A few notes on testing and results: As with the earphone Battlemodo, my testing methods were not scientific but practical: The audio test was a sonically diverse playlist of reasonable bitrate MP3s, the isolation test was a ride on a San Francisco city bus followed by white noise on a home stereo, and the mic testing was done by, well, making a few calls.

Each headset gets its own conclusion, including a summary of the circumstances for which the set is best suited. One with fantastic sound might cut off the noises of traffic, making it useless for biking. Another might be great for running, but not pick up nuanced tones of your obsessively ripped lossless audio collection. Apple's own headset serves as a baseline—it doesn't have its own section, but it is referred to where appropriate. At the $70 mark and above, it tends to be outclassed. Because of the varying needs of headset users, there's no one Battlemodo champion, but some are definitely better than others. Here are the results:

Altec Lansing Earclip-S - $40
One of two earclip-style headsets we tested, these earphones don't offer much over the standard headset besides a secure fit. Music playback is as clear as on Apple's buds, but without any of the bass. They're not very attractive and feel cheap and flimsy. The sticky rubber sheathing can sort of grab your hair, if you're bushy around the ears, though it does help the clips stay put. There are two controllers, one on the mic and one down the wire for with volume and mic shutoff. The volume controller is sensitive and gets inadvertently adjusted pretty often, and the call/play button can be hard to find in a hurry. The mic added an annoying static sound to voices.
Conclusion: Recommend for exercise duty, where they would at least stay in place and sound OK. They're water resistant too, but at this price you may not be too paranoid about sweat murdering your headset anyway. They look, feel and sound as cheap as they are.

Shure Music Phone Adapter - $50
Shure's solution to the headset problem is to sell you the earphones and microphone separately. Pairing with the fantastic SE110s will make for a fantastic combo, but the combo will set you back almost $150 total. Good thing you can use this adapter with any earphones. Voice quality is high, even in situations with ambient noise, but extras are not; there is just one button and gator clip.
Conclusion: If you like your current earphones, keep them and buy the Shure. Ideally, your earphones will have a short cable, otherwise you'll have to clip the mic to your shirt and let the excess cable dangle.

Maximo iMetal iP-HS1 - $70
Music is richer and clearer than with Apple's headset, but not by much. These fit like traditional earbuds, and are on the large side in both look and diameter. They're solid, but could be perceived as a little garish on account of the chrome finish. The single, large low-hanging button works well and is the easiest of the lot to quickly press. The very capable mic is positioned and designed intelligently, and is the best we tested.
Conclusion: A solid replacement for lost or broken Apple headsets for people who have big, weird ear holes and don't care about isolation.

Maximo iMetal iP-HS2 Isolators - $70
These are the in-ear version of the iMetal. Sound is slighly bottom-heavy but the rest of the range is well-represented. The tips are comfortable, and provide surprisingly good isolation. Walking doesn't cause any annoying thumping from the cables, which is often a problem for similar in-ears. The single call/play button is identical to that on the other Maximo, as is the superb mic.
Conclusion: The best value and a recommended purchase, provided you want something that shuts you off from the outside world.

V-Moda Vibe Duo - $100
These in-ears are about as bassy as they are stylish. This results in a slightly muddy sound but they're good for casual listening. Isolation is fair, but you hear significant cable rustling when you walk with them. The tip choices are smart and comfortable for a wide range of ear holes. The single control button is on the mic, easy to find. The mic delivers clear, intelligible sound at a moderate volume.
Conclusion: Too expensive for what you get, but look great and are as tough as nails.

Sennheiser MM50-ip - $100
Sound is comparable to iMetal isolators in terms of balance and quality, but they handle high volumes and bassier songs a bit better. Senn gives us plenty of tip choices, most of which are cushy and easy on the ear holes, but with a low to fair amount of isolation. There is some degree of cable noise when walking, but it's not too intrusive. The mic has a flush call button that can be hard to feel, but luckily sits directly opposite an easy-to-fumble-for indention at the mic's grille. Mic quality is above average, but not very loud. Unequal cable length after the split drives some people nuts, but works fine.
Conclusion: If they were a few dollars cheaper they would be much, much more appealing. Without a significant performance advantage, they lose out to the cheaper Maximo iMetals.

AirDrives Interactive Headset - $100
Taking a totally different approach than just about anyone else, the AirDrives are earclips with drivers that sort of float above your ears. The logic is that they won't interfere with ambient noises and permit all-day listening without fear of ear damage. Achieving a proper fit (or hover, I guess) was difficult on my freakish baby ears, but once you bend them correctly they don't budge. The listening sensation is akin to being in a room with the stereo on, so it's easy to hear what is going on around you. Voices sound fine, but music is robbed of any low to lower-mid frequencies, which I expect would be a dealbreaker for many.
Conclusion: Good for work or exercise where awareness of your surroundings is key, but that's it. Sound is just too poor to recommend for music lovers.

Etymotics hf2 - $180
Excellent, balanced sound, featuring the same audio hardware as the hf5's that won their category in our earphone Battlemodo. These won't win over beat junkies, but are truly in a different class than anything else reviewed here in terms of sound quality—and price. Putting these guys in usually means getting a deep, full seal against your ear canals, which can be offputting to some people, but rewarding to others. Isolation is very strong, and cable rustling is minimal. The mic setup is a one-button affair, but that button is easy to find.
Conclusion: Only buy these if you're an audiophile who, for some reason, doesn't already have a pair of decent earphones. Otherwise, just grab the Shures.

We tried to cover the bases here, but this list of headsets is by no means comprehensive—if you want to add anything from your personal experience, please share it in the comments. Special thanks goes to Clay Hane for testing assistance.

First, some ground rules on the scope and purpose of my testing:

The headphones tested are all what you'd consider "upgrades" rather than "replacements" for the crap headphones that came with your MP3 player. While I capped pricing at $200, my "cheapest" pair started at around $40. The three tiers are under $100, $100-$150, and $150-$200.

The most practical measure of sound quality is to just sit and listen. I focused on in-ear headphones because they are built not just to jam a driver right next to your ear, but to block outside noise. It's simple: less ambient noise = better experience.

In the spirit of cutting aside the science-based marketing jargon, my tests were unscientific, but consistent across the board and based on real-world situations. The methodology was simple: a current-gen iPod, a sonically diverse playlist of music and, for isolation testing, a seat on the 14 bus in San Francisco, then some time next to a white noise machine.

With so much of the earphone inside of your ear, rustling of the cable can cause some serious noise. If the cable isn't properly buffered from the earphone, the deep, annoying shuffling can interfere your music when you try to walk or turn your head. That's why I made note of "cable noise"—this isn't to suggest there was some kind of buzz or white noise from the cable itself.

Here are the results of my testing:

Under $100
The Winner: Ultimate Ears metro.fi 2 Along with providing great sound and a decent fit, this set appeals to your normal side. The earbuds are as pleasing to the eye as they are to the ear, with a tasteful matte finish and an almost flush fit. In other words, you don't feel as ridiculous as you might with the Shure ear-garrotes or some of the other Ultimate Ears' protruding Frankenstein monster plugs. They don't sit too deep, so if you're apprehensive about the ear-rapey aspect of other offerings, you'll be comfortable with these. The sound, though emphasizing the low end, is clear and competitive with much more expensive units.

