geekhack

geekhack Community => Other Geeky Stuff => Topic started by: SpAmRaY on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:11:36

Title: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:11:36
Any tips or tricks to transitioning to reading digital copies of books?

Would a 7" tablet be better than a 17" laptop screen?

I'm having a hard time, I just like paper better I guess.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: demik on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:13:31
kindle e-book readers.

then start reading. not rocket surgery.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:14:48
Get an e-Ink reader. I recommend the Kindle. It's just like reading on paper.

I do prefer the physical feel of a book, but it's far more convenient to read on a device.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:17:58
Is the kindle paperwhite a good choice?

My wife has an older kindle somewhere, maybe I should try it out.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:18:46
Is the kindle paperwhite a good choice?

Awesome choice. It's the best one. I don't know what that Voyage is about.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:21:31
What you want to do is use   a large monitor or a TV set..


If you're using black txt on White.. you want to turn the brightness and contrast all the way DOWN  until basically the White looks a dull yellow (similar to recycle paper)..

The bright WHITE light is what's making reading on the computer screen uncomfortable.


Dull white light is the ideal way to read...



The reason you don't want to go Hand held.. is because you have to LOOK DOWN at anything hand held..  neck has to be bent pretty far to do this.. 

the alternative is to hold the tablet up higher,  which is even less possible to maintain..



I've never used a tablet and not regret it within 30mins..


Stick with the computer monitor with the bright ness turned DOWN as low as possible...
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:22:18
Is the kindle paperwhite a good choice?

Awesome choice. It's the best one. I don't know what that Voyage is about.
Seems like the highlights are better PPI, thinner, adaptive lighting, etched glass that feels more like paper and the ability to put pressure on the bezel to turn the page.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:24:04
Is the kindle paperwhite a good choice?

Awesome choice. It's the best one. I don't know what that Voyage is about.
Seems like the highlights are better PPI, thinner, adaptive lighting, etched glass that feels more like paper and the ability to put pressure on the bezel to turn the page.

NO all garbage..

don't bother with hand helds..  dem' fking noobs don't know wtf they're talking about..

I've spent my entire life reading...

the paper esque platforms may be nostalgic,  but it is FAR from ergonomic.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:25:49
Is the kindle paperwhite a good choice?

Awesome choice. It's the best one. I don't know what that Voyage is about.
Seems like the highlights are better PPI, thinner, adaptive lighting, etched glass that feels more like paper and the ability to put pressure on the bezel to turn the page.

Some of the reviews say the adaptive backlighting doesn't work well. At least they did when I read them a few months ago. They could have fixed it with a FW update by now, I dunno. :D
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: nubbinator on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:27:06
I own a nook and have played around with Kindles.  I still hate e-books compared to physical copies.  There's something about holding a real book and reading it.  That and I've also noticed that it feels like there are a lot more errors in e-books than in physical books, be they weird formatting issues or spelling and grammar issues.  Not only that, but the screen of the standard Kindle and nook is just too small for me.  It feels like I read a page faster than it takes to flip the page.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:27:10
Is the kindle paperwhite a good choice?

Awesome choice. It's the best one. I don't know what that Voyage is about.
Seems like the highlights are better PPI, thinner, adaptive lighting, etched glass that feels more like paper and the ability to put pressure on the bezel to turn the page.

NO all garbage..

don't bother with hand helds..  dem' fking noobs don't know wtf they're talking about..

I've spent my entire life reading...

the paper esque platforms may be nostalgic,  but it is FAR from ergonomic.

Good luck with your large screen or TV on your train commute. ;)
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: demik on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:27:42
Is the kindle paperwhite a good choice?

Awesome choice. It's the best one. I don't know what that Voyage is about.
Seems like the highlights are better PPI, thinner, adaptive lighting, etched glass that feels more like paper and the ability to put pressure on the bezel to turn the page.

NO all garbage..

don't bother with hand helds..  dem' fking noobs don't know wtf they're talking about..

I've spent my entire life reading...

the paper esque platforms may be nostalgic,  but it is FAR from ergonomic.

Good luck with your large screen or TV on your train commute. ;)

or in the ****ter.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:28:34
PPI,  good looking fonts,  etc.. all of that doesn't matter in the end..

You want to extract the information as efficiently as possible...


Some fonts are more legible such as segoe UI  due to various key elements that make each letter more different from each other ..

For example   Helvetica is amongst the WORST legible font.. because it was designed to make all the letters look very similar and uniform..


all the Round letters in helvetica look like perfect circles..  it becomes hard to distinguish e, o , c, a


Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:33:11
Is the kindle paperwhite a good choice?

Awesome choice. It's the best one. I don't know what that Voyage is about.
Seems like the highlights are better PPI, thinner, adaptive lighting, etched glass that feels more like paper and the ability to put pressure on the bezel to turn the page.

