The Kindle DX - A Review a Few Days In

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by soilwork

If you are claiming that both are not that different in terms of durability under normal usage with reasonable case, yes, I agree with you.

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

Frankly, I am not sure why this is an issue of debate in the first place. If everything else is identical (cost, contrast, ...and so on), more durable ones is strictly better than less durable ones. Let us think about the car safety. The current crop of cars may be safe enough for most people in most cases. However, I don't see any harm in developing safer cars.

I'm not sure we're even debating the same thing. Before we got side tracked on the issue of plastic vs glass (which wasn't really what I was talking about), I was saying that I do not believe the statement that larger glass screens are more prone to breaking than smaller glass screens. I believe that there are other factors, besides the size of the screen, which have the most influence on how fragile a glass screen is.

Originally I was comparing "small glass screen" to "large glass screen". It seems to have turned into a discussion about "glass screen" versus "plastic screen", which is a separate debate.

If we're discussing plastic versus glass, I've said that plastic definitely has some advantages. However, I'm not really sure I agree that breakage is a major concern under normal usage conditions. For me, there would likely be other factors in determining which device I buy that have a much higher priority than the substrate material.

Again, I'm not picking on Robertb specifically, he just happens to be a convenient example in this thread, but many manufacturers are saying that they are building a plastic large screen device because glass is too fragile in the larger screen size. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with the screen size. That's all I'm saying.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by soilwork

You are comparing the number of broken screen from DR and iliad. To be correctly compare the durability of two screens, you should compare the ratio of broken screen under the same usage condition.

I've seen zero (that I remember) reports of broken DR screens. Doesn't matter what kind of ratio you want to convert that into. 0/X is not going to be higher than Y/X, no matter what terms you use for X.

[soilwork]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I've seen zero (that I remember) reports of broken DR screens. Doesn't matter what kind of ratio you want to convert that into. 0/X is not going to be higher than Y/X, no matter what terms you use for X.

First, in statistics, you cannot get reliable estimates from really small sample. The sampling error will be enormous. Second, not all 1000DS users will post their story in mobileread. It is simply not representative. The fact that you have not seen broken screen of 1000DS so far in mobileread 1) does not mean that there will be no broken screen in the future and/or you are ignoring that 2) there are users outside of Mobileread.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by soilwork

First, in statistics, you cannot get reliable estimates from really small sample. The sampling error will be enormous. Second, not all 1000DS users will post their story in mobileread. It is simply not representative.

I never said it was a statistically accurate sample, but it is the only data I have. Based on following both mobileread and iRex's own forum, however, the ratio of reports certainly gives the impression that the iLiads are more prone to breakage than the DRs. If you have more accurate statistical data comparing the two devices, by all means please post it.

[Abelturd]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I never said it was a statistically accurate sample, but it is the only data I have. Based on following both mobileread and iRex's own forum, however, the ratio of reports certainly gives the impression that the iLiads are more prone to breakage than the DRs. If you have more accurate statistical data comparing the two devices, by all means please post it.

OK. I take it.
But the turning point seems to be the chassis, which looks a lot more sturdy in DR1000 compared to iliad.
It prolly has nothing to do with the screen.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

But the turning point seems to be the chassis, which looks a lot more sturdy in DR1000 compared to iliad.
It prolly has nothing to do with the screen.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Screen breakage seems to have a lot more to do with chassis design than it does with screen size.

[soilwork]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

Ah, at least, we agree on something.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I never said it was a statistically accurate sample, but it is the only data I have. Based on following both mobileread and iRex's own forum, however, the ratio of reports certainly gives the impression that the iLiads are more prone to breakage than the DRs. If you have more accurate statistical data comparing the two devices, by all means please post it.

First, inferences from unrepresentative and really small sample does not mean anything.

Second, your impression does not qualify as statistical data. It is you who are claiming that both are equally strong and you are supposed to provide the proof for your claim not me.

I am simply pointing out that your logic (or data) behind your claim is not sustainable. You cannot derive your conclusion that 1000DS is as sturdy as iliad from reported breakage (or the lack of) in two forums. To test properly,
1) you need ratio instead of count
2) you need representative sample
3) both should be test in same usage conditions.
Please refer to post 103 and 104.

[Abelturd]

See, now we understand each other.
Abe, the great reconciliator, at your service.



Edit:
Or not...:sigh:
And here we go again.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by soilwork

Second, your impression does not qualify as statistical data.

I know it doesn't. I never said it did.