The Losers: This is a tricky price point, as some stock earbuds (Apple, Sony) are actually pretty good. Slapping a rubber cuff on a half-baked product doesn't justify a price of $50+. In the case of Apple's in-ears and the CX300, you aren't really experiencing a different class of audio than with stock buds, though there is a marked improvement. The CX500s put on a good show for bass junkies, but that's about it. Creative has a nice product with a great price, but it just can't measure up to the metro.fi on the performance front.

$100-$150
The Winner: Shure SE110 This price point offers the highest price to performance ratio, and the SE110 is the best of the lot. If you can get over the deep penetration and the over-ear looping, you'll find that the SE110s are comfortable, block out plenty of ambient noise and most importantly produce stunning, immersive sound. The tones are wisely balanced, and quality is at the level that you'll be noticing new things about songs that you've heard dozens of times. Decent discounts are available at various online retailers, as is the case with most of this category.

The Losers: Manufacturers know that this is a sweet spot for consumers, so the market is crowded with good options. The hardware starts to look a little more "professional," or more accurately, "weird." Etymotics, always fans of producing earphones that are really good on paper, fails with the ER6 not because of quality issues, but because the buds are awkward and overwhelm with the high and middle tones. The company's new earphone tips, however, are amazing (more on this below, in the more expensive category). Ultimate Ears loses their luster at this level. Creative is yet again a nice runner-up; the Zen Aurvanas are very capable, but couldn't supplant the crystal-clear SE110s.

$150-$200
The Winner: Etymotics hf5 Ostensibly designed with portable music players in mind, the hf5s solve the balance problems of the er6 models and much, much more. They're cool looking (with the right tips, they look like sci-fi laser pistols), have little to no cable movement noise and reproduce sound in a way that is both perfectly clear and highly enjoyable. Everything about these gives the impression of quality, from the brushed aluminum finish to the way that music suddenly sounds distinctly layered in a way that it didn't before, and that it doesn't on many similarly priced units. One caveat, though: the hf5s (and the er6s, for that matter) must be used with the new foam rubber tips, called "Mushrooms." They're a little phallic and sort of a sickly gray, but they are leaps and bounds better than Etymotics' trademark flanged tips. The tighter seal that these offer to most people is conducive to better listening, and the isolation properties are superb. You can't hear anything else with these guys in. Every manufacturer should have something like this. According to the Etymotics people, by the time the hf5s ship these will be standard issue. Good.

The Losers: To sum up the category: Expensive without enough added benefit. Spending $100 will get you a phenomenal listening experience, so it's hard to justify spending more. The $200 cap was intended to filter out the luxury market/audiophile products that tend to show up at about that price, but hints of both are apparent here. The Shure SE210s are a wonderful pair of earphones, but the large premium over the SE110s is a dealbreaker, as side-by-side comparisons expose only the slightest variation in sound quality. The Klipsch Custom-2s are more of a luxury item than the others, with woven cable housing and a case that is ready for you iPod as well. Harman Kardon is just batting out of their league here, and Ultimate Ears doesn't improve on their cheaper models, even introducing some pretty terrible cable noise.

If you're looking to get the most out of your MP3 player, you'll have to spend some money. But as it turns out, the general rule is that once you pass about $100, your audio improvements will become smaller and more expensive. After reviewing all of these earphones, one simple fact is very clear: If I were in the market for a new set of earphones, I would buy the SE110s.

We tested five guns, the Super Soaker Sneak Attack 4-Way, the Sizzlin' Cool Steady Stream, the Water Warriors Motorized Tarantula, the Super Soaker Quick Blast and the Banzai Color Stream Blaster.

It should be noted that each gun has its own gimmick that it uses to try to sell you on it while you're wandering the aisles at Toys R Us or Target or wherever it is you purchase your weaponry. By far the most useless was the Color Stream Blaster, which comes with little cartridges of dye that turn the water various colors. This means that after you have a water gun fight, your victims will need to go take a shower and do laundry. That seems like it'd be less fun, not more, so we ignored those things altogether.

Much more fun were the nozzles on the Sneak Attack 4-Way, which let you change the stream by twisting the front of the gun. You could do a thin, powerful stream, a broader misting stream, or fire sideways in either direction. Let me tell you, there are few things more satisfying than saying "Hey, check this out!," pointing the gun off in the distance and then pegging your friend point-blank in the face with a sideways shot. It never, ever gets old.

For the official testing, we first measured the distance that these things can fire compared to their box claims. You never want to be hit by someone you can't hit back because your gun sucks and you're too far away. Surprisingly, the claims of distance made on the boxes was often wildly inaccurate. The Super Soaker Quick Blast, for example, claimed to shoot 25 feet, while we could barely get it firing past 18 feet. The other Super Soaker, on the other hand, claimed a paltry 20 feet, but in practice the thing shot nearly 30 feet (the best of the bunch).

We then wanted to know just how much pain could be inflicted with a shot to the face from each of the guns. Luckily, Summer Intern Dan was there, so we set him up facing the camera and took turns blasting him in the face from a few feet away, recording his reactions. The most painful shot was the Sneak Attack due to its powerful blast, with the Color Stream Blaster and Quick Blast each delivering paltry bursts that he could barely feel.

So what gun do we recommend for your next battle? Well, the Color Blast is a decent gun if you ignore the, you know, color element, and it comes in a two pack, which is nice. However, you feel like you're paying extra for something you won't use, so unless you really want to spray red water at someone, I'd recommend passing. The Tarantula just felt like cheating due to its rechargeable battery that removed the pump action from the mix, and it's a pain to have to rejuice a water gun between uses. It has a huge tank and a decent distance, but for $20 it's definitely the most expensive gun, so it's hard to recommend.

The Super Soaker Quick Blast was definitely at the bottom of our list, with a pathetic stream and a cheap-feeling pump. It doesn't hold much water, either, and whoever got stuck using it during our battle royale was at a serious disadvantage. Avoid it if you can.

The Steady Stream, the cheapest of the guns, was actually our runner up, surprisingly. It doesn't have any real gimmicks to it, but it's a solid gun that fires a good distance and is fun to use, especially for the price.

At the end of the day, however, there was a very clear winner amongst our array of weaponry, and it was the Super Soaker Sneak Attack 4-Way. It shot the farthest, had the most fun gimmick, had a respectable capacity, inflicted the most physical pain on our enemies/intern and was one of the cheapest at under $10. It feels solid in your hands and is just the most fun gun out of all of the models we tested. And really, if a water gun isn't really fun to use, it's doing something wrong.

To sum that up, the Instinct is easily the best, most feature rich iPhone clone on the block, and at $129, is a steal for Sprint customers. My major problem with it is the touchscreen itself—I think the Vu's touchscreen is way more responsive. (Wilson likes it just fine, favoring it over Verizon's cloneys.) The Vu has everything superficial down right—the touchscreen, keyboard (best of the bunch) and phone body—but is really lacking in the feature department, and therefore not really worth the new $199 price, which hinges entirely on its Mobile TV function. If you married the Vu's body and touchscreen to the Instinct's features and price, you'd have a champion here, and a serious iPhone challenger. Too bad LG and Sammy hate each other.