NO all garbage..

don't bother with hand helds..  dem' fking noobs don't know wtf they're talking about..

I've spent my entire life reading...

the paper esque platforms may be nostalgic,  but it is FAR from ergonomic.

Good luck with your large screen or TV on your train commute. ;)

Don't read on train commutes..

If you have a long commute.. try audio books,  or perhaps solving a math problem, or finishing small program solutions in your mind..


Life is about optimizing the TIME and PLACE..    people often relinquish control given their urges..

But just because they CAN read where-ever, or browse face-book where-ever,   is that really the best time and place to do it..


Can you optimize it in some other way to do it quicker and faster ?


I've noticed many of my buddies tend to use Commute as an excuse to slack off and waste the time playing cell-ph games..    but if they used that time to learn something,  then, finish their work quickly,  then GO HOME, and play actual FUN games, rather than stupid time-burner games.. 


Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:36:05
I can sense very distinctly  that this thread is  SpamRay giving into Consumerist addiction..

He wants to research and buy YET ANOTHER gizmo that he doesn't need..


It's ok Spam, stay strong.. Tp4 has 99999x gizmos already..  And can tell you , , that the majority of tablets and all e-readers are a  waste of damn time..


you'll use it maybe for a whole week, get bored of it, because it's just not that practical a device for consuming information... and leave it at home..
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: ideus on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:36:37
When available, the best experience to "read" in digital form are to listen to audio-books. Reading e-books is not like reading them in print, unfortunately. Of course, certain materials cannot be listen to, like technical books. For those you have to choose the digital format or the paper and ink one, I prefer this last one myself.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:37:39
Books that you have to LOOK DOWN to read are dumb...   they should survive for archival purposes only...

If anyone was to actually  need the INFORMATION......   read it off a screen.. with low brightness...
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: demik on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:37:53
+1 on audio books.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:41:20
When available, the best experience to "read" in digital form are to listen to audio-books. Reading e-books is not like reading them in print, unfortunately. Of course, certain materials cannot be listen to, like technical books. For those you have choose the digital format or the paper and ink one, I prefer this last one myself.



The audio-books debate comes down to how fast can you read...  and what detail level you wish to extract from that text..


Audio books doesn't allow you to skim the text and ignore unimportant detail..


For example..     Twilight...  I read the cover,  the first page.. a page from the middle, and the back cover with the comments of people who liked it..

Then I was done..    you can't get that kind of efficiency on audio books..
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: ideus on Sun, 15 February 2015, 22:43:40
A good option could be to have digital books with charts, images, pictures and graphics ready to be display in the screen, along audio that explain them. Something similar to the courses at coursera, or edx, where you can see the slides in the video and hear the explanation. The slides have bullets points or images and you listen to their explanation.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: noisyturtle on Mon, 16 February 2015, 00:59:05
I listen to audio books at 4x speed. Started out at 2x and gradually worked my way up so I am able to retain and understand the information at 4x. You can easily get through a book a day like that :)
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Belfong on Mon, 16 February 2015, 01:06:40
The problem with paper book is that once you are done with them, you need storage space to store them. And then the book gets yellowed over time. Or the paper get hardened and the spine gets all hard and difficult to manage.

Kindle e-books on the other hand does not degrade. And there is the beauty of search and ability to highlight and see what are the popular highlights.

My only issue is that reading too much ebook spoil the eyes. Dem backlights cannot be as good as proper reading lights on a book.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: noisyturtle on Mon, 16 February 2015, 01:39:11
The problem with paper book is that once you are done with them, you need storage space to store them. And then the book gets yellowed over time. Or the paper get hardened and the spine gets all hard and difficult to manage.

Kindle e-books on the other hand does not degrade. And there is the beauty of search and ability to highlight and see what are the popular highlights.

My only issue is that reading too much ebook spoil the eyes. Dem backlights cannot be as good as proper reading lights on a book.


Well that's just insane. Paper books will outlast any piece of technology 100x over. I have books that my grandmother gave me from when she was a kid that are over 100 years old and are perfectly fine except for some yellowing. ****, there's books out there that are over 1000.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Belfong on Mon, 16 February 2015, 01:44:19
The problem with paper book is that once you are done with them, you need storage space to store them. And then the book gets yellowed over time. Or the paper get hardened and the spine gets all hard and difficult to manage.

Kindle e-books on the other hand does not degrade. And there is the beauty of search and ability to highlight and see what are the popular highlights.

My only issue is that reading too much ebook spoil the eyes. Dem backlights cannot be as good as proper reading lights on a book.


