This week I tested SeeToo, a free service that lets you share videos in the same time that it takes to open and watch them on your own computer. Even better, you get to watch the video along with the people with whom you’re sharing it and type comments to each other in real time.

SeeToo works when one user selects a video to share with other people, who get an emailed hyperlink to SeeToo’s Web site, seetoo.com. After opening the link, these people join a SeeToo session during which everyone can watch the same video at the same time.

With SeeToo, you and your “buddy” can watch and chat about a video at the same time.

While the video is playing for the group, each viewer can pause, rewind and fast-forward the video. A space below the playback screen allows friends to send instant messages to one another during the session. There aren’t any limits to the size or type of video file that is shared, and other types of media — including music and photos — can also be shared on SeeToo without size restrictions.

SeeToo sounds too good to be true, and in many of my tests, it was. The service became available to the public in January in its beta, or test, stage. But I’ve used many other products in beta that were in better shape than SeeToo. And there is one major catch: Once a video-sharing session is over, the participants, other than the person sharing, can no longer access the video.

People who are invited to watch videos on the service can do so using any popular Web browser (Internet Explorer, Firefox or Safari) on Windows (MSFT) computers and Macs (AAPL). But the person actually supplying the video and initiating the sharing session can use only a Windows PC. The initiator also must download a browser plug-in, which seems old-fashioned in the world of Web-based applications. And sharing sessions time out after 15 minutes of inactivity on the initiator’s side, after which point the email link doesn’t work.

I was able to successfully initiate a SeeToo session using Firefox and Internet Explorer on an older Windows XP computer but had trouble with two computers running Windows Vista: Neither worked with SeeToo using Internet Explorer and only one worked using Firefox. SeeToo says this is due in part to Microsoft’s new Service Pack 1 for Vista, and the company claims it will have this problem fixed by today. I also had trouble with the sound.

The concept behind SeeToo is also somewhat limiting. Some people may not be able to watch a video exactly when someone else wants to watch it. Some might rather watch videos alone than with others. And typing out back-and-forth chats while videos are playing could be somewhat of a distraction from watching the video.

I tested SeeToo by sharing video with family and friends and watching video they shared. My sister and I got a kick out of watching video footage from a wedding I attended in October. I shot the video using an inexpensive, low-resolution Flip Video camera and the footage looked pretty good. But SeeToo’s site shares video on a rather small screen, and we both wished it were larger.

We sent instant messages to one another in a small space below the screen, making comments about the guests’ dance moves and the DJ’s choice of music. I used on-screen tools to pause the video when the camera passed by a friend whom I wanted my sister to see. To take a second look, she selected her screen’s Take Control button and rewound the footage to see my friend.

For the first two seconds of a video, users can see a small image in the top right corner of their screen that displays what the other people are seeing. SeeToo explained that this is a way of confirming one person is indeed seeing the same screen as another person.

I originally invited three people to watch the video with me. One friend I invited was at work, where his computer restricts him from watching videos. When he got home that night, the email hyperlink didn’t work — nor did it explain that the session had expired. Instead, it crashed his Firefox browser. I also invited my boss to watch the video with me, but he only saw my invitation two hours later when the session was over.

I didn’t even try to invite my parents to see the video because neither of them sit in front of a computer all day long and they wouldn’t have received my invitation in time to see the video.

In some ways, it was probably better that the other people I invited to watch the video weren’t able to see it, because the instant-message chat screen currently labels everyone as “buddy,” without distinguishing one person from another. SeeToo hopes to change this in future versions of the service by offering users a chance to register, thus receiving a specific nickname for chatting purposes. As of now, no one who uses SeeToo needs to enter any personal information such as a name or email address, which is a plus. SeeToo is also ad-free as of now, but the company plans to monetize parts of the service sometime this summer.

I also shared music and photos with friends using SeeToo, but this feature isn’t obvious; the site is primarily focused on sharing videos. Music playlists can’t currently be shared with friends, nor can photo slideshows be shared. Instead, individual songs or photos must be selected and shared within a session, one at a time.

SeeToo has high hopes of adding many features in the future, probably by June. Those features include a full-size, higher-resolution viewing screen for sharing and watching videos; a fully Web-based, download-free version of SeeToo; photo slideshows; using names to distinguish viewers; and sharing sessions that don’t time out. In addition, it hopes to let Mac users initiate sharing sessions. The site aims to be out of its testing stage by September.

Right now, SeeToo can come in handy if you know someone else is at a computer and ready to watch a video. The invited guest never downloads anything and neither party needs to register to use SeeToo. But its screen is a bit on the small side, and the service needs to become more versatile before it can be seen as a reliable sharing site.

• Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com

Most users know how to upload photos, but don’t want to hassle with USB cords and slow upload speeds when transferring images onto a computer or photo-sharing site. Camera docks and memory-card readers built into PCs have attempted to alleviate these transferring problems, but these so-called shortcuts still require a certain amount of dedication to the process.

In the past couple of years, a handful of companies have gone a step farther by introducing Wi-Fi enabled digital cameras, notably Nikon Inc. and Eastman Kodak Co. But this capability works only in certain cameras and even then requires users to walk through a number of steps to send the photos through a service created by the company instead of sending them to a computer or Web site.

Little Effort Needed

This week, I tested a refreshingly simple gadget that solves this problem and does what most technology products don’t: It works in existing devices and requires next to no effort. The $100 Eye-Fi Card by Eye-Fi Inc. (www.eye.fi) is a two-gigabyte SecureDigital memory card with a built-in wireless chip. It slips into any camera with an SD-card slot, and whenever the camera is turned on, looks for a familiar Wi-Fi network and uploads your photos to your Mac or PC and one of 17 photo-sharing sites. After a quick, one-time setup, the user does nothing more than turning on the digital camera.

I thought this thing was too good to be true and set out to find its flaws. But after using it with two digital cameras (one brand new and the other over three years old), three different computers (each with different operating systems) and five photo-sharing sites, I’m convinced that the Eye-Fi is a terrific little tool. It works quickly and is a no-brainer to get going. The only people who won’t like it are those who enjoy razzing their lazy friends for forgetting to share digital photos.

Minor Inconveniences

The Eye-Fi’s flaws are minor enough to dismiss. For one thing, it doesn’t work on Wi-Fi networks that use log-in pages like those in Starbucks; instead, it’s meant to work on home networks or other “open” networks. Secondly, there’s no way to know when Eye-Fi finishes transferring photos unless you check your computer. Finally, your digital camera must stay on for the duration of the wireless transfer, which slightly taxes battery power, and slower networks and/or transferring numerous higher-resolution photos will require a bit more juice. Likewise, Eye-Fi looks for Wi-Fi networks whenever the camera is on, though the company says this only uses a minimal amount of the camera’s battery power.

The Eye-Fi Card comes in a small, colorful box that reminded me of a pop-up book: Pull one side and a quick-start guide appears on the right while the left swings out a piece holding the Eye-Fi card reader and SD card. This reader is only needed for the initial setup on each computer, which only took a few minutes per system.

I tried my Eye-Fi first on a Windows XP machine, plugging the card reader and card into a USB port. The software setup walks users through clear, quick steps like testing the computer’s firewall to be sure it can work through it and asking which folder should be designated to receive wirelessly transferred images. Here, I also typed in my account information for sharing images on Kodak Gallery; later I added Shutterfly, Snapfish, Picasa and Flickr. Other online destinations included blogs like Vox and TypePad, along with social-networking giant Facebook. The last step instructed me to insert the Eye-Fi SD card into my camera to snap the first test photo of myself, making sure it was working properly.

Managing Your Photos

Transferred photos are all reflected in the Eye-Fi Manager, a Web-based, password-protected site that tells which images were uploaded to photo-sharing sites and the computer. Users can opt to only upload from the Eye-Fi to one or the other or both, but only one photo-sharing site and one Mac or PC can be selected at a time. Account information for any of the 17 sharing sites can be saved within Eye-Fi, making it a cinch to switch where you want to send photos.

Around the office, within my registered Wi-Fi network, I took photos that showed up seconds later on my computer screen. At home, I entered my password-protected network’s information one time and watched as captured photos transferred wirelessly from my camera to either my Mac or Windows Vista laptop.

Quick Transfers

On average, it took about 40 seconds to upload each image to a Web site and about 40 seconds more after that for a photo to transfer onto my hard drive. I got home from a friend’s cocktail party and set my camera on a table with its power on. Ten minutes later, I turned on my computer to check the transfer and 12 photos from the party were uploaded to my Kodak Gallery account and my iMac’s hard drive.

Images upload in JPEG formats using their original, full resolutions. Some sharing sites change the formats for photos, but this varies between sites and isn’t related to Eye-Fi.

Eye-Fi won’t do absolutely everything for you, so for certain photo-sharing sites, you’ll still need to log on to send out emails for sharing albums with friends. But double clicking on any of the images in the Eye-Fi Manager takes you directly to wherever that image lives — whether on Picasa, Flickr, or your own hard drive.

I swapped the Eye-Fi SD card from one camera, an older Konica-Minolta Dimage X50 that still works well, to a new Kodak EasyShare V1253, which ironically has built-in photo emailing capability that isn’t nearly as easy to use as Eye-Fi. The Eye-Fi didn’t miss a beat and operated the same way in both cameras.