The Voyager isn't considered an iPhone clone anymore, not in the strictest sense, though most of its problems stem from Verizon software rather than the hardware. As Wilson said in his review last fall, it's ambitious but flawed—and the flaws are mostly on Verizon. I'm really hoping Verizon lets the Dare just breathe, because the Vu proves LG is best left to its own devices. The Glyde is just a truly terrible phone. Most clay bricks are more responsive than its touchscreen, especially around the edges, and the crappy, sluggish Verizon software doesn't help. And its keyboard ain't much better.

One thing they all have in common is a shitty browser. There isn't a mobile browser that touches mobile Safari yet. Even when they could render HTML correctly, moving and zooming around the page (especially ones that aren't mobile optimized) is an exercise in self-control—how long can you take it before stabbing your eyes out. Opera mini does load on the Vu, and it's better than the included browser, but it worked kinda wonikly at times. For me, that's a critical flaw in all of these phones.

Best to worst: Instinct, Vu, Voyager, and Glyde.

UPDATE: Check out our review of the LG Dare, which gives the Instinct a run for its money

Visual Quality
I watched lots of snowboarding videos on both setups. Both sets have the same resolution, but the screens look bigger and with less ambient light and distracting reflection in the Zeiss. It's supposed to simulate a 45 inch screen at 6 feet away, but all I know is that it's a lot more in your face than the Myvu. The Zeiss and Myvu's brightness, contrast and black levels were on par with each other. I do wish they came in 16:9 versions, but the 4:3 ratio is probably more practical. There's a 3D setting on the Zeiss, which is to be used with clips provided on their website, but as most content isn't 3D, it didn't factor into my testing. Update: Eyestrain isn't bad at all at the 30 minute mark, but I'll do some more testing today to make sure.

Comfort
The Zeiss has adjustable head pieces, and a large and narrow nose piece. It's a much heavier set up, however, and so the Myvu is much more comfortable, with its adjustable nosepiece. I'd be more likely to use the Myvu out of the house, given their weight.

Audio
The Zeiss has mounted earbuds on adjustable plastic sticks that don't actually interface directly with your canals. (They float over them.) The Myvu's buds go into your ears, isolate a lot more sound and produce better audio, although the dangly wires add to the clutter.

Jordie Factor
The Cinemizers are far uglier than the lighter Myvu Crystals, partially from the bulging faux-eye pieces packed with the eyesight correcting diopter glass (+/-3.5D) and knobs, partially from just being too damn far apart. The Myvus are also a lot easier to walk around with, as you can see easily above and below the screen making driving with these a lot safer. (I kid!)

Controls
The Zeiss has a really nice rubber remote with contrast/brightness settings, volume, FF/RW, Play/Pause buttons and a nice clip. That leads to the battery dock, which holds the iPod and has a power button. The Myvu's controller has individual brightness and contrast settings, plus volume, but no navigation.

Compatibility and cabling
The Zeiss comes with a number of click in plastic holders for the touch, 3G Nano, Classic 80gb, 5th gen 60/80GB iPod, and Classic 160GB. There's no case for an iPhone the Classic 160 fit fine. There's a 1/8th inch jack for audio/video input, but a cable is not included. The Myvu comes in iPod or universal kits, but the universal kit excludes the iPod dock connection. The universal kit has adapters for regular composite jacks, Zune, Gigabeat, Archos, and 5th gen video iPods. The Myvu's cabling is also a mess, since you've got a separate battery/remote jack which interfaces with the iPod through another cable. The Zeiss's design bundles the battery with the already bulky iPod and so the only spare part is a remote. Very nice.

Battery Life
Both claim 4 hours of life. It's worth noting that other headsets from Myvu with 320 pixel wide images can do 10 hours of battery life. Both charge via USB, with the Zeiss charging a minimum of 2.5 hours and the Myvu finishing in 4 to 12 hours. (Rated.)

Accessories/Extras
The Zeiss has a really nice case, while the Myvu has a mere bag.

If visual quality is your ultimate requirement, and you're married to an iPod, the Zeiss makes better sense. But the Myvu's ability to play with other video sources out of the box and its $100 cheaper price tag make it a little bit better for the general buyer. Both will give you a charisma penalty of 3-4 points, but you know, we don't care about that kind of thing around here.

Suspension of disbelief off: I guess there's a bigger question here of whether or not any of us need such a set up. I can imagine using one on a plane so I don't have to drain my iPhone's battery displaying a 3 hour movie on the 3.5 inch LCD; instead, I can avoid neck cramps and stare wherever my anatomy feels I will be most comfortable. Likewise in bed or on a couch. A few years ago, the quality was worse and these headsets were closer to $500. From here, at $300, I guess those limited scenarios are a decent value. Ultimately, most of you who decide to take such an advanced plunge will be doing it to bleed at the edge. What's nice is that going forward these things can only get better and cheaper, and I hope, less imposing to wear. [Zeiss and Myvu]

Ever since the world caught wind of the Pure Digital Flip cam's success, super-cheap digital pocket camcorders have sprouted up everywhere. With everyone and their mother trying to become the next Lil Show Stoppa or Soulja Girl, people need a cheap and easy way to capture those magic moments. I tested six of these cams—from Creative, RCA/Audiovox, DXG and Pure Digital—all $180 or less. Here are samples of all of their videos in various conditions, and an overall look at how they stack up:

Video samples: I tested the camcorders in the three most common situations you'll use them for: indoors with full light, indoors with low light, and outdoors. In the videos, I stood in the same place with each camera. As you can see, different cameras capture different areas. Watch as these two goofballs get their line dance on and destroy the Great American Songbook, and you will easily spot the difference in quality between the recordings.

Indoor, full light:

Indoor, low light:

Outdoors:

The Runners-Up (in no particular order):

DXG 569-V HD: The best thing about this cam is that it looks very fancy. The worst thing is that it isn't. The DXG took the worst overall video of the bunch even though it claims to record in HD. Also, the 3 AAAs ran out after about 25 minutes of recording—I should've realized this would be a problem when I saw the unit came bundled with rechargeable batteries and a charger. Still, it's nice that it has a still camera option, and you could probably trick your friends into thinking you have a pricier Xacti for a minute.

Creative Vado: The Vado is the most non-descript camera of the bunch. Boring UI, crappy video quality and a plain outer shell make it a snoozer. However, it's about as thin as the Mino, very cheap and has no frills at all, making it a decent option for total luddites or technophobes.

RCA Small Wonder EZ210: I naturally gravitated to the EZ210 because of it's giant screen, big buttons, and retro look. Seriously, for all the tech inside, the camcorder looks like it was made in 1982. Even though the EZ210 is the most welcoming cam of the bunch, in the end it's about video quality and this one wasn't cutting it. It's a fair price, and I love the expandable memory, so it's a close 2nd place option.