Well that's just insane. Paper books will outlast any piece of technology 100x over. I have books that my grandmother gave me from when she was a kid that are over 100 years old and are perfectly fine except for some yellowing. ****, there's books out there that are over 1000.
While it is true that paper books do last for years, I kinda disagree that they will last longer than technology 100x over. That would be untrue especially with the way we are also digitizing many of the books, even text book now. You gotta admit that technology made it so much easier to work with these text - e.g. old eyes like mine will forever be grateful for the ability to increase font size in Kindle, not something you can do with paperback.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: noisyturtle on Mon, 16 February 2015, 01:51:16
The problem with paper book is that once you are done with them, you need storage space to store them. And then the book gets yellowed over time. Or the paper get hardened and the spine gets all hard and difficult to manage.

Kindle e-books on the other hand does not degrade. And there is the beauty of search and ability to highlight and see what are the popular highlights.

My only issue is that reading too much ebook spoil the eyes. Dem backlights cannot be as good as proper reading lights on a book.


Well that's just insane. Paper books will outlast any piece of technology 100x over. I have books that my grandmother gave me from when she was a kid that are over 100 years old and are perfectly fine except for some yellowing. ****, there's books out there that are over 1000.
While it is true that paper books do last for years, I kinda disagree that they will last longer than technology 100x over. That would be untrue especially with the way we are also digitizing many of the books, even text book now. You gotta admit that technology made it so much easier to work with these text - e.g. old eyes like mine will forever be grateful for the ability to increase font size in Kindle, not something you can do with paperback.

Someday the bombs will drop and EMP signals will erase all relevant stored data. And while everyone is freaking out that they can't play GTA 27 on Steam Mindlink, I'll be hold-up in a bunker somewhere reading ****ens in hardcover and playing my Genesis ;)
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Belfong on Mon, 16 February 2015, 01:56:54
I'll have my magnifying glass ready then :D
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 16 February 2015, 03:32:03
Priority should be

BIG screen (low brightness) 27 inch+ >>

small screen (low brightness) 21 - 27 inch >>

large tablet >>

large paper >>

small tablet >>

small paper >>

ereader
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: rowdy on Mon, 16 February 2015, 03:49:17
If you are reading at night don't use a smartphone or tablet.  The blue component of the backlight will confuse your brain and tell it to wake up instead of going to sleep.

+1 for Kindle.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Dihedral on Mon, 16 February 2015, 04:02:48
I listen to audio books at 4x speed. Started out at 2x and gradually worked my way up so I am able to retain and understand the information at 4x. You can easily get through a book a day like that :)

Doesn't that take the fun out of it? I have the same issue with that as I have with speed reading; books should be read (or listened to) leisurely with time to think.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Oobly on Mon, 16 February 2015, 05:31:19
tp seems to be ignoring the convenience of having a PORTABLE device for reading whenever you have a moment. I read a lot of ebooks on my "phablet" using the Kindle app. I use it at night before I sleep by setting the background black, "white" writing (which turns out kind of cream coloured, with reduced blues) and using screen filter to set the brightness, so it's low intensity. Works well for me.

I like to read physical books, but the convenience of having them on my phone and the lower cost means I have read a lot more ebooks recently (130 or so full length novels in the last 2 years).
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 16 February 2015, 05:50:32
tp seems to be ignoring the convenience of having a PORTABLE device for reading whenever you have a moment. I read a lot of ebooks on my "phablet" using the Kindle app. I use it at night before I sleep by setting the background black, "white" writing (which turns out kind of cream coloured, with reduced blues) and using screen filter to set the brightness, so it's low intensity. Works well for me.

I like to read physical books, but the convenience of having them on my phone and the lower cost means I have read a lot more ebooks recently (130 or so full length novels in the last 2 years).


For the OPTION to exist is FINE..  I concur that if there were NO choice, and you just HAD to do it.. sure.. a phablet or ereader would be ok to carry..

But how often is that ABSOLUTELY true..   It's just not wise to choose non-optimal solutions for text intake..

Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: fohat.digs on Mon, 16 February 2015, 07:12:12
I am a major book lover and I own, and have read, thousands of books in my lifetime.

There is nothing that can compare to the entire experience of reading a real book.

Plus, for technical and non-fiction books, they are simply good to have around.

That said, I have read a few books on my phone, and it is not too bad. There is far less "enjoyment" involved, but the convenience of having a book in my pocket if I find myself with 20 minutes to kill between other activities is great.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: ideus on Mon, 16 February 2015, 07:17:16
To read and the variety of reading devices available are now populating the new age of literated people. The option to have a new breed of written material in digital formats is too practical to be ignored, even for us that growth using just ink and paper.

I have used the kindle app since 2010, first in my computer and more recently in my phone. It is very nice to have access to my library at any time, however the paper and ink books are still my preferred format to read, but the convenience of have access to some texts everywhere is just too convenient to be ignored.

The other app I use to access books is audible, and I have read books using it, that I may had not read otherwise, and I have been taking advantage of the commuting time, the otherwise is "wasted".