It is you who are claiming that both are equally strong and you are supposed to provide the proof for your claim not me.

No, it's others who are claiming that larger ones are more prone to breaking. I have not seen any data from them that backs that up. All I'm saying, again, is that my own observation, admittedly not based on a statistically accurate study, seems to indicate the opposite. I'm not sure why this seems to bother you so much?

[soilwork]

(1)

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, it's others who are claiming that larger ones are more prone to breaking. I have not seen any data from them that backs that up. All I'm saying, again, is that my own observation, admittedly not based on a statistically accurate study, seems to indicate the opposite. I'm not sure why this seems to bother you so much?

It is common sense and experience that bigger glass tends to break easily. Since you are proposing a counter intuitive claim, I think you should provide the reason but I think your reason is very weak and untenable. Your conclusion does not follow from your so-called data logically and the resulting conclusion can be very misleading even though it is based on your experience.

(2)
Let me summarize my point here.

I will use the following abbreviation for simplicity.

<Screen>
BGS: big screen e-ink with glass substracte
SGS: small screen e-ink with glass substracte
BPS: big screen e-ink with plastic substrate

<Casing>
SC: sturdier casing
WC: weaker casing

1.
If you claim that 1000DS (BGS+SC) can be as strong as Iliad (SGS+WC),
BGS + SC == SGC + WC
it is certainly possible since it has better casing. However, it does not prove that the bigger screen (BGS) is inherently as strong as smaller screen (SGS). (Inherent problem with larger glass screen, as you mentioned in post #82)
BGS != SGS

2.
In addition, when you are comparing 1000DS (BGS+SC) with Iliad (SGS+WC) and claim that 100DS seems to be as strong as iliad based on unrepresentative sample and small sample. It think your logic is faulty since it has too many problems. (Your post #82)


3.
I responded your post #82 since your are raising the point of durability of 1000DS (BGS + SC) when Robertb mentioned plastic screen (BPS). You brought up the point that BGS + SC is good enough for every day usage and that I can agree. However, if you imply that plastic screen (BPS) is not useful, I disagree. You can use the same sturdy casing with both glass (BGS) and plastic (BPS) and then the plastic one will have better durability.
BPS + SC > BGS + SC


(3)
BTW, I am sorry if I sound too aggressive. I tend not to include humor in discussion (or cannot since English is not my mother tougue). I know some people in this forum can present the idea without sounding aggressive or dry (for example, RickyMaveety) but I am afraid that it will not come to me anytime soon, if ever.

[Abelturd]

Guys, I bet you're both lawyers.

[soilwork]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

Guys, I bet you're both lawyers.

Do you mean the world would be a better place without us?
Fortunately, I am not a lawyer and just a ph.d. student

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by soilwork

It is common sense and experience that bigger glass tends to break easily.

Absolutely true, but there is a lot more to a device than just the glass. If we were comparing a small piece of glass to a large piece of glass, then the smaller should be stronger. That's why I've said from the beginning that "theoretically" the smaller should be stronger. However, a device is not made from just a piece of glass. Other things come into play, like the structural support from the case. That, I believe, makes more of a difference than the size of the glass.

1.
If you claim that 1000DS (BGS+SC) can be as strong as Iliad (SGS+WC),
BGS + SC == SGC + WC
it is certainly possible since it has better casing.

That's exactly what I'm saying, and have been saying. I would even go a step further and say that potentially a large screen with a strong case can be better than a small screen with a weak case. I believe the case design is the primary factor.

However, it does not prove that the bigger screen (BGS) is inherently as strong as smaller screen (SGS).

I never said it did.

(Inherent problem with larger glass screen, as you mentioned in post #82)

I think you're misunderstanding what I said in that post.

You can use the same sturdy casing with both glass (BGS) and plastic (BPS) and then the plastic one will have better durability.
BPS + SC > BGS + SC

Correct. I never said otherwise. I'm not arguing with that point, I'm only questioning whether it's necessary for normal usage.

BTW, I am sorry if I sound too aggressive. I tend not to include humor in discussion (or cannot since English is not my mother tougue).

No apology necessary. I also don't mean this in a bad way, but maybe you're mis-interpreting some of what I was trying to say? I admit that I don't always express myself as well as some others, but you seem to be arguing with things that I didn't say. Either way, I think this discussion has gone well past the point of usefulness.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

Guys, I bet you're both lawyers.

No, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

[Abelturd]

Originally Posted by soilwork

Do you mean the world would be a better place without us?

No, if there's one good thing about me, then it is that I don't judge people.