RCA Small Wonder EZ200: The EZ200 is all over the map. After seeing the nice quality of the EZ210's daylight video, I was shocked to see how grainy and slow the EZ200's daylight footage was—it looked like an old-fashioned home film camera. Also, the flip out screen is hokey to me, but it's great for people who like to look at themselves while lipsynching to Mr. Roboto. Complaints aside, I was pleasantly surprised that the EZ200 took halfway decent low-light video. That plus the cheap price and expandable memory make this one a reasonable bet for a starter cam.

Flip Mino: The Mino is thin, has a great look and feel, and captures excellent video, but it's not the winner for a few reasons. Most importantly, it has a narrower-angled lens than just about every other camera in the test—I couldn't get my whole couch into the shot no matter how I tried. Also, the sound wasn't very good. Finally, this week I'm on the other side of the neverending rechargeable vs. AA debate, and between the Li-ion battery and non-upgradeable memory, the Mino is a little too closed for my tastes. However, if you're looking purely for video quality, Mino is a no brainer.

And the winner is...

Flip Ultra: Yes, the first is still the best, and there are good reasons why so many companies want to capture its success: The Ultra works, and it works well. Low light video is great, the camera feels good in your hand, and it's so simple that you could probably train your cat to record their own cute videos with it. The small screen is a drawback, but it captures a good chunk of space. The Ultra is the best value of the bunch when you consider the criteria, remaining the Cadillac of cheap pocket camcorders.

[Special thanks to the singers and dancers, who asked to be known as Rocko Money and Inter Minetti!!]

The case-mate leather collection:

The leather collection from Case-mate comes in both a variety of styles and colors that include line leather, croc-embossed leather and carbon fiber leather versions (the Black Croc-Embossed Leather iPhone Case/Holster Combo is pictured here). They are branded as luxury models with prices to match (line leather $49.99, croc-leather $59.99 and carbon fiber $69.99 for combo versions). All of the cases include a holster, screen protecting film and a design that features leather wrapped around an impact-resistant plastic shell—which makes them basically the same in terms of shape and protection. So, if you dig this style of case, the decision is going to come down to the leather used.

I found that all of the versions lived up to their luxury status in terms of materials and craftsmanship. Protection is going to be good but not great considering that the top is completely exposed and the screen is protected by nothing more than a simple scratch resistant film, but it should do the job for normal wear and tear. That holster is a friggin' beast though, so if you don't need to clip this to your belt you are better off saving a little cash and purchasing case-only. Case-mate's Naked Case was also tapped for this review, but units are hard to come by. Look for a stand-alone review soon.

Otterbox Defender Series:

Out of all the cases reviewed, the Otterbox is going to offer the highest degree of impact, dust, scratch and water resistance. It features multiple layers of protection with a hard-shell case that covers the body of the phone, a thin plastic membrane that covers the screen, camera and Apple logo, and a rubber jacket. It allows access to all of the iPhone's controls (except the silence switch) and if you lead an active, rugged lifestyle, the Otterbox should stand up to punishment—just don't expect this thing to be completely waterproof. While the rubber layer does fold into the iPhone's open ports and there is a mesh over the speakers and microphone, it is not designed to be submerged in water.

Naturally, with the plastic case covering the screen itself, you are going to have to deal with the occasional air pocket, touchscreen command error and blurry photograph—but these issues do not represent much of a problem. However, I did manage to rip the rubber outer casing inside the first day of using it, so I have my doubts about the long-term durability of that layer. It is also very bulky, but that is to be expected with a case that offers this type of protection. All in all I would say that the Otterbox's $50 price tag is a little steep—if only for that issue with the rubber outer layer. Also available in a yellow version.

Ivyskin Xylo T2 Touch-Thru Case:

Ivyskin is heavily touting their Surface Xylo Wave (SXW) technology as a "breakthrough" given the fact that it allows for normal touchscreen operation through a hard-shell case. But, to be honest, I found that the Otterbox, the Xylo and the iShield mirror are all basically the same in this respect. The plastic covering the skin on all three cases is extremely thin and offers protection that will hold up to scratches and light impacts. I would say that the screen on the Xylo is the thickest of the bunch, but I doubt that it will offer a substantial increase in protection over the other two devices. They also deliver the same amount of accuracy with the touchscreen—that is to say you will occasionally find yourself double-tapping to type or open up a link, but it does not represent much of a problem. When it comes right down to it, the technology works well.

As for the case itself, the Xylo T2 is made of a basic polycarbonate, which is like wrapping the phone in a form-fitting jewel-box. It will provide adequate protection against minor damage, but don't expect it to withstand a jarring impact. However, if you are looking for full protection against everyday wear and tear it will do the job with a design that does not add a ton of thickness to the phone itself. Not bad for $34.99. Also available in a variety of colors.

iShield Mirror:

Finally, the iShield Mirror is basically the same case as the Xylo T2 but the plastic covering the touchscreen is thinner, and it offers a gimmicky film on the surface that allows it to function as a mirror when the phone is not in use. To be honest, the images in the mirror end up being too distorted to make it functional, and the film renders the screen image fuzzy in low light and nearly invisible in the sunlight. So, if you are looking for a case of this type, I suggest getting over yourself and ditching the mirror functionality for the Xylo T2—especially since it will only cost you $5 more.

Conclusion:

With the exception of the iShield Mirror, I can confidently recommend all of these cases. I found myself using the Xylo T2 the most in everyday situations because of its small form factor and complete screen coverage and the Otterbox while I was out mountain biking on the trails. But the Case-mate leather collection was the most physically attractive option by far. In the end, it will really boil down to the lifestyle you lead, how much you are willing to spend and your personal preferences. [case-mate and Ivyskin Xylo T2 and Otterbox and iShield Mirror]

The Gear
From Razer, I got the Lachesis mouse, Lycosa keyboard, Piranha headset and Destructor pad. That's $80 each for components plus a $40 mouse pad, totalling $280.

From SteelSeries, it's the Ikari Laser ($90), 7G keyboard ($150), Siberia Neckband headset ($100) and QcK+pad ($15). Do the math and it adds up to $355.

My old, battle-tested equipment, all Logitech: MX500, Media Elite keyboard, whatever free Logitech headset came with Unreal Tournament 2004 and a free Vista mousepad. Street (or garage sale) value of about $45.

Quick and Dirty Conclusions
It takes more than 20 minutes to get used to a new keyboard and mouse. So I spent a couple days with each set to get comfortable before actual testing with what I've been at almost exclusively on PC as of late: Team Fortress 2. I didn't want readjusting to a game like Battlefield 2142 added to the list of possible variables.

Because of my style of play (mostly heavy/sniper, offensive support), the best indicator of whether or not my game improved is still kill-to-death ratio, even though TF2 is an objective-oriented game. I've taken the results for 15 rounds of gameplay for each set of gear, then averaged them out to a single K-D ratio for each, and accounting for dominations (killing same guy three times).

