Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Do you think so? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Kindle 3 was the first device on the market to use the new "Pearl" eInk screen. Isn't the screen the most important part of a reader's hardware?
There seems to be a view that touch screens are automatically better than buttons. Personally I disagree with this view; I don't want to read on a screen that's smudged with fingerprints, and I find touch screens inaccurate for dictionary lookup and text selection. I have readers with touch screens, eg the Sony PRS-350, iPhone, and iPad, but the reader I find myself using more than anything is the "outdated" Kindle.
|
well Harry lets not mix up a better contrast as some technology advancement. That's really all it is. If I bought a TV today that has a contrast ratio of 50,000 : 1 as compared to last years model of 30,000: 1 I'm not inclined to think WOW this is the latest and greatest.
Pearl Screen is a little better contrast ratio nothing more nothing less.
Now whether or not someone prefers buttons to touch or touch to buttons is always going to be subjectable to each individual. But on just pure technology wise, not factoring in your personal preferance. touch screen is more technically advanced than buttons.
IOW's my Father will prefer his clam shell $30 cell phone to any smart phone. But his onld nokia isn't more advanced than my Droid X.
that's what I mean.
Also these types of screens don't pick up smudges etc.