Any way or the other, I encourage you to take advantage of the many digital options to continue reading, or to start doing so, if you have not been an avid reader yet. They may be an alternative, a back up, or even a replacement of ink and paper books; either way they are here to stay, and we should wisely use them.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Findecanor on Mon, 16 February 2015, 07:22:40
I often buy used paperbacks at flea markets for 25¢ to a Euro each. E-books can't compete with that.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: ideus on Mon, 16 February 2015, 08:07:24
I often buy used paperbacks at flea markets for 25� to a Euro each. E-books can't compete with that.

That is true: E-books cannot compete with disposable paperbacks. The paperback cannot read itself out loud  to you during your commuting time though. In the other hand the paperback needs some space in your book shelf and it could make an awesome home for fungus. Therefore you are right, a 25 cents papers back may fill a gap in the readers needs, that is not by all means the same gap an e-books or and a-book does. Are we not comparing apples to pears?
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Belfong on Mon, 16 February 2015, 09:06:03

If you are reading at night don't use a smartphone or tablet.  The blue component of the backlight will confuse your brain and tell it to wake up instead of going to sleep.

+1 for Kindle.
Good advice there.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Mon, 16 February 2015, 09:27:06
Quote from: Findecanor
I often buy used paperbacks at flea markets for 25¢ to a Euro each. E-books can't compete with that.

But there are tens of thousands of eBooks available for FREE at Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.org).

Plus, there are other ways of obtaining digital copies of most books, if you know where to look.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Mon, 16 February 2015, 09:50:46
Some good info, thanks for the replies so far.

Today I bought a $0.99 e-book to check out and see if it was worthwhile to buy the book in paper back.  :))
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 16 February 2015, 09:55:29
I often buy used paperbacks at flea markets for 25� to a Euro each. E-books can't compete with that.

That is true: E-books cannot compete with disposable paperbacks. The paperback cannot read itself out loud  to you during your commuting time though. In the other hand the paperback needs some space in your book shelf and it could make an awesome home for fungus. Therefore you are right, a 25 cents papers back may fill a gap in the readers needs, that is not by all means the same gap an e-books or and a-book does. Are we not comparing apples to pears?


Any books worth reading is on Arrrghh-Publishing...  if it's n0t on Arrrgh-Publishing,  it's most likely not worth reading..

In which case... Large monitors are still the way to go...
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: fohat.digs on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:19:20
to check out and see if it was worthwhile to buy the book in paper back.

This is what the public library is for.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:21:39
to check out and see if it was worthwhile to buy the book in paper back.

This is what the public library is for.


We don't really have libraries around here at least not anywhere close enough that it wouldn't cost me much more than $1 to drive to and then if you don't live in town they won't give you a library card and they wouldn't have this book anyway.

Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:29:05
to check out and see if it was worthwhile to buy the book in paper back.

This is what the public library is for.


public libraries aught to be retired for data terminals....
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:32:44
I haven't been in a decent library since I worked in one at college.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:39:15
I haven't been in a decent library since I worked in one at college.

But, you can check out audiobooks on CD for free!

I use public libraries all the time. Free WiFi. :)
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:40:56
I haven't been in a decent library since I worked in one at college.

But, you can check out audiobooks on CD for free!

I use public libraries all the time. Free WiFi. :)

I mean I'm all for public libraries but the closest one to my house is ~10 miles away and they won't give us a library card because we don't live 'in town', not to mention it is very small and they have a limited selection. The next closest one is at least 20 miles away and I'm sure it would be the same story.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:44:37
they won't give us a library card because we don't live 'in town', not to mention it is very small and they have a limited selection. The next closest one is at least 20 miles away and I'm sure it would be the same story.

That's just crazy to me. I currently hold library card in three libraries in different counties in this area. My local library, one 20 mi away, and one 140 mi away. The furthest one has a great selection of audiobooks on CD, and I travel there for work a couple times a month, anyway.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:46:28
they won't give us a library card because we don't live 'in town', not to mention it is very small and they have a limited selection. The next closest one is at least 20 miles away and I'm sure it would be the same story.

That's just crazy to me. I currently hold library card in three libraries in different counties in this area. My local library, one 20 mi away, and one 140 mi away. The furthest one has a great selection of audiobooks on CD, and I travel there for work a couple times a month, anyway.

It is crazy when your kids school teacher gives them an assignment and tells them to use the local public library only to find out we really can't because they won't give us a library card.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:51:54
they won't give us a library card because we don't live 'in town', not to mention it is very small and they have a limited selection. The next closest one is at least 20 miles away and I'm sure it would be the same story.

That's just crazy to me. I currently hold library card in three libraries in different counties in this area. My local library, one 20 mi away, and one 140 mi away. The furthest one has a great selection of audiobooks on CD, and I travel there for work a couple times a month, anyway.

It is crazy when your kids school teacher gives them an assignment and tells them to use the local public library only to find out we really can't because they won't give us a library card.

fk the teacher.. that's a free google-pass on the assignment.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: fohat.digs on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:53:39

I currently hold library card in three libraries in different counties in this area.


Do you use your work address?

Around here, you have to have a verifiable address to establish residence in the county, or pay a moderately hefty fee per year to a "foreign" county library system

They will do an "inter-library exchange" or something to that effect, but it is slow and cumbersome.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:57:32

I currently hold library card in three libraries in different counties in this area.


Do you use your work address?

Around here, you have to have a verifiable address to establish residence in the county, or pay a moderately hefty fee per year to a "foreign" county library system

They will do an "inter-library exchange" or something to that effect, but it is slow and cumbersome.


why bother.. i don't understand.. why would anyone do this..

The only reason any local libraries stay afloat is because of the rather limited Dvd rental section..

they're a huge waste of space..
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Mon, 16 February 2015, 11:58:30

I currently hold library card in three libraries in different counties in this area.


Do you use your work address?

Around here, you have to have a verifiable address to establish residence in the county, or pay a moderately hefty fee per year to a "foreign" county library system

They will do an "inter-library exchange" or something to that effect, but it is slow and cumbersome.


No, I was surprised that at each library, I could register for a card using my home address!
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Mon, 16 February 2015, 12:00:16
they're a huge waste of space..

But then where would the homeless go to stay warm/cool during the day?

Also, internet-connected PCs for people who don't have any.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: fohat.digs on Mon, 16 February 2015, 12:39:14
Also, internet-connected PCs for people who don't have any.

This too.

Fortunately, my local library is very close, and when I have computer or internet problems it is easy to go up there to get online either using their gear, or their wi-fi and my laptop.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Mon, 16 February 2015, 13:26:20
they're a huge waste of space..

But then where would the homeless go to stay warm/cool during the day?

Also, internet-connected PCs for people who don't have any.


Exactly, throw out all the books.. put in computer terminals.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: ideus on Mon, 16 February 2015, 15:10:13
The local library already carries a lot of digital audio books and e-books that they lend as well as hard copies.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Melvang on Mon, 16 February 2015, 15:26:38
I just want to say, I have read a few studies online that state comprehension is higher when reading paper and ink vs digital media.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: ideus on Mon, 16 February 2015, 15:28:37
I just want to say, I have read a few studies online that state comprehension is higher when reading paper and ink vs digital media.

There is also some evidence supporting visuals, plus sound may enhanced retention of materials from certain subjects. Again, let use everything available in the way the best fits our needs.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Mon, 16 February 2015, 15:28:42
I just want to say, I have read a few studies online that state comprehension is higher when reading paper and ink vs digital media.

Probably because when reading something on a device, there is always something nagging at you. Email, Facebook, texts, etc. Distractions abound.

Not so much with a dedicated reader, like a Kindle.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Melvang on Mon, 16 February 2015, 15:33:15
I just want to say, I have read a few studies online that state comprehension is higher when reading paper and ink vs digital media.

Probably because when reading something on a device, there is always something nagging at you. Email, Facebook, texts, etc. Distractions abound.

Not so much with a dedicated reader, like a Kindle.

Actually a lot of what they found was that with traditional printed material, people read in more of a traditional fashion, left to right, top to bottom.  But in digital media, granted more so on non dedicated readers and with non-fiction material, people tend to read in an F pattern of skimming and only focusing on details when it catches their eye.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jamster on Mon, 16 February 2015, 22:38:19
I am a voracious reader, have been since about the age of five.

My preference now is for ebook readers, because of the portability and ready access to a book collection. I have owned a Sony PRS, a 3rd gen Kindle and currently a Kobo Aura HD. I'll read off a phone screen if I don't have anything else. I only read magazine articles on a tablet- never books (because the ebook reader will be nearby).

If you spend a lot of time reading, I would strongly recommend buying the Aura HD simply because it's got a slightly bigger screen than the current Kindles. Screen size pretty much trumps DPI (they are all fine for DPI). The ability to change font on the Aura is also surprisingly useful.

It's also not part of the Amazon Borg, if that sort of thing matters to you.

There's now a waterproof Aura HD for about $20 more. So not only can you read on the ****ter, you can read in the bathtub.

But generally, get an ebook reader. ANY ebook reader. For ease of reading they crap all over tablets/computer screens.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Findecanor on Tue, 17 February 2015, 00:40:20
Also, internet-connected PCs for people who don't have any.
I used to do all my printing at the local library, not too long ago.

My local library is also a hub for the local community in various ways. Information from the city council, local art exhibitions, political meetings, activities for kids, etc.