SteelSeries: 2.6, with 5 dominations
Logitech: 2.42, with 2 dominations
Razer: 1.98, with 2 dominations

What It All Means
Objectively, SteelSeries made me a better gamer. Why? Because comfort level is the bottom line when it comes to gaming (or any) gear you grip or pound everyday, more so than any stupid spec or number proving how awesome a piece of equipment is. Ergonomically, the SteelSeries stuff just felt right, even after using it a short while.

Fans of Logitech's MX500 (me!) or G5 series mice will dig the SteelSeries Ikari mouse, since it's almost the exact same, but with an extra nub for your ring finger, plus it fixes the crappy scroll wheel issue that plagues the G5 and G7. The Razer Lachesis mouse is ambidextrous, and it just never felt right. (I'm not a claw gripper, though.) I kept accidentally hitting the buttons on the right side of the mouse, causing it to reboot to change profiles, which got me killed more than once. The braided cable on the Ikari, like on Logitech's G5 mouse, was a construction plus over Lycosa's thin rubber cord, though they both feel solid. I don't think either is worth the price ($90 for a mouse is insane), though—my MX500 is still just fine.

Keyboard-wise, Razer's Lycosa actually has a better layout (big backspace, small enter) than SteelSeries' 7G. It's also the much sexier of the two. But I'm not too big on its squishy laptop-style keys for gaming, and the keys' rubber coating started out as a plus and grew into a minus as it made my fingers feel weird and sorta chapped after extended sessions. SteelSeries compromises between big clacky keys and soft touch by registering the key press at the halfway point—they're tall keys—so you can go light or really slam them. I wish it had the subtle backlighting like the Lycosa , and maybe some more macro options. But the build quality of the 7G is absolutely bunker-worthy—it's incredibly heavy. I could club a family of baby seals to death with it and go back to gaming (after wiping the blood off). Yeah, it's $150, but it feels like it's going to stick around to the next ice age, so you're actually paying for solid equipment, gaming BS aside. The Lycosa feels more fragile—not crappy, but just above average.

Headsets have the same build matchup—the SteelSeries is heavier and more sturdy—but this time the cheaper Razer Piranha comes out ahead in audio quality (no surprise, actually). Positional audio was much truer, especially rear to front (a necessity to avoid getting backstabbed by a bastard Spy). Besides, as SteelSeries readily admitted to me, the Siberias suck for music.

Mousing surfaces? Whatever. Beyond the basics of non-reflectivity, it's total hype.

Conclusion
SteelSeries made me a better gamer, but the label "gaming gear" is BS. Buy what feels comfortable, because that's what you'll game better with. If you're a fan of Razer ergonomic styles (I wasn't overly) then it might be worth the extra price, but on the construction merits alone, it doesn't necessarily stack up. The SteelSeries stuff felt more substantial and like the build quality was slightly more commensurate with the higher price point (though I still think the 7G should go for like $100, not $150). Most scientific statement I can make: I was most comfortable with SteelSeries and my old gear, so I did better with them. [SteelSeries, Razer]

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi - I originally wrote: "Live View is limited, or you might even say crippled. You can't preview autofocus—I'm not even sure the autofocus works very well in this mode." When you activate Live View, you have to enter the custom settings and enable one of two kinds of autofocus, which you then manually trigger with the press of a button. The Live View isn't so much crippled as it is overly complicated, compared to the sexier iterations in the Sony and Olympus.

Sony Alpha a350 - I noted a sluggishness with photo reviewing: once you take a shot, there's an annoying pause. The question was raised whether or not this was due to Sony's D-Range Optimizer, which "delivers suitable tonality and exposures with rich shadow and highlight detail, even under high contrast situations." While the D-RO and D-RO+ modes can add even more time to the turnaround on the a350, taking pics without D-RO still means a turnaround time about twice as long as Canon's.

Nikon D60 - I complained about something I called the "auto-focus lamp" but which Nikon refers to as AF -assist. You can in fact turn it off, but it's not exactly easy. First, you have to go to the Setup menu to enable the "full" Custom Settings Menu, or the option doesn't appear. And then you have to go into the Custom Settings Menu, locate the AF-assist option and turn it off—provided you know that the bright annoying light is even called by that somewhat indirect name. My feeling is that this option should be off as a default, like on some competing DSLRs.

Olympus E-420 - I have said repeatedly that this camera has trouble with autofocus: when shooting with the kit lens, it resets almost every time you point it at an object, even if it's the same object you were focused on a second before. Olympus suggested I update the lens firmware to see if it improved anything. While there was a patch that I successfully installed, the lens' AF behavior is unchanged.

As you can see, when all new information is factored in, my initial ranking still stays the same. It seems you get what you pay for, though it bears repeating that the real dark horse is Sony's a300, a $700 (with lens) 10-megapixel version of the a350.

One final note: Whenever I bring up DSLRs, the debate about automatic shooting modes rages with some vehemence. I love the discussion, but I want to stress two things: Cameras intended for newbies need really good auto modes, and even the $900 kits I write about are targeted at the noob crowd. Don't believe me? Chuck Westfall, head of media and customer relations for Canon USA, told me this the other day: "The Rebel demographic is skewed towards beginners," adding, "We've found that any kind of automation we can give them is a good thing."

Thanks for the lively debate, and by all means keep it rockin'. As always, I am blown away by the depth of knowledge coming from Giz commenters on this popular but often confusing subject. [Entry-Level DSLR Battlemodo]

The Weigh In As you can see, there's a wide range. I'm not saying weight is everything, but being the heaviest (by a lot) doesn't help the Sony.
On Paper Before we get into each camera's capabilities, have a look at their specs. Cameras are arranged in order of price, from cheap to pricey. You can see how it's easy to fall in love with the lower-priced models. But in action, you statt to realize why the pricing is so slanted.
1600 ISO and Auto White Balance In these shots, you can judge two things. First, some cameras have noisier high-ISO results than others (cough*Olympus*cough), and second, that auto white balance isn't the easiest thing to master. (I'm talking about you, Nikon.) Fortunately, two cameras do both reasonably well:
Action Shots in "P" Automatic Mode Some of you have beef with me complaining that some DSLRs have lousy automatic settings, but the truth is, great DSLRs do damn well on auto, so it's a way to separate the good from the bad. Here you can see from a quick session with all four cameras that getting a clean shot of a moving cat in low light isn't always possible:
Note the Nikon's shot: The cat is squinting because of the auto-focus lamp that goes on before the shot—generally annoying when trying to capture kids and pets in their natural states.

Full Manual ShootingHere's what happens when I try to take the same or similar shots with the different cameras, using more or less the same manual settings. (The above shot was from the Sony Alpha a350.)

Daffodils: Low f-stop, medium shutter speed, handheld Dawn: Medium f-stop, fast shutter speed, handheld Creek: High f-stop, slow shutter speed, tripod
THE END RESULTCanon EOS Digital Rebel XSi - First Place
What I Liked It's an all around decent camera, much lighter in weight than the Sony but with most of the same performance. The cheap starter lens, which you may scoff at, gives it an added weight bonus, making it lighter than all but the Olympus.
What I Didn't Like Live View is limited, or you might even say crippled. You can't preview autofocus—I'm not even sure the autofocus works very well in this mode. In the manual, Canon concedes that this is really for still life shooting and other limited applications. Also, for being $150 to $170 more than the Nikon, it's more or less the same class of camera, especially for manual shooting.

