There seems to be a
misconception that the 300 isn't as good for fast readers because the screen is smaller. As I noted a while back, the 300 has about 5/6 the amount of text per line and 5/6 the number of lines per screen as on a comparable 6" screen. This leads to 2/3 the amount of text per screenful, or 50% more page turns.
OTOH, I find (after long reading sessions) that
the 300 is a bit easier on the eyes--my eyes don't have to scan across longer text lines, and can stay more centered as I work my way down the page. I believe that I actually read a bit faster on the 300 than on the 500/505 with larger screens. And timing the page turn when I hit the last line doesn't slow things down one bit.
So, I think (after a lot of reading on both 5" and 6" ebook devices) that reading on the 5" screen is just as fast as on the 6" screen, if not faster, and is easier on the eyes in the long run. This is the same effect that makes it easy to quickly read narrow newspaper columns by basically tracking down the center of the column, where your eyes barely move left/right to catch the entire short line of text.
Funny, I see so many people here saying the 5" screen is "too small" and they wouldn't want one, after just looking at one in a store (or even just reading the specs!). But I have not seen a 300 owner here suggest that the 5" screen is too small or that it slows down the reading process. (I
may have missed one such comment here, if it exists!)
My opinions are based on extensive first-hand experience. And I think it is disturbing that so many people here make such comments against the 5" screen, dissuading others who are considering one, without having really spent a lot of time using one.
