Having spent a lot of time comparing the low end models from Panasonic and Philips it seems to me they are targeting different markets. I have disregarded the Philips 880 as I think it is effectively superceded by the similarly priced 890. Therefore the comparison between the 2 brands is E30 vs 890. The E30 is an excellent VCR replacment for people who want to timeshift their TV, however it is not so good for people like me who want to archive their DV home video as it does not have a i.link input. The 890 lacks the timeshifting feature but does have i.link. Copies via S-video input might be good enough when viewed on today's small screens, but may not be so good in the future when I expect to have a much larger screen. I have a Tivo so timeshifting capability is not of such great interest to me, and therefore am reluctant to pay for a feature (great though it is) that I do not need. This is why I am now more inclined to the Philips 890 as it is both within my budget (£500) and supports i.link. To get this feature on a Panasonic I would have to pay £800 (vs £450 for the 890) to get the HS2. That would be the perfect combination for me, but is too expensive and will probably remain so for a year or more. This all begs the question, why are people buying DVDR's, especially those at the lower end? If its for DV home videos then Philips may win the format "war". If its for TV timeshifting then Panasonic will have the edge, but if timeshifting is the main reason there are better ways of achieving this, ie Tivo. Just thinking aloud, but I would be interested in any other views.