Sony Alpha a350 - Second Place
What I Liked All around intuitive camera with impressive automatic modes, a Live View that can demonstrate a lot, and solid control for people who know more. It's got the teaching ability of the Olympus with the picture reliability of the Canon. Although the a350 with 14-megapixel sensor is not as good a buy as the Canon at the same price, I think the nearly identical $700 a300 kit might be the best value of all right now.
What I Didn't Like The thing is giant, especially with the 16-80mm lens I tested. (The a300 is the same size and weight, by the way.) In Live View, I noticed from time to time that white balance on preview was different than what came out in the shot, which was annoying. The worst attribute, though, is the exceptional processing delay after you take each shot.

Nikon D60 - Third Place
What I Liked There's a keep-it-simple design here that works: not many hidden frills, but many nice clear options. I think for the money, this is the best idea for knowledgable, confident shooters, though it's not the best bet for beginners. I like one rare random perk in particular, the stop-motion video maker.
What I Didn't Like Simple means no frills like Live View previewing that the other models have. Though it's very handy when done right, like on the Olympus, it can also be done badly. Judging from Canon's execution, I can see why Nikon didn't bother. I have two particular pet peeves with the Nikon: Low-light autofocus triggers a very bright AF lamp, which makes pets and children go all squinty, and the auto white balance makes things too yellow indoors, and can't be overridden when in automatic modes.

Olympus E-420 - Fourth Place
What I Liked Besides the remarkably low price, I think this camera has the capacity to teach you a lot about manual settings because of the Live View. Like the Sony, this shows you the effects of your WB, exposure, f-stop and shutter settings in a live preview as you make them. Oly has this down, and was the one that started it all.
What I Didn't Like The lightweight camera is missing a lot of strong tech: the ISO 1600 is noisy, autofocus doesn't respond nearly quick enough, and shooting in automatic modes turns up blurry and unfortunate shots.

There you have it, folks. I've tried to include enough of my methodology to let you judge this stuff for yourselves. Surely there's a lot to talk about, including the obligatory "body vs. glass" debate. I agree that lenses make a difference, but with new DSLR advancements, the bodies are starting to have a greater impact on how well people take pictures. You may know it all, but any one of these cameras can help the ignorant noob more than anything that came before. OK, that's my take... you have the floor.

Update: Check out our DSLR Battlemodo follow-up, which answers some of the questions raised in the comments below.

A few weeks back, I wrote up a piece on Vudu's high-definition video falling short of my expectations. Today I bring you a more thorough report of the three most compelling set-top boxes and their video-download capabilities. Apple TV, Vudu and Xbox 360 all have a lot going for them, but by looking at them side-by-side, you can see how their makers are all taking different paths to get to the ultimate desired end. Dive into the chart, then have a look at the screengrabs from three movies, to really get a feel for the progress, or lack of progress, in the world of HD downloads.

Just so you know, in addition to skipping everything that requires an actual PC (including HP's MediaSmart receivers), I omitted TiVo from the running for now, for two reasons: 1) the Amazon Unbox on TiVo doesn't yet offer HD movie downloads; and 2) TiVo itself is a subscription service, whereas these systems don't charge a monthly fee for the privilege of renting movies.You can see how frustrating it is to pick a winner when you look at the three systems on paper. Fortunately, things clear up a bit when you compare stills I shot at the same time, on the same Panasonic 1080p plasma TV.

Screens from Ratatouille—note that the Vudu shot is standard-definition only:
Screens from 3:10 to Yuma—note that the Apple TV shot is standard-definition only:
Screens from Transformers—here the three devices are all running high-def versions, and I've mixed in a screen from the HD DVD of it as well, for surprising comparison.
Keep in mind that the key here is to compare the shots with each other, as they were all shot the same way. (Note that the same perceived down-rezzing issue I noted before on Vudu's high-def is still obvious.)

Now that you've seen all the evidence I could gather. It's a toss-up to me, though I think for content I have to lean towards Vudu and for pure video quality (and most HD content) the Xbox 360 is hard to beat. Meanwhile, Apple TV is cheapest and lives up to its name with the best access to actual TV programming—though NBC is still painfully absent. How about helping me make the call here?

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

It turns out that, surprise surprise, you pay a premium for a tiny form factor. The MacBook Air is seriously expensive for the guts you get inside, but Apple isn't the only company guilty of charging insane amounts for smaller computers. Just look at the Sony Vaio TZ150N, for example. $2,100 for a 1.06 GHz processor? Are you kidding me? I don't care how small, it's still a rip-off.

The best deal—if you don't mind an extra pound of weight and half-inch of thickness—is the Dell XPS M1330. It bests the MacBook Air in nearly every single category, delivering about 30% more processing power, 50% more memory, over 300% more hard drive space, plus a dedicated graphics card. All of this, for $300 less. But also, two hours less of battery life, thanks to the new smaller and more efficient Core 2 Duo processor in the MacBook Air.

But it's really no surprise that a form factor as striking as the MacBook Air's warrants a premium price. Super-slim and light laptops as a category have yet to come down from the stratosphere, dollar-wise. It's a form factor that SSD just makes loads of sense for, lightening them up and cutting down on battery life, but that drives the price up even further for the time being. Chips are still getting smaller and screen technology keeps improving. In a couple of years, these form factors will be reasonably priced with great specs, but until then, prepare to pay a huge chunk more for a bit less power, just so you can brag about having the thinnest computer on the block.

[Gizmodo's Macworld 2008 Full Coverage]

Sony DS6000
Price: $300 retail, $230 street
Impressions: You'll notice the solid build quality immediately. Featuring soft cups that fit around your ears, the headphones turn on automatically when placed on your head. Testing out Superman Returns, we were impressed by bright trumpets and deep, powerful planets whizzing by our head during the opening credits alone. When Superman returns to the Kent farm, we felt and then heard the subtle roar of an asteroid approaching from behind our ears—while dishes clanked in the foreground and water gurgled in the middle of our ears. We were able to appreciate the crisp, distinct sound design in a way we never had before.

Acoustic Research AWD510
Price: $250 retail, $200 street
Impressions: We were disappointed that while the earcups appear oversized, they didn't wrap around our ears all the way. So even when the sound localization—our made-up term for how far or close the sounds felt from our ears—may have actually been slightly superior to the Sony model, we wondered why Acoustic Research didn't seal the deal and disconnect us completely from our wives/kids/lives by covering 100% of the ear. On the sound front, the AWD510 had a tinniness that was a real turn-off. It might have been a product of compression: on the other end, the headphones never once roared, and often left us craving more.

Sennheiser RS 130
Price: $170 retail, $110 street
Impressions: See the two headphones above these? They have two things in common. 1. True surround sound capabilities. 2. They run on 2.4ghz radio signals. These Sennheisers are a cheaper alternative, instead supporting SRS (fake 3D sound with only two speakers) and IR (infrared) data streaming. So how big are these compromises?