The Eye-Fi Card is as simple as it sounds and works with most cameras that use SD cards (for a complete list of compatible cameras, see http://support.eye.fi/compatibility/). If someone you know is constantly taking pictures that are never seen again by anyone else and they use a Wi-Fi network, Eye-Fi will serve as a carefree solution that takes the aggravation out of transferring photos to share with others.

Edited By Walter S. Mossberg

• Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com

Tubes installs a program on the desktop (right) into which files can be dragged and shared using automatic synchronization.

This week, I tested another product in the long line of programs that uses automatic synchronization to simplify the process of sharing large files by giving you the ability to change files and privacy options at any time. It’s called Tubes (www.tubesnow.com) from Tubes Networks and it takes its name from the pneumatic vacuum-tube system commonly used in bank drive-throughs that motivated me to join my Mom on visits to the bank as a kid. Mom would pull up and a container would whoosh over through a tube to arrive beside the car window; after a quick exchange it returned with her deposit slip and a lollipop for me.

Tubes aims to work with the same sort of magic. Once installed, its desktop application stays opened on your computer as a place where “tubes” are made for sending files. Any type of file can be dragged, dropped and sent off to share with other people using these virtual tubes. As soon as you release data into a tube, a whoosh sounds (like that of the vacuum tube) and your files are encrypted and uploaded to the Tubes server.

Invited guests view your tube’s data in its full, uncompressed format. The owner of the tube always has the final say on what is shared with whom, and changes made to tubes on your hard drive are detected instantly via automatic synchronization, guaranteeing viewers will always see the latest version of the tube. Shared tubes are also accessible via the Web, saving viewers from downloading the Tubes desktop program.

Other products like Sharpcast (www.sharpcast.com) and Pando (www.pando.com) also offer ways to share large digital files; Sharpcast uses synchronization similar to that of Tubes — it all happens behind the scenes without any work on the user’s part.

Tubes is available in a free version that provides a gigabyte of storage, or in paid versions with five, 10 and 20 gigabytes of storage for $6, $11 or $21, respectively.

Most of the time, Tubes worked well for me when I installed it on two Windows machines, one running XP and one running Vista. Tubes’ smart use of an already familiar process — dragging and dropping — gives you the impression that you already know how to use it and makes sharing files seem easy. I started dragging all sorts of files into tubes that I created, naming them and labeling them with a representative icon (one of 10 offered by Tubes or one of my own images).

For all its usefulness, Tubes certainly has room for improvement. For now, there isn’t a Mac version of the program, and when friends and I tried accessing shared tubes using a Mac Web browser, the results were inconsistent and sometimes didn’t work at all. Windows Vista had its own issues. After installing Tubes on my Vista laptop, an error message labeled “invalid argument” made me feel like a member of the debate team. And I couldn’t see thumbnail images of photos in my tubes using Vista, though I could on Windows XP.

Today, Tubes is releasing an updated version of its program that aims to improve the usability and look of the product, including refining the processes of sharing tubes and looking at tubes via the Web.

Before sharing tubes, I adjusted the permissions granted to each guest by labeling them as a Reader, Author or Editor; only the Owner can invite others to view a tube. But these labels can get confusing. More than once, I granted guests the highest level of permission, which is Editor, allowing them to make changes to the files in my tube, only for the guest to be asked for his registered Tubes email and password, which an invited guest shouldn’t need.

The Tubes experience was best when the recipient of my Tubes invitations had the application installed on his or her desktop.

After installing Tubes on a computer at work, I installed it on my home PC and easily auto-synched tubes that I created at work onto my home PC — a big plus.

Tubes incorporates the Web by assigning a unique URL to every file in every tube, and every tube automatically generates its own Web site, or “tubeSite,” as it’s called. Individual URLs for each file can be found by right clicking on a file and selecting an option to copy the URL into an email or browser. I copied the URL of a shared MP3 audio file and pasted it into my browser; it played a Fountains of Wayne song with no problem. But sharing these URLs with others is only possible if the owner gives permission.

Comments about tubes can be made in the “tubeBlog” — accessible through any tube in the application or online. I created a tubeBlog for a tube with photos from one of my vacations, adding descriptions and comments to specific photos. Others, with my permission, could do the same, using the photos from the tube or just leaving comments.

A friend used Tubes to share photos with me while vacationing in Italy and Amsterdam. I added my own travel photos and an itinerary made in Microsoft Word to his tube and changed the tube’s title; these alterations synched instantly.

