Quote:
Originally Posted by theonna
DNSB pointing out shortcomings of Kobo compared to other readers does not mean that the only reason is to put Kobo down, it is amazing to me that coming out later than Kindle, Sony or Nook, having tech stats better, Aura still can not even match the features of its competitors, much less offer something better. I would like to use Kobo and be proud to choose the best reader. Not to make excuses to myself of virtual advantages of hour long syncing or not having a file manager.
|
I just tried copying 1680 books over to a Nook. Oopps.. couldn't do it since there isn't enough free space for user sideloads. Time to copy 875 books take slightly longer than copying the same books to my Aura using Calibre for both copies. Yes, the Nook was ready about 1 minute after the copy was completed while the Aura took 5 minutes to process all the books. Hmmm.. tried to locate a book on both. Aura took <1 second to locate the book which took 1 tap on the search bar and typing 3 characters then a single tap on the search result for the book to open it. Nook took 36 taps to get to the book by browsing the document library and doing quite a bit of scrolling (about 24 seconds total). Yes, the Nook duplicated the file structure that I store books on on my PC. A bit of a complicated structure but it's worked for me for years on my PCs.
Reset the Aura and copied all 1680 books back to the uSD card. Ejected, and took about 10 minutes to process.
Hmmm... 24 seconds to locate a single book compared to <1 seconds. At a 12 second per book advantage (some books aren't going to need the amount of scrolling that
Nine Princes in Amber did), around about 40 books into reading, I'm saving time using the Aura and it's database search. And after all, I didn't sit there while the Aura processed it's files -- that's what cameras are for. I went and enjoyed part of the Kings and Blackhawks game.
Regards,
David