Actually, the SRS works pretty well. You won't get those a-ha! moments like, say, when Superman flies by the screen and you'd swear his cape is in your face, but there's a lot to say about really good stereo-esque sound attached to your head. It's the IR that's a deal breaker. From the second we put the headphones on our ears, we heard a hiss that never left and occasionally got worse. And it's a shame, because otherwise the headphones sound pretty good, though mid- to low-range speech left a bit to be desired.

Pioneer SE-DHP800
Price:$475 retail, $275 street
Impressions: (We didn't like our picture). There's no doubt, this pair of Pioneer headphones emphasizes clarity. The moment that stuck out most for us was during the space credits, a shattered meteor whizzed by our heads and we could distinguish more pieces, eyes closed, than on any other model. If the Acoustic Research model features good localization, the Pioneers sound even better. The catch? They cheat you out of the low ranges almost completely. And the effect is like eating reduced fat cheese: it seems alright in the first bite, but you're missing a whole dimension of fulfillment. Ultimately, they feel like a headphone experience.

Oh, and these bad boys are infrared as well, but we didn't encounter problems like we did with the Sennheisers (we could only make the sound fail by placing our hands in front of both our ears). As we've found with previous experience, avoid cheap IR headphones...they will probably just disappoint you.

VERDICT: We favor the Sony DS6000, especially since they're cheaper than Pioneer's offerings. From their easy dock charging to their very solid (and best-rounded) listening experience, we wouldn't mind turning off the speakers if it meant we were turning these on.* The Pioneers come in a close second, but felt like surround sound without a subwoofer: technically impressive, but at the end of the day, coming up a bit short on our id factor.

*But buyer beware, the Sony system's powerful radio transmission has occasionally interfered with both our Wi-Fi connection and, surprisingly enough, the clarity of our wireless Xbox LIVE headsets. We still recommend the product, but it's something to keep in mind if you have a small space and heavy Wi-Fi dependence. The Pioneer model should cause no such interferences.

Also of note, Panasonic has an interesting competitive model we were not able to acquire at the time of this testing.

1. Maxell Digital Earbuds 191208

Better fit, deep in the ear. Volume control on wire. But soft sound levels, and a slight static. Music was in the other room, not my ears.
Price: $15.95
Verdict: Staticky, NOT BETTER

2. Genius HP-02 Live

Once again, deep ear fit. These bad boys are exploring places of my body I didn't know I had. Sound doesn't have a bad balance, but once again, nothing spectacular here.
Price: $9.99
Verdict: Frisky but NOT BETTER

3. Philips SHE2650

Design is very similar to iPod headphones, as is the sound. But these are just a hair less sparkling than Apple's headphones with even less impressive lows.
Price: $7.99
Verdict: Has a case, NOT BETTER

4. Jlabs JBuds Hi-Fi

These had the strongest bass of any model we tested. And they gave Bolero, our test song, more of a stage feel. But fidelity was lacking. So while the headphones sound "big" they don't always sound so clear.
Price: $19.19
Verdict: NOT BETTER

5. Coby Super Bass CV-E92

The balance reminded me of the jLab model we tested, possibly with even better clarity in some ranges. There is certainly more bass in these headphones than Apple's offerings, but while it makes us crave more lows in the iPod stock earbuds, Coby doesn't touch the present highs to mids of Apple. They're a pretty sweet deal for $5 though.
Price: $4.88
Verdict: A bargain, but NOT BETTER

6. Koss BDZ1 Two-Pack Earbud Headphones with Case

Unresponsive. Very quiet at a given volume level compared to the ipod earbuds. But for this price, you get TWO sets of earbuds and a case.
Price: $8.01
Verdict: (NOT BETTER X 2) + Case

7. Philips SHS3201/37 Flexible Earhook w/ Bud -White

I'd expected these fancy white headphones to sound better, given Philips' reputation and the solid placement coming from the earhooks, but they were loud, but less clear than the iPod's.
Price: $8.38
Verdict: White, impossible to Shake Off, but NOT BETTER

Also of note, the iPod earbuds fit the Nano a lot better than competitors. We think this is mostly because the earbud jack isn't bent on Apple's model, unlike all the other models which bend at a 90-degree angle before the wire. A non-bending plug translates to less cord rotation and subsequent static/pops.

As for fitting the ears, most models on the market now offer multiple sized earplug adapters. If Apple's earbuds aren't fitting you correctly, then don't think twice about finding something more comfortable or just using the black foam inserts. You'll never get optimal sound out of any headphone that doesn't fit you properly, anyway.

At the end of the day, Apple might not give us the best headphones around with our iPods, but they're not highway robbery either. Given that they were better than quite a few $20 and under models, we're thinking that $30 isn't the most ludicrous price in the world, and "free with iPod" is looking pretty freaking decent.

First, we'll briefly describe the monster machine we used for testing. We'll give you the full scoop with pics of this machine tomorrow, but for now, salivate over these specs for a while: It's a dual quad-core Penryn HP xw8600 PC with workstation-class NVidia Quadro FX 4600 graphics, all eight processor cores running at 3.16GHz, a 15,000rpm SAS hard drive and 4GB of RAM. For our testing we had an identical 15,000rpm disk at the ready, that one with Windows XP loaded, which we swapped out and plugged into the same SATA port to compare the two OSes. Anyway, I guess you could say this well-equipped workstation will qualify to run Windows Vista. It's probably the fastest production PC you can get your hands on, and we'll show you pics, compare it to its predecessors with more benchmarks, and describe its superb goodness tomorrow.

Did Vista have speed trouble? Well, yes and no. When we ran the industry-standard PCMark05 benchmark on both Windows XP (SP2, we hear SP3 will be faster) and Vista, Vista came out ahead by a sizable margin on exactly the same machine, scoring a 10,403, compared to XP's score of 9024, a 15.28% speed increase for Windows Vista. That's a noticeable difference. How did Vista feel, speed-wise? We immediately realized we were dealing with increased speed over XP, over a long weekend of mousing around the PC, running Photoshop and Adobe Premiere, running benchmarks and browsing websites.

The only downside we noticed with Windows Vista was when we tried to transfer a large folder full of files over our 100Base-T network. While XP was able to transfer the 1.37GB folder containing 2606 items in a quick 3:37 (minutes/seconds), the Vista transfer seemed to hesitate at the end, taking a leisurely 12:58 to perform exactly the same copy from one PC to another over our network.

Then when we compared the current shipping version of Vista with its upcoming service pack, there wasn't much difference, with the Service Pack speeding things up by 0.865% in the PCMark tests. The only part of it that's bugging us is the network file transfer speed got even slower in the SP1 release candidate. Also continuing that bothersome disk speed problem is the way Vista couldn't read and write on that speedy 15,000rpm SAS drive anywhere near as fast as XP did.