Even if you aren’t online, you can access tubes or make changes to them by dragging files in or taking them out; updates are made automatically the next time your computer connects to the Web.

Tubes is off to a good start, but it needs to improve its system to make permission levels more understandable for tube owners and those invited to see a shared tube. With a few improvements, Tubes could be a product that I’ll continue using on Windows computers long after this column.

Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com

Write to Katherine Boehret at katie.boehret@wsj.com

A query on hotels in Italy might lead you to select a link about Florence, then two links about Michelangelo and four links to Italian Renaissance art. Suddenly, the home page for a carefully researched hotel is forgotten. It’s especially tough to backtrack through research using new sites with rich Web 2.0 features that display extra data directly within a Web page.

Some people try to organize Web research by opening Microsoft Word documents alongside their browsers. They copy and paste data from sites into the documents, but this is usually a messy process that traps users into wasting time fixing formats and deleting ads. Others press Print whenever a helpful site appears, resulting in wasted paper and ink. Savvier users create folders within their Web browsers that hold multiple URLs about a research topic, but these data can’t easily be shared or printed for use away from the PC.

The HP Smart Web Printing Software gathers Web content into one document that can be printed.

There’s a better way, and this week I took it for a spin. I tested the HP Smart Web Printing Software, a free program from Hewlett-Packard Co. that aims to help users compile a virtual clip book of content from Web sites while they’re browsing, within the same window. Using a tool in the browser, users highlight and copy images and text from a Web page and add them to the clip book. These clips can be edited, enhanced, saved as a PDF or printed out, without excess banner ads or sidebars.

I tried a version of this program that will be available for download at the end of next month from www.hp.com/go/smartwebprinting. It improves on the first version of the program (available now using the same URL) in various ways, including allowing you to add your own text to the clip book and crop clip-book items.

HP Smart Web Printing Software isn’t without its quirks: It only works on Windows computers, not Macs, and only with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 6.0 and 7.0. Not everything copies over to the clip book perfectly. Also, typed-in text has its limits: changing the font type, size or color of one word changes all words in the text box.

But all in all, I found this smart program to be a real boon. It’s unobtrusive enough to stay hidden until used, and you’ll remember how it works even if you only use the program once in a while. It functions as a printing assistant, helping to send certain sections of a Web site to the printer, and it will also save whatever you’re working on as a PDF — the universal format for sharing with others.

H-P likes to tout its HP Smart Web Printing Software’s environmentally friendly qualities, namely its ability to print just what you want, without wasting ink or paper on extra pages that would otherwise print. But make no mistake about it: This product, while helping users not to print extra items from Web sites, still encourages users to print, thus helping H-P sell more of its high-margin ink and paper.

I used the program to trim content from Web sites, printing more of what I wanted to read in fewer pages. I focused on this program’s clip-book functionality, which works as a bare-bones virtual scrapbook to organize research.

I downloaded and used the newest version of this free program on computers running Windows Vista and XP operating systems. I came across a few items that, when highlighted and moved over to the clip book, didn’t actually move, but most of the text and image clips moved without a problem. H-P explained that some images are rendered on Web sites in such a way so as to not be copied for copyright and protection purposes.

A small HP Smart Select icon appears in the Internet Explorer command bar after this program is downloaded; selecting it toggles its highlighting capability on or off. By default, the clip book is hidden from view, but a quick change in settings opens this on the right edge of the Internet Explorer window.

The HP Smart Web Printing program proved useful for online-shopping research. I’ve been gathering a lot of information from various Web sites to find a special new handbag for work, including which bag is sold where, how much it costs and what it looks like.

When I saw a bag that interested me, I selected it by holding the left mouse button down and moving my cursor over the text or image. Releasing the left mouse button automatically opens a tiny drop-down menu with two simple options: clip (place in the clip book) or print (send directly to the printer). Items that I clipped were moved into the right panel clip book in order of most recently added items at the top.

A helpful checkbox appeared beside each item in the clip book; items without checkmarked boxes weren’t visible when I edited clips. Within the editing screen, I dragged and dropped images around the page, organizing bags in ascending price order. I resized photos to make them smaller or larger and cropped a couple shots such as an image of a black leather bag with an unrelated text description below it.

I filled the equivalent of two clip-book pages with images of bags and brief descriptions of each, copied directly from store sites. I added my own text boxes in to write my impressions. As I worked, opening the edit screen and closing it to return to the browser, I clicked on a simple Save button so my work wouldn’t be lost each time I closed this screen. When finished, I selected one button to save the document as a PDF, which I could email to friends for their feedback on which bag they liked best.

In another test, I assembled a clip book filled with various news blurbs about presidential campaigns from online sites including WSJ.com and CNN.com before printing a single page that included bits and pieces from each in a neat format without ads on the page.

I also tried organizing a few maps in the clip book; these copied from Google Maps and Yahoo Maps without a problem, and in one instance I cropped a map to include just the section of Manhattan where The Wall Street Journal is located.

The more I used this program, the more I wished it offered the ability to work with two clip books at once. For instance, if I was planning a trip and was researching hotels and tourist attractions at the same time, I could clip the hotel data into one book and store the touristy information in the other.

H-P says it will release a version of this program for Mozilla’s Firefox browser sometime in the next six months, and it also hopes to introduce a version that is compatible with Apple’s Safari browser within a year.

The HP Smart Web Printing program is a useful free solution that organizes online research right in your browser. Its ability to modify and preview documents before printing is also a help.

Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com

Today, parents can use sleek, light video cameras that capture and record high-definition footage directly onto tiny memory cards, which hold much more than an old VHS tape. Yet many people hesitate to buy new camcorders, scared off by steep prices and intimidating technology.

This week, I tested a simple video camera that fits into the palm of your hand and lets you record footage almost as easily as you share or save it: the Flip Video Ultra from Pure Digital Technologies Inc. (www.theflip.com). This rectangular-shaped video camera comes in two models that capture 30 or 60 minutes each and cost $150 and $180, respectively. Both models are available starting today from stores like Amazon.com and Best Buy.

The Flip Video Ultra’s front has a camera lens and microphone; the back, a 1.5-inch viewing screen, four directional arrows, delete and play buttons. A USB plug pops out from its side so you can connect it directly to a computer’s USB port without cables.

Special software that opens when the camera attaches to a computer walks users through sharing or saving clips in a few straightforward steps. And if that’s still too complicated, the device can be dropped off at affiliated stores (like CVS) where footage is extracted and turned into a DVD.

This tiny video camera made it a pleasure to record startlingly good footage for a camera of its size both indoors and outside. It’s designed to be held comfortably in front of you, which didn’t make me feel removed from the event I was recording like many other video cameras. Not without flaws, the Flip’s 2x digital zoom isn’t ideal for shooting from afar, and on more than one occasion its software froze up on Windows PCs and Apple Macs. But once I got going, I started shooting videos in a new way, unobtrusively using it and then fitting the Flip into small purses. Saving and emailing footage was a breeze after a few initial hiccups.

Flip Video Ultra from Pure Digital Technologies

This gadget, however, is not only non-HD, its footage isn’t as high resolution as that of a standard camcorder. Its quality is great for email and Web posting, but won’t fill up a big TV or satisfy serious amateurs. This is the Flip’s tradeoff for size, price and simplicity.

The Flip Video Ultra is an improvement on the Flip Video, which Pure Digital introduced in May. Though it costs $30 more, the newer version features higher-quality sound and video (footage is half as compressed as that on the old Flip), a transflective screen with a better resolution and improved video-processing technology. The new Flip also integrates direct uploads to YouTube in its software program.

I took the new Flip along with me on a business trip to California and carried it around Washington, D.C., shooting in different environments: inside a dark auditorium at a press event; outside at dusk overlooking the San Francisco skyline from a rooftop barbeque; in my house at nighttime; and during a visit to Google headquarters with my boss, Walt Mossberg. The Flip worked well in each situation.

This video camera measures roughly four inches high by two inches wide and an inch deep, and the 60-minute version comes in black, white, pink and orange; 30-minute models only come in black and white. Though the Flip Video Ultra doesn’t have a flash, it’s designed to perform well under circumstances with low light because Pure Digital assumes most users will be recording indoors. It captures in 640×480 resolution at 30 frames per second.

I used the 60-minute Flip. In capture mode, an on-screen message tells how many minutes remain on the camera. In playback mode, captured clips are labeled with duration and numerical order, such as “Video 21 of 24.” Hitting the Delete button twice while a clip is on screen erases it.

In a couple instances when I wanted to shoot something farther away, I was a little dismayed by the video camera’s weak zoom. But in most situations I was recording things that were nearby, so this issue wasn’t a big deal. Parents who are heading to dance recitals with this Flip will need seats in the front.

The exciting part of capturing video is sharing it with others, and Pure Digital’s built-in software does a superb job of this. I plugged my Flip into four computers running Microsoft’s Windows XP and Vista and Apple’s Mac OS X operating systems and opened the camera’s software to see thumbnail images of my clips. Each clip can be played or selected for saving or sharing. Only on Windows XP did the software automatically open when I attached the camera; opening it on the other platforms required extra steps.

The Save Videos option asked me to choose whether I wanted to save clips to my computer or if I wanted to save them in a smaller format for emailing to someone else. Saving these videos took a little time, but nothing that was too much of a hassle.

Sharing videos took a little longer. Three choices within the Share Videos menu offered to walk me through the steps for sharing videos via emails with links, in an electronic greeting card with embedded video or online using YouTube or other Web sites.

The first time I plugged the Flip into each computer I went through a few extra set-up steps to get the software started. I encountered a few instances during which sending videos to friends via email took a little longer than I expected. Once, on my iMac, it took more than 30 minutes to send a video that was two minutes and 36 seconds. But this was the exception; most of my videos that were roughly that long or shorter took only about five to 10 minutes to be sent.

Editing footage in Pure Digital’s software works for average users who might do some simple editing, like shorten a video or cut out a certain part. Easy-to-use slide bars adjust start and end times for videos, and edited versions of clips can be saved in addition to the originals. The company says that if clips are converted to standard Windows or Mac formats they should be editable in any standard video- editing software.

Muvee software is also built into Pure Digital’s software to let Windows users choose a bunch of clips, select music and a theme for the movie and watch as an automatically organized montage of clips plays.

Pure Digital plans to continuously issue software updates; the next is coming at the end of the month. But as is, this tiny video camera delivers a remarkably good picture on a device that anyone can use. With this product, Pure Digital Technologies again shows the value of simplicity, this time with the bonus of better technology.

Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com

This week I tested Jaman.com, a Web site that gives users the chance to download independent and international movies from the Web directly to their computers. It also serves as a social networking forum where movie watchers can read one another’s reviews, write their own comments that run alongside the film, and join groups with people who have similar tastes in movies. Jaman (pronounced jah-mahn), has 1,800 titles. It charges $1.99 for rentals, which can be watched for up to seven days, and $4.99 to buy a movie outright.

Jaman.com’s home page (above) suggests movies for downloading, such as ‘Inside Iraq: The Untold Stories,’ and comments can be seen in a side panel while the film is being watched (below).

Jaman isn’t alone in the online movie downloading business, and its competitors boast bigger selections. Just this year Netflix Inc., known for popularizing DVD rentals through the mail, started offering its own movie downloads. So as to encourage this new method, Netflix builds movie-watching hours into its monthly plans, which range from $5 to $24 and include a certain number of hours during which downloaded movies can be watched. Of the 85,000 DVD titles available on Netflix.com, 4,000 titles can be downloaded.

Blockbuster Inc., which followed Netflix into the DVD mailing business, showed an interest in the online downloading method last month when it acquired Movielink LLC, a movie downloading service previously owned by Hollywood’s major studios.

And Apple Inc., which began selling films for $10 to $15 a year ago on its iTunes Store, offers over 500 movies. Amazon is in the game, too, as is Microsoft.

But Jaman hopes its niche films and viewer-comments system will set it apart.

I took a close look at Jaman, downloading movies from various countries, posting comments about them on the Jaman.com site and reading what others thought of the films. I used a Mac and two Windows computers running Microsoft’s Vista and XP operating systems, and tried Jaman on all three major Web browsers. The site itself can feel a bit overwhelming, jumbling a lot of text together on pages that lack a clean central place where every element comes together. More than once, films blacked out in midplay, and Jaman’s community aspect didn’t seem as well-organized or integrated as I had hoped.

Jaman has another major downside: It forces every user to designate some of his or her bandwidth to distribute movies for the company, using a peer-to-peer program. Community network setups like this aren’t unheard of; Skype and many others use such setups. But these other companies are often free, while Jaman is charging users for movies while simultaneously using their bandwidth to reduce strain on its own servers. Participation in the peer-to-peer network is required while downloading a movie but can be stopped at all other times. Even so, this is a real chink in Jaman’s armor.

Jaman.com drops users into a site where five movies are showcased, showing their trailers one after another. Other titles can be searched according to region, categories and genres, top movies or films made and submitted by users. I skimmed through flicks from Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, North America, Europe and Latin America. A useful feature displayed details about a movie when I held my cursor over its title including a description, the movie’s Jaman rating (out of five stars), duration and genre. Jaman doesn’t sort movies by duration, which would have saved me time while I was looking for a short film to download for a cross-country flight.

I was surprised to notice that none of the movies prominently displayed Motion Picture Association of America ratings. Jaman explained that these data are buried within a sub-menu of details about a movie, but many films didn’t list ratings — even those with MPAA ratings.

Three rentals come included with each Jaman membership, which was free and quickly obtained in my experience, though a friend of mine had trouble when he didn’t receive Jaman’s email verification with two different addresses. I downloaded and watched movies from Mexico, the United Kingdom and North America, and watched a 21-minute Japanese short film that streamed directly from the site and didn’t require downloading. Community comments and reviews helped me pick movies, especially Jaman’s own one-line summary that it calls “Our Take.”

To download and watch movies from Jaman, users must first download the Jaman player. But this player doesn’t work with the Web site as smoothly as it should. For example, after reading various reviews of movies, I found a comedy from the U.K. called “Nobody The Great,” and opted to rent it. I downloaded the Jaman player but it didn’t recognize that I already signed in and chose the movie to rent on the Web site. I started over by signing in, finding the film and choosing the rental option, this time using the player.

“Nobody The Great” turned out to be an amusing story about two English guys who find supposed terrorists in their home but are more concerned about not ruining an evening planned with two women. The film is only 47 minutes long and 753 megabytes, but it took about two hours to download using a broadband connection. The most maddening thing about downloading the movie using Jaman was that the estimated time until completion kept changing dramatically — one moment it read 224 minutes, the next 69 minutes, then 22, 40 and 17. Other downloads followed this same wacky pattern, some worse than others.

After watching a movie, I was prompted by Jaman to rate the movie or to write a review about it. Jaman uses email messages with links to join discussions with others who saw the same movie. These discussions groups are more like blogs, with each person’s comment listed as a different post. Some of the movies that I watched hadn’t been reviewed in a while, so I wasn’t as inspired to add my comments as I might have been if there was a live discussion taking place.

This staleness was experienced again in one of my favorite Jaman features: comments that run on-screen during a film if you’re online. These can be hidden so as not to distract the viewer, but I found some of the comments really interesting. For example, while watching a subtitled Mexican movie from 1995 called “El Callejon De Los Milagros” starring Salma Hayek, comments appeared roughly every 10 minutes from a user named Cinequest. I later learned that Cinequest represented the Northern California motion picture institute of the same name and that the comments left weren’t live but were stuck to the movie so that anyone watching it could see them. I was free to leave my own comments, but I didn’t have quite as much to say about camera angles as Cinequest. The film director’s comments can also be seen here.

Jaman says that its road map includes plans for live comments, which would encourage more interaction with others as if watching a movie with friends.

Though I didn’t spend a majority of my time there, Jaman’s Community section seemed a little weak. Groups like “Bollywood 101″ and “Cult Movies” had members and comments left by these members, but still seemed somewhat disconnected from films. For example, preview clips of certain movies were posted to share with the group, but most of the comments made by the group weren’t related to the clips.

Jaman introduced me to new films that I wouldn’t otherwise have found. But its peer-to-peer system and its overall lack of real-time comments were frustrating. I’d also like to see Jaman reorganize the look of its site so it doesn’t feel so cluttered.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

Email mossbergsolution@wsj.com

If you didn’t know any better, you might think Microsoft Corp. was trying to confuse you into using the wrong email program — or wanted to scare you away from email altogether. Throughout roughly the past year, the company has introduced two would-be successors to its well-liked Outlook Express email program. One attempt, now discontinued, featured annoying advertisements that couldn’t be hidden; the other comes loaded on PCs with the new Windows Vista operating system but amazingly doesn’t work with Microsoft’s own Hotmail.

Now, Microsoft is hoping to clear up the confusion and simplify lives with a third release to replace Outlook Express: Windows Live Mail. And judging by an early version of the program, the third time could be the charm.

Microsoft’s Windows Live Mail, a free download, enables photo embedding, resizing and touch-ups in the email.

Outlook Express, or OE as it’s called, garnered popularity as a slimmed down, consumer-friendly version of its big brother Outlook, which many people are already familiar with thanks to its widespread use in the workplace. Outlook Express was a straightforward program that let users set up email accounts in a few short steps without help from an IT department.

But in 2004, seven years after its debut, Microsoft stopped investing in OE, causing it to lag behind new email programs with more advanced features. Even so, its simplicity was so attractive that three years ago when Microsoft started charging $20 monthly for new users to check Hotmail emails using OE, people paid.

Now comes Windows Live Mail. The program can be downloaded free at http://get.live.com/betas, and while it’s still in its testing phase and has kinks, it’s already rather good. It includes new bells and whistles like photo-embedding tools, syndicated feeds and integration with instant messaging. But if none of these extras interest you, you’ll be glad to find that Windows Live Mail still offers the same familiarity as OE in all its uncomplicated glory.

It has a few glaring bugs. Its email sound indicator doesn’t notify you of newly received emails. It lost its connection a few too many times when attempting to retrieve email — especially when I first installed it. And when I tried to email a Word attachment using Windows Live Mail, it failed, but this only happened when I used Windows Vista. Unless Microsoft fixes these bugs, which could take until the fall, all of its good intentions might be for naught. But the pluses of Windows Live Mail make me think it could be a worthy successor to OE.

