Compact or Ultra Compact? And then which one?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've been doing some reading on ultra compact models, but my first
question is: should I get one, or am I better off with a regular
compact model? I want something that I can take more or less everywhere
with me, but on the other hand, I'm prone to losing things that are too
light and small. Does anyone have any experience on whether the
difference between compact and ultra-compact is significant? I'm
looking for a camera that can go with me everywhere and that I would
consider a pleasure to tote around...

As for the rest:

Budget: Preferably <$300, but I'd go up to $400 if necessary

MP: >=3

Need standard optical zoom

Want good image quality, but even more important to me is ergonomics,
shutter speed, the overall speed of the camera in things like turning
on and viewing pics, an easy to use menu system, etc. I want something
that's a PLEASURE to use and will never give me grief...something
reliable and speedy, even if that means a little less picture quality.

Battery life matters... I definitely want something that can last
several dozen shots on a charge at least. The longer the better.

I don't care about manual controls. I want relatively simple.

The pictures will mostly be smaller in size--4x6s or 5x7s... honestly,
most will just end up on the web or on email.

I want something that's durable... I've heard Canon's SD-series LCDs
break a lot, and the same is true of Casio? I'm a clutz, so I don't
want something that's going to die with a small mistake.

I've heard good things about the Sony DSC-T1 and the DSC-P150, the
Olympus Stylus 410, and many others, but I'm very open to new options.

Any ideas? Thanks.