Read 'em and weep here:

From these tests, what advice would we give Microsoft? Figure out what's slowing down those network file transfers and disk speeds. Other than those two anomalies, with both the shipping version and SP1 RC1 of Vista, you'll see faster speeds. However, that might be like saying, "Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" [Get Service Pack 1, RC1 from Microsoft Here]

What's For Sale
Much to the joy of the record labels, Wal-Mart and Amazon.com both offer staggered pricing on their wares (as opposed to iTunes which generally supports flat rates for its songs and albums). On Wal-Mart's site, there's a menu on the upper left that lets you sort through albums that cost $7.88, $5.88 or $3.88, and there's also a selection of $2.24 "hit packs." What doesn't make sense is that elsewhere on the page, albums are offered for $5.64 and $4.70, and if you dig around on the site you'll find even more arbitrary pricing. Albums generally top out at $9.44 from what I saw, while single tracks cost 94 or 88 cents.
Amazon's albums also range in price. Just looking at the selection of Nirvana albums shows that you can pay only $5.99 for In Utero, but the price jumps to $7.99 for Nevermind and $9.97 for Bleach. The single tracks aren't uniformly priced here, either, with some tracks costing 99 cents and some 89 cents, even on the same album. Like Wal-Mart, you can browse by price here, but it sticks to dollar ranges ($5 to $5.99, $6 to $6.99, etc.) so it makes more sense than Wal-Mart's arbitrary menu.
Comparison Shopping
How do the prices compare between the sites? Well, from my unscientific sampling, Amazon seems to be the cheaper choice. All of Nirvana's albums, for example, are $9.22 on Wal-Mart, and that's for the censored versions. The listings for the uncensored versions all say "Not available for download. Buy this on CD from Walmart.com." No, no I won't.

Other price discrepancies include Air's Pocket Symphony ($8.99 on Amazon, $9.22 on Wal-Mart), Broken Social Scene's self-titled album ($7.99 on amazon, $9.44 on Wal-Mart), and A Love Supreme by John Coltrane ($8.97 on Amazon, $9.22 on Wal-Mart). More often than not, the prices are better on Amazon.

And a lot of albums that are on Amazon aren't available at all on Wal-Mart. Boxer by The National? Nope, no albums from The National at all on Wal-Mart, nor of Smog. In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel, Sound of Silver by LCD Soundsystem and Horn of Plenty by Grizzly Bear are all available on Amazon and missing from Wal-Mart as well.

You've also got to be careful, because some albums available on Amazon in MP3 are only available on Wal-Mart's site in locked-down 128kbps WMA. Wal-Mart does have the decency to state whether or not a track "Plays on iPod," though, so you're cool if you pay attention. See the Band of Horses' Cease to Begin example here: Praising Amazon over Wal-Mart isn't the same as saying Amazon's selection is amazing. A lot of times they don't have the complete catalog of an artist (Grizzly Bear's newer Yellow House isn't available on either, for example). And obviously you won't find anything from Sony or Warner on there.

But by and large, the selection on Amazon, especially of independent label artists, is clearly superior to Wal-Mart's. And not having to deal with WMA results mixed in with your MP3 searches is much better.

What About Design?
Both stores borrow liberally from iTunes' layout. There are genres on the right, top songs on the left, and featured stuff in the middle. Both have search results that feature tracks in a lower pane and menus above. Both allow you to click on any of the columns to go right to that artist or album as well. The Amazon version feels a bit more elegant to me, but it really is a personal preference: in terms of functionality, neither one really beats the other.
For downloading, Amazon requires both Windows and Mac users to first install a small program called, conveniently enough, the Amazon MP3 Downloader. Once you install it, when you select the song or album you want to download, and the rest happens automatically. By default, the MP3 Downloader sticks it in your music folder and then imports it to iTunes for you, which is convenient. However, for someone like me, who keeps his entire music collection on a different hard drive in meticulously organized folders, it's a little annoying to not be able to choose where each file goes rather than just selecting one default place. For people who just dump everything in their iTunes music folder, however, it's cake.
Wal-Mart also has a program for downloading songs that requires a scary ActiveX script to install—and yes, unlike Amazon's, this thing is only available to Windows XP and Vista PC users. No Macs allowed. The Download Manager is harder to install too, with IE fighting you every step of the way to get it running.

It works a lot like Amazon's program, hiding in your task bar and waiting to be loaded up with songs by the site, but there are fewer preferences. I couldn't even find an option letting me pick a download destination. It only gives you an option to add it to your Windows Media Library, which is useless to me, but later I discovered a "Wal-Mart Purchased Media" playlist in iTunes. When it finishes, it gives you the option to play the song, which if you do opens the song in Windows Media Player regardless of what your default MP3 player is. Worst of all, I had to search for the location of the downloaded file itself. It ended up in My Documents/My Music/Downloads/Artist/Album, again, totally pointless for my purposes. Not having the ability to select a destination folder is bad design; not telling people where to find their freshly paid-for music is idiotic.

And the Winner Is...
The fact that Wal-Mart forced me to use Internet Explorer (and only works on Windows) is enough for me to never use it (Seriously, Wal-Mart? Seriously?). Beyond that, the prices, selection and downloader were all better at Amazon. It'll be familiar to anyone who's used to iTunes and easy for people who've never bought music online before, which should help them out greatly with their upcoming billion-song giveaway. In the end, which do I suggest? Amazon, to be sure.

What about iTunes?
The real question is whether or not I'd willingly switch to either store from iTunes, if format wasn't an issue. The answer, from a strict functionality standpoint, is "no." The fact that iTunes is a standalone program that also plays all your music makes it a far more elegant solution than either Wal-Mart or Amazon. There's no extra program to download, there's no worrying about where the songs go, and there's no dealing with browsers.

However, the pricing in Amazon's (and Wal-Mart's to a lesser degree) store is very competitive, oftentimes significantly cheaper than iTunes. Combine that with the fact that you get MP3 files that'll play on more devices than Apple's AAC, and you've got a serious contender in Amazon's store, especially for the cheap and anal . It just depends if you're willing to leave iTunes to go to the store. [Amazon.com; Wal-Mart]

For seven days now, I have comfortably read in many lighting conditions with the Kindle and can safely say it has not been a strain of any kind. I'm a guy who stares at a laptop screen for hours on end, and that can suck. Reading E-Ink from either the Kindle or the Sony Reader is a vacation by comparison. My wife has also stolen it from me every chance she's had, and especially likes reading the New York Times on an airplane, something she says she wouldn't normally do because it's just too much paper. No complaints about readability, guys. I wish you doubters could experience it.

Side by side, fonts appear smoother on the Kindle than on the Reader, and the Kindle has a choice of six font sizes, as opposed to Reader's choice of three. Both let you bump font sizes up or down on the fly, a major convenience. The Reader has active screens—showing animated status indicators and so on—while Kindle screens are always static. If anything on the Kindle page changes, the whole screen does a full refresh.

The Sony has a dedicated music player and JPEG viewer; Amazon hasn't quite nailed that yet. However, the Kindle does have one thing the Reader doesn't have in this department: a speaker. It's not bad either, if you're mostly hoping to hear audiobooks and background music.Even though you can drag and drop files to the Reader, you can only do that with unprotected stuff like PDFs, MP3s and JPEGs. Kindle's drag-and-drop potential is even less, since you can only drag a certain subset of compatible files over to it.

USB disk folder appearance of Sony Reader:USB disk folder appearance of Amazon Kindle: