Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I must respectfully disagree, Nate. The point about an eBook reader is that it spends 99.5% of its time displaying a static image, and the screen uses no power to do that. During that time, the CPU can "hibernate" and again use very little power. LCD screens constantly use power.
Those are "standby" times, and don't really reflect usage. I can get about, say, 25h of actual "reading time" on my Gen3, on a battery charge. That's a 1000mAh battery - less power than that of the typical "AAA" battery. That's at least a factor of 10 better (probably more like a factor of 20) than any laptop computer with an LCD screen.
|
I measure battery life in practical terms: How long I can use a device before I have to plug it in again. I use this because trying to measure actual reading time is impractical.
Also, the 99.5% statistic is both incomplete and incorrect.
It is incorrect in that it assumes that the average reader takes 200 times as long to read a page as the device takes to change it. If we consider a nominal .1 second runtime, then your statistic assumes that the screen will remain unchanged for 19.9 seconds. I can read the Kindle page in less than 3 seconds. I bet most people who own an ebook reader are almost as fast (if not faster) than me.
It is also incomplete in that it assumes a linear reading pattern that mainly applies to fiction. True, this is the most common way that an ebook reader is used; but it's not the only way nor is it even in the majority. There are numerous other things you could do with a book that would involve flipping the page repeatedly. This would negate any benefit of an Eink screen, and heighten its deficiency: very slow screen refresh.
I will agree, though, that the Eink screen is a much nicer experience. But the screen refresh is too slow. If the next gen screen come out with a .01s refresh, I might get one.
I would also agree that there are some situations where an Eink screen is better than LCD. But in most situations it is not.