REPORTING IN 9 MONTHS LATER.
I took this camera with me to London. It was easy to use and produced good pictures.: http://pi3832.imgur.com/london_trip
The only difficulty was its appetite for batteries, which I think was discussed somewhere earlier in the comments. Of course, this was partly the consequence of my new theory of digital photography: take LOTS of pictures.
I ended up taking about 300 pictures each day, and that would kill a pair of batteries about every day. Which is really not that bad. Of course, I wasn't using the flash, ever. (I wasn't taking posed pics. I was just snapping away at all times--how else could I take 300 photos?) Taking pictures in rapid sequence seems to be particularly bad for the batteries (rapid power draw).
I didn't try to take any videos, so I can't comment on that. I have a 4 GB card in the thing, and that would hold 1500 pictures, so it's probably way too big for not taking videos. A 1 GB would be plenty for pictures alone.
Transferring 300 pictures over a USB cable takes a painfully long time. (I'm pretty sure the computer I was transferring to had a USB 2.0 port. If it was a USB 1.0, that was the problem, not the camera.) For that kind of volume, you need some kind of card reader on your computer. Or a lot of patience.
My mother had some other version of Kodak camera, and it was a PITA to use, oddly enough. I forget the model, but it was something with a rechargeable battery.
So, I own two Kodak EasyShare cameras (this camera and an ancient 3.1 MP model) that run on AAA batteries. They are both solid. Easy to use, durable, with more than good enough quality for any casual user. I recommend them.