default whenever you turn the player off. 
Unfortunately, setting the brightness to high will tax the battery, which is rated for a disappointing 10 hours of continuous play. 
The earbuds are lanyard-style, meaning the player is meant to be worn around your neck. 
We find this annoying, since the earbuds won't reach from your pocket to your ears (unless you're very, very small).
True to Iomega's legacy of storage drives with proprietary interfaces, the USB port isn't a standard mini-USB plug, so don't lose the included cable. 
And don't expect to transfer music quicklyit took us about 21 minutes to transfer 512MB of songs. 
(We thought the days of USB 1.1 were over, but apparently not.) At least it's USB mass-storage class, so you can use it with any PC without having to install any software.
<cs-1>
 The DAH-1500i measures just under one cubic inch and weighs a bit over half an ounce a smidgen lighter than the iPod shuffle 
</cs-1>
1_DAH-1500i 2_iPod shuffle 3_weighs (lighter)
The play, FF/REW, and volume buttons on the right face are arranged in the same way as those on Apple's players, and the menu and hold buttons are on the left face. 
The four-line organic LED (OLED) screen gives you bright blue text on black that's very readable, though the screen gets a lot of glare in direct sunlight. 
People with larger fingers may have a tough time with the controls, but most people in our office who tried it had no complaints.
Getting around on the DAH-1500i is fairly easy, and you can load music via drag-and-drop or Windows Media Player. 
We like being able to delete files directly on the device as well as create a dynamic playlist, though the DAH-1500i doesn't support Windows Media Player playlists. 
It offers all the standard playback, shuffle, and repeat modes, and it also lets you loop a section of a recording (A-B repeat)a handy feature for musicians and language learners.
File format support includes MP3 (up to 320 Kbps, including VBR), WMA (up to 192 Kbps), and protected WMA. 
The DAH-1500i is actually the second generation in this line; this model adds Windows DRM support, but only for purchased downloads, not subscription-based online services.
The included earbuds have a necklace-style design that lets you wear the player around your neck without pulling directly on the earbuds. 
This is an appealing option for some situations, but the design makes it impossible to carry the player in your pants pocket. 
Swap out the headphones, though, and the problem is solved.
The company rates the DAH-1500i's built-in rechargeable battery for 10 hours (compared with the iPod shuffle's 12-hour rated life). 
But our battery rundown test, which uses a real-world mix of songs encoded in a range from 128 Kbps to 320 Kbps, yielded 8.5 hours of continuous playback. 
<cs-4>
 Considering the device's size, this is not bad, though we should point out that the Samsung yepp YP-T7X is also rated for 10 hours but lasted just over 12 hours on the same rundown test 
</cs-4>
Once again, Apple has come up with a design that turns heads. 
Enter the iPod nano. 
But this was a relatively easy one for the designers, if not the engineers: They took the full-size iPod and made it really, really slim. 
We measured it at just 80 cents thickthat's 3 quarters and a nickel, or 0.27 inches for you traditionalistsby 5 dimes long (3.5 inches) by 2 pennies wide (1.6 inches). 
<cs-1>
 According to Apple, that's 62 percent smaller than the now-discontinued iPod mini the nano is replacing 
</cs-1>
1_nano 2_iPod mini (smaller)
It weighs just 1.5 ounces, and it really does fit in the smaller front pocket of your blue jeans without the slightest bulge. 
A few things changedsome compromises in the name of miniaturization and some actual improvementsbut the end result is a spectacular product. 
Sure, it doesn't have an FM tuner or voice recording, but it does have an unsurpassed interface, a color screen, excellent sound quality, and an undeniable cool factor. 
Plus, it's flash-based, so you don't have to worry about skipping or dead hard drives.
We received the black model for testing, but we were slightly disappointed to find that the included stock Apple earbuds have retained their distinctive "mug-me" white. 
A nice touch is that the icon that showed up on our desktop was black. 
The iPod nano doesn't support syncing via FireWire; instead, a message comes up telling you to please use the included USB cable. 
It still charges via FireWire, though. 
Upon first connection, our 4GB model had 3.7GB available for storage, with the remaining space being used for system files. 
It took us only 1 minute 6 seconds to transfer 512MB of MP3 files via USB 2.0.
<cs-2>
 Subjective sound quality is nearly identical to that of the final-generation iPod mini, which is to say, excellent 
</cs-2>
2_final-generation iPod mini 3_sound quality (identical)
Music is clear, with very solid bass and crisp highs. 
The stock Apple earbuds perform adequately, though the player can definitely handle high-end headphones with aplomb (the plug of our Etymotic ER4P canalphones, however, is actually slightly wider than the player itself!). 
There are 22 preset listening modes, so we think most users won't miss a customizable equalizer. 
The bass booster provides enough extra depth for thundering bass such as that found in some electronic music, though we heard significant harmonic distortion on the low end that noticeably altered the music. 
But the sound is plenty good enough with the EQ off.
<cs-1>
 On our formal tests, the iPod nano actually outperformed the 6GB iPod mini, with a slightly cleaner signal and better response in the lowest octave than its predecessor 
</cs-1>
1_iPod nano 2_60GB iPod mini 3_signal 3_response (outperformed)
<cs-1>
 Our square-wave test also showed that the output stage is significantly stronger than the mini's when loaded with Apple's stock earbuds but not as strong as that of the iPod shuffle, which has a different type of output 
</cs-1>
2_mini 3_output state (stronger)
Apple rates the battery life at 14 hours of continuous audio playback, and it can fast-charge to 80 percent in 1.5 hours. 
