When I'm helping friends and family with deciding on a technology-related purchase I help them the most by helping them redefine "bare minimum". You can, if you choose, build a working computer for less than £200 out of budget OEM parts. You will, of course, end up with faulty components all of the show over the life of the computer and this is naturally a false economy and does nothing more than compound the users view that technology is, and should remain, alien to them. Thus, my approach - whether it's PCs, laptops, cameras, phones or whatever - is to look at the bare-minimum they can get away with for their typically limited budget that *doesn't* compromise on quality. I think we're often spoiled by technology and how cheap much of it has become...and that's led to some shockingly bad products at the lower end of the market. I bought a top-of-the-line Garmin sat-nav about 5 years ago that set me back almost 500 quid and I'm still using it to this day (albeit with updated maps) and it really is superb. My super-sceptical boss who hates sat-navs and thinks maps are the future eventually bought a bottom of the range Tom Tom (*spits*) for his wife who absolutely hates it because it's almost completely useless. They wasted 90 quid on a turd of a product when they could have spent just a bit more, say, £150, and had something a bit more respectable that they'd still be using. It's a bit like shopping for alcohol....you always want the best one, you can only really afford the "average" one, and you'd never ever ever buy the supermarkets' own brand. Bottom-rung products simply shouldn't be made...people would be far happier with their purchases all round.