On a separate but confusing note, Microsoft’s Web version of Hotmail was just overhauled, giving it more Web 2.0 functionality such as the ability to drag and drop messages from one folder to another without changing screens. It now incorporates a reading pane for each email like that found in Outlook or Windows Live Mail. Windows Live Hotmail, as it’s now called, is separate from Windows Live Mail.

Windows Live Mail offers new features like integration with instant messaging, but still resembles its predecessor, Outlook Express.

Windows Live Mail works on computers running Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista. I tried both, and noted a few slight differences, most of which are aesthetic.

Before Windows Live Mail, I was up a creek when I wanted to set up my long-standing Hotmail account on Vista. My Vista laptop came with a separate but similarly named program called Windows Mail, which didn’t work with Hotmail. I had to set up the Hotmail account on my laptop’s full version of Outlook, which was more exasperating and far too slow. Outlook is designed primarily for Microsoft Exchange email — corporate email set up by companies — and can be slow and clumsy with Web-based or other consumer email accounts.

When I downloaded and installed Windows Live Mail on my Vista and XP machines, setting up email accounts (including Hotmail) took just about 10 seconds each. There’s no limit on the number of email addresses that you can add to Windows Live Mail, as was also the case with Outlook Express. But it took a bit longer for my various Hotmail folders to get set up. Windows Live Mail supports full two-way synchronization, a plus that guarantees any changes made on one computer will be reflected on others through your account.

A feature within Windows Live Mail called Active Search automatically reads emails that are visible in your preview pane and extracts keywords from those messages for advertisements that appear in a column on the far right side. But Active Search can be closed with one click, never to be seen again.

I was excited to use the new photo-embedding tools in this program, though this isn’t a new idea; Apple Mail, Apple Inc.’s equivalent to Outlook Express, already offers photo sizing and slide shows within emails. While composing an email using Windows Live Mail I selected “Add Photos,” choosing pics of a friend’s wedding from various folders on my PC. These shots appeared in my email with designated space below each for titles. Without leaving the email body, you can choose one of three frames to place around each shot, or you can change the picture itself by automatically enhancing it or by changing a color shot to black and white.

Windows Live Mail lets you choose photo sizes within the email to avoid unknowingly sending gigantic emails. Two categories help, labeled “Size in Email” (small, medium or large thumbnails) and “File Size” (small, medium and large; large offers up to five megabytes per photo). If you’re sending these embedded pics with a Microsoft Live ID, a link to a slide show of the photos is sent with your shots and recipients can copy hi-res versions of each image for up to 30 days.

I missed hearing a sound notification whenever new emails arrived. Microsoft says it will fix this and other bugs by the fall, at the latest, which is a long time to wait.

Another thing that bothered me was that each contact name has an icon beside it showing a generic photo, which you’d assume could be replaced with an actual photo of the person. But instead, that icon will only show an image if that person is on your Live Messenger buddy list (Microsoft’s integrated instant-messaging program) and if he or she chooses to show a photo. This seems like a real waste of space for the majority of your contacts who won’t be Live Messenger users.

Junk-mail settings can be adjusted to “Low,” “High” or “Safe List Only,” meaning that only those emails on a list that you create can be received.

As I kept my Windows Live Mail account open, it didn’t seem to be checking email as rapidly as my old Outlook Express program did; this was the case on my XP desktop and on my Vista laptop. The program seemed to have trouble establishing an Internet connection through Windows Live Mail on both PCs more than a few times, though I was simultaneously using a Web browser. This occurred less the more I used Windows Live Mail, but it was irksome at first.

Other interesting features of this new email client include RSS feeds that are specifically organized in your account like emails; I set up five to start and kept a steady stream of news coming in. You can also be notified when of one of your contacts signs on to Live Messenger, letting you link directly into an instant-messaging conversation rather than an email for faster communication. Also, content from emails can be uploaded to your Microsoft Spaces site in a single click.

As usual, contacts from other programs like Outlook and certain file types can be imported into your Windows Live Mail contact list; compatibility will be expanded when the final version of Windows Live Mail is released later this year.

For now, though this email program is still in beta and has its wrinkles, you’ll find it to be a helpful and straightforward program to use, just like its predecessor, Outlook Express.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

• Email me at MossbergSolution@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications:

Microsoft Corp. charges $20 annually for new users to check Hotmail emails using Outlook Express. Due to inaccurate information from Microsoft, this article states that this was a monthly charge.