(1)
Quote:
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.