Actually a lot of what they found was that with traditional printed material, people read in more of a traditional fashion, left to right, top to bottom.  But in digital media, granted more so on non dedicated readers and with non-fiction material, people tend to read in an F pattern of skimming and only focusing on details when it catches their eye.
That has more to do with the type of content and layout than with the medium. I read a printed newspaper every day, in a skimming fashion. You don't skim the words of a novel just because they are on a computer screen.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Sygaldry on Tue, 17 February 2015, 01:32:39
I like having physical copies of text books, references, (and in a past life, law books and casebooks).

But for all leisurely reading, I have my PaperWhite and my iPad Mini
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: ideus on Tue, 17 February 2015, 07:46:22
I like having physical copies of text books, references, (and in a past life, law books and casebooks).

But for all leisurely reading, I have my PaperWhite and my iPad Mini

How do you rate the experience of reading ebooks exclusively with your kindle against your ipad?
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: iMav on Sun, 22 February 2015, 06:56:53
I read quite a bit and have owned Kindles since they were first released.  I very much enjoy the e-ink models (Fires are not suitable as serious readers).  My current daily reader is the Voyage, which I like quite a bit...however, I'd still recommend the PaperWhite to save a few bucks (Voyage doesn't add much additional value).

I do like physical books, but will usually ALSO buy the Kindle version, if available.  Having my library accessible where ever I go is a major value-add for me.  The ergonomics of reading off a Kindle and a book are near-identical, so that argument is a non-starter. 

The Kindles can be had for so cheap, it is a no-brainer.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Sun, 22 February 2015, 10:10:30
I'm leaning towards the paper white.

 My wife has a kindle 3 that she bought off a relative for $20, it's not too bad to read on.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 22 February 2015, 10:21:32
nah.. waste of time..

if you actually want to READ and not merely "Shop"


Computer monitor is the way to go..

Fast text search,  easy  contrast/brightness control..

Internet access to cross reference information..

Quick text input via KEYBOARD...


Conventional reading is for chumps...
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Sun, 22 February 2015, 10:23:33
nah.. waste of time..

if you actually want to READ and not merely "Shop"


Computer monitor is the way to go..

Fast text search,  easy  contrast/brightness control..

Internet access to cross reference information..

Quick text input via KEYBOARD...


Conventional reading is for chumps...
But I want to read on the couch not in front of the computer.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 22 February 2015, 10:30:09
nah.. waste of time..

if you actually want to READ and not merely "Shop"


Computer monitor is the way to go..

Fast text search,  easy  contrast/brightness control..

Internet access to cross reference information..

Quick text input via KEYBOARD...


Conventional reading is for chumps...
But I want to read on the couch not in front of the computer.

The couch no longer xists..

It's over Spam..   That aspect of living has come and gone..

(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/th_107_.gif)
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: foxer on Sun, 22 February 2015, 14:26:51
Just like a pair of boobs. I prefer the real thing.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tp4tissue on Sun, 22 February 2015, 14:37:41
Just like a pair of boobs. I prefer the real thing.

LOL... hrrrm...

They perform different functions..

The fake sets are decorative..  while the real-sets may be indicative of superior genes for procreation...

They're not mutually exclusive though..
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: aref on Sun, 22 February 2015, 20:59:27
I'm leaning towards the paper white.

 My wife has a kindle 3 that she bought off a relative for $20, it's not too bad to read on.

I've had several Kindle readers. My favorite one is my latest acquisition, Kindle Paperwhite. Far easier to read than hard-copy books; my eyes don't tire nearly as quickly compared with reading hard-copy books. Also, sign on to BookBub for daily e-book specials; many are available through Amazon. But BookBub brings various titles to the forefront. Wait! Buy my book from Amazon! I need the money for my HHKB!

I think you'll quite like a Paperwhite. It's an excellent reader.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: R1N3 on Sun, 22 February 2015, 21:13:30
I've busted my lip at least 7 times and have at least one small chip in a front tooth from falling asleep while laying down eReading.

Practice safe eReading. Your grill will thank me later.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: tbc on Sun, 22 February 2015, 21:14:58
I've busted my lip at least 7 times and have at least one small chip in a front tooth from falling asleep while laying down eReading.

Practice safe eReading. Your grill will thank me later.

sideways....not over your head...
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: R1N3 on Sun, 22 February 2015, 21:19:21
I've busted my lip at least 7 times and have at least one small chip in a front tooth from falling asleep while laying down eReading.

Practice safe eReading. Your grill will thank me later.

sideways....not over your head...

I'd rest it sitting up on my chest with my head elevated on a pillow. Needless to say I'm team sideways ever since I chipped a tooth.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Tue, 24 March 2015, 17:00:59
For those with kindles is it worth $20 to get one without special offers?
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: vindaon on Tue, 24 March 2015, 17:09:23
For those with kindles is it worth $20 to get one without special offers?

The ads aren't that intrusive, imo.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: hastur on Tue, 24 March 2015, 17:37:20
I like my Kobo Glo since I can lie on my bed or on the beach with it and still have access to the hundreds of books I have on it. It also  doesn't hurt that the battery lasts for a month of near constant reading. The only downside is that I can't take a bath with it. I love it almost as much as I love my dead-tree books.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: slaction on Wed, 01 April 2015, 01:26:08
While I love the idea of having an actual book on the shelf that I can grab anytime, I actually do more reading on my IPad than with physical books.

I do a lot of programing and so I have a lot of tech books from the days before the kindle was around.  I love having the books until it's time to move.  A plastic tote full of programming books can easily weight 100lbs which isn't fun to have to move.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: rowdy on Wed, 01 April 2015, 05:10:45
I like my Kobo Glo since I can lie on my bed or on the beach with it and still have access to the hundreds of books I have on it. It also  doesn't hurt that the battery lasts for a month of near constant reading. The only downside is that I can't take a bath with it. I love it almost as much as I love my dead-tree books.

Welcome to Geekhack!

I'm guessing that taking a bath with a paper book also runs some risk, although electrocution might not be one of them.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: HughJarss on Wed, 01 April 2015, 06:47:42
I make my living from writing and publishing books, so spend most of my life either writing, editing, or reading.
I have thousands of paper books, and maybe a hundred ebooks, which I've read on a laptop, an iPad, and an iPhone 6+.
I tried a Kindle and didn't like it. The eReading experience is nicer using the iPad with the Kindle app, but one level nicer again using Apple's iBooks app. The only problem with this compared to a dedicated eReader is if you want to read outside in the sun. The iPad then sucks, of course.

Reading from a screen at night is a real problem, it does mess with your sleep. Still, you can install f lux on your computer, which I've found fantastic in helping me sleep better — it stops the screen emitting blue light at night, so your brain doesn't think it's daytime any more, and starts to wind down. HUGE help. (Just don't try to do Photoshop work with it on, everything's sort of pink!)

Someone else said many eBooks have bad formatting and typos. Absolutely they do — but this is because so many people are self-publishing, and not because of the medium itself. In fact, paperbacks are MUCH more difficult to format correctly, and there are now some terrible paperbacks around also.

Ebooks are okay for novels, but I rarely buy them any more for non-fiction. When we need to learn stuff from reading, our brains make a map of where we read it, sort of. But mostly, we need to read something more than once to learn it, and because of the nature of eBooks, the location of that information is in a different place each time we read it. Click forward a few pages in any eBook, then go back, and the words will be in a different place on the page. So the map to where to find the information is corrupted and confusing, and our brains don't trust the information as well as it they need to. Also, despite the theory being that eBooks are better because their text is searchable, in the real world a paperback is much easier to find what you want MOST of the time.

So I think that if you prefer paper books, you should read those as much as you can. That's what I do, anyway.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Ardvan on Wed, 01 April 2015, 07:32:52
I don't buy kindle format until I really can't find it in another format and I really want this e-book.

I tried an ebook reader with ink display. I don't read at night, the only advantage of it was to read outside, what i rarely do. Problem is also you can only read with it.

IMO the best file format for ink display readers and small devices like phones is epub. It creates pages on the fly and they fit on the screen. But looks simplified. PDF are a pain on small screens because the page size and layout is not changeable. You have to zoom in a lot (for every page again). Looks nice though.

On the other hand PDF's work well on a iPad IMO. And with "good reader" you can mark stuff or write annotations into the pdf file what I do. You can also mask out the white frame of a page so that the text uses the full screen size.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jamster on Sun, 05 April 2015, 10:13:35
I like my Kobo Glo since I can lie on my bed or on the beach with it and still have access to the hundreds of books I have on it. It also  doesn't hurt that the battery lasts for a month of near constant reading. The only downside is that I can't take a bath with it. I love it almost as much as I love my dead-tree books.

The latest Kobo Aura HD (bigger screen than any of the Kindles save the massive DX, if that is still made) is fully waterproof.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: hastur on Sun, 05 April 2015, 10:31:15
I like my Kobo Glo since I can lie on my bed or on the beach with it and still have access to the hundreds of books I have on it. It also  doesn't hurt that the battery lasts for a month of near constant reading. The only downside is that I can't take a bath with it. I love it almost as much as I love my dead-tree books.

The latest Kobo Aura HD (bigger screen than any of the Kindles save the massive DX, if that is still made) is fully waterproof.
I commute a lot, sometimes without a bag and the Glo barely fits in my pocket so it's the perfect size for me. 
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Binge on Sun, 05 April 2015, 16:11:52
If it's just words I can't do it on a monitor.  The eye-strain is too much.  For most reading I prefer books or e-ink.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: ideus on Sun, 05 April 2015, 17:39:56
If it's just words I can't do it on a monitor.  The eye-strain is too much.  For most reading I prefer books or e-ink.


In your opinion, how much better is e-ink than LCDs for reading?
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: Binge on Mon, 06 April 2015, 00:35:46
If it's just words I can't do it on a monitor.  The eye-strain is too much.  For most reading I prefer books or e-ink.


In your opinion, how much better is e-ink than LCDs for reading?

It is easier for me to read a reflective surface than a emitting surface.  I would say the difference is pretty intense.  My dyslexia goes haywire on monitors whereas it only gets bad on other surfaces if the color is too white in a fluorescent lit room.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: astrafo on Mon, 06 April 2015, 01:49:09
I read around 12 books a year and I love paper. If I cannot get the physical book, I get a digital copy, then I create the booklets using a small program that I coded for this purpose, then I print it out and do the sewing and bookbinding by myself. You can get an idea about how I love paper.

That being said, I own a Kindle Paperwhite (properly jailbroken and with Duokan OS installed) and since I use it I'm 50% happier. I love it too. I have tried other digital ways to read stuff and nothing seems better to me than e-ink mainly because of the backlight of the devices. E-ink feels just like paper, weights less and some devices have a nice light that doesn't aim to your eyes. If you read at night you need half the ambient light you use with paper to read in a e-ink device with proper leds (this is, to me, a huge advantage as I normally read at night) and the battery lasts enough to not think about it while you use the device.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jacobolus on Mon, 06 April 2015, 01:56:50
Any tips or tricks to transitioning to reading digital copies of books?
Don’t bother. Digital books suck for reading.

(On the other hand, digital books on a laptop are great for reference use, if you need to search inside them. Search on mobile devices and e-readers is **** though.)
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jacobolus on Mon, 06 April 2015, 02:12:04
I own a nook and have played around with Kindles.  I still hate e-books compared to physical copies.  There's something about holding a real book and reading it.  That and I've also noticed that it feels like there are a lot more errors in e-books than in physical books, be they weird formatting issues or spelling and grammar issues.
I’ve never seen an ebook that didn’t have absolutely garbage typography. Kindles have worse typography than about 90% of the books published in the last 450 years. Apple’s book reader software on iPads is marginally better, but still pretty ****ty.

Typically, an ebook is a poor hacked together derivative of the paper version, done by a stoned intern (or more realistically, a fully automated job done with no human involvement) with absolutely no care given to the process or product, and no QA check afterward. Internal pictures and diagrams are often corrupted, ****ty quality, or missing entirely. Sometimes the content is just a bad OCR filled with typos. It’s a disgrace. For technical books, broken formatting often makes it completely impossible to follow the content.

If the only thing you read is dozens of Danielle Steel and Tom Clancy novels, then it doesn’t matter quite as much, because there’s no need to read carefully, skip back and forth between multiple parts of the text, look things up, or analyze a complex argument. But for anything that’s not a completely disposable pulp novel, forget it.

Almost nobody making “ebooks” does anything to make them interactive. There are a ton of things that an interactive computer book can do better than paper, especially if they include simulations, animations, etc., but I can count on one hand the books taking full advantage of that capability.

Ebook hardware and software could make itself useful even for plain text documents, if it allowed effective cross-linking, highlighting, note taking, and discussion. In theory, digital platforms should allow all kinds of better ways for indexing, searching, and building up personal research collections. But other than a few simple niceties like looking up words in a dictionary, book reading/annotating/cataloging software fails to live up to any of its potential. For the basic reading experience, ebooks end up much worse than the paper version.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: ideus on Mon, 06 April 2015, 02:12:50
Any tips or tricks to transitioning to reading digital copies of books?
Don’t bother. Digital books suck for reading.

(On the other hand, digital books on a laptop are great for reference use, if you need to search inside them. Search on mobile devices and e-readers is **** though.)


In some cases the digital copies may be get just in time for some urgent work; but, they are very hard to read in any case. You should choose between convinced or comfort.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: SpAmRaY on Tue, 07 April 2015, 11:17:29
As a follow up, I started using my wife's old kindle then decided to get myself a paperwhite.

So far it's just ok but convenient and my reading on it definitely falls into the purely casual type.

I've also bought some physical books that are either older versions or that were simply cheaper than the digital version.
Title: Re: Reading books digitally versus physical copies.
Post by: jdcarpe on Tue, 07 April 2015, 12:07:47
I find that for reading novels, short stories, etc. I prefer e-Ink over LCD. To me a Kindle is most similar in the reading experience to a bound volume.

Maybe it's the ADD that always tugs at me when I'm on an actual tablet, saying that there are other, more exciting things to check at the tap of a finger. When I'm reading on a Kindle, those distractions aren't there on the same device.