PRS-600 today I decided to return my PRS-600

[richman]

JSWolf!
You are like a parrot then a penguin in your comment about " glare on 600 is less than 300,505. People tell you over and over and over and over and over how you are wrong and you go to thread to thread to thread to thread saying the same thing and YOU DON'T even own the 600. Don't you think you should LISTEN to the people who OWN both the 600 and 505 and are TELLING US the GLARE is why they are returning it.
If you are true to form you will tell me how wrong I am and how 99 percent of the other people are wrong too on this issue.
You are entitled to your OPINION and you give it enough, so , I guess the rest of us can call you the PARROT!

[Palladin]

I am keeping my 700, at least I get a light with my glare. Seriously, I would rather have no touch screen ( less glare ) and a better light but I appear to be in the minority.

[Superlucky]

Originally Posted by Red Alert

The more I read of the problems associated with the "touch screens" the happier I am with my 505. The 300 doesn't allow memory cards, while the 600 and the 700 have touch screens. From what I see, progress on these is a step backwards!

I totally agree, with the additional comment that the 300's screen is too small. I have said before that I refuse to upgrade until I do not have to compromise on screen quality. It irritates me that the only device that meets my needs is no longer being produced.

[bsg75]

Originally Posted by richman

JSWolf!
You are like a parrot then a penguin in your comment about " glare on 600 is less than 300,505. People tell you over and over and over and over and over how you are wrong and you go to thread to thread to thread to thread saying the same thing and YOU DON'T even own the 600.

God I hear that. In this context glare obviously means "reflected light that makes it difficult to read."

He believes incorrectly that we should exclude coherent light (i.e., forming an image) in assessing glare. Now, the touchscreen must add reflection by simple arithmetic. As light passes from one medium to another, be it from air to solid or between solid layers, the difference between the indices of refraction of the adjacent media creates transitional phase differences, increasing the amount of light reflected. These reflections are cumulative, and can "wash out" the display, making the underlying image unreadable.

So when you see a comparison photo of a 600 with a big white halation vs a 505 with a smaller one, he is saying the 600's is more an actual image of the light source whereas the 505's is proper glare.

He is confused and making the wrong distinction between reflection and glare. "Reflection" deals with both internal and external sources of reflection, whereas "glare" deals with only external sources of reflection off a surface (e.g. bright sunlight or high ambient lighting conditions) regardless of whether the reflected light is coherent. In fact, anti-glare coatings use diffusion mechanisms to REDUCE the coherence of the reflected image.

But Polly still wants a cracker I bet.. <sigh>

[SolRaven]

Originally Posted by Palladin

I am keeping my 700, at least I get a light with my glare. Seriously, I would rather have no touch screen ( less glare ) and a better light but I appear to be in the minority.

I do love the touchscreen, but the option to have a built in light on a 505 screen would be hard to resist.

[davidspitzer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Glare is the amount of bright light that reflects back from the screen. The 600 does not reflects light back as much as the 300/505. The 600's touch layer does however reflect more but not glare. Put the 600 with a bright light shining directly on the 600 screen and it won't have as much glare as the same light on a 300/505.

I totally respect your steadfast and singularly lone view on this subject.

Glare, reflection - all just words subject to personal interpretation - bottom line is 600 is not as readable as the 505 and 300

[Haesslich]

I wonder if everyone can find common ground in saying that the PRS-600, whatever its faults are, is a better reader outside than either the PRS-700 or an iPod Touch?

I recently had a chance to borrow a PRS-600 to play with outside in sunny weather (both in direct sunlight and in a shaded area where there was no direct sunlight, merely ambient 'glare' from whatever light was being reflected into the shaded area), and compared it to an iPod Touch with an anti-glare screen protector applied to it. The difference was pretty clear, although I don't have photos to show the level of glare and reflection; the iPod Touch was pretty much washed out unless it was directly in sunlight, which allowed the TFT to reflect light off the back for maximum contrast, while the PRS-600 did equally well in shade and direct sunlight with a creamy white background and sharp contrast, with glare being an issue that did not impact reading to any degree.

Inside, the iPod Touch did better but still lost out to the eReader in terms of contrast in a room with normal ambient lighting without a lamp shining directly on the screen. With a reading lamp shining directly on said screens, the glare was more noticeable on the reader (about at the same level that the iPod Touch with antiglare screen had), perhaps due to the fact that the touch-sensitive surface is a rather smooth plastic. I suspect this type of glare due to direct lighting (over the shoulder, pointing directly at the reader) is the major source of complaints directed at the PRS-600.

I haven't had any opportunity to use a PRS-300 except at Sony Store displays, so can't comment on it or the PRS-505 which came before it. I would suggest that the relative lack of glare with those models even with a direct light shining on them has, for lack of a better word, spoiled people. Either this means Sony managed to create a perfect reader (which, given the complaints about some of the 505's quirks with bookmarks and storage, seems unlikely), or else people got used to the style of screen the PRS-505 had, and which the PRS-300 doesn't quite have... being smaller, and sharing the same hardware as the PRS-600.

In the end, from what I've seen on the forums, it's nowhere near '99 percent of the other people' are on the 'the PRS-600 is the worst reader yet' camp - maybe 50 percent is closer to the mark. Again, it all comes down to personal preferences and the reading environments people are using. Outside, the PRS-600 seems to do quite well... especialy compared to the iPod Touch's and iPhones that I see everyone else using. However, whether the PRS-505's quirks outweigh its strengths, especially versus the PRS-600, is probably something more based on a person's own personal judgement than any objective measures... since everyone wants something different. Given the tone of some of the posts and reviews I've seen here as well as around the Net, JSwolf1 isn't the only person who likes the PRS-600, although the tone of his posts make him sound more like an apologist for its genuine faults than anything else (it really DOES reflect more than some screens, even in the Sony Store displays I was at... if not to the same level as the PRS-700, which was indeed horrible).

Now, if only the PRS-300 had SD card or MS slots... or better yet, a larger screen to go with it. At the $199 price point, it's almost perfect for actually making ebook readers popular, especially with its rather nice looks (refined from the PRS-505's dual disc controls). But then, at that point, there'd be too little differentiation from the -600, which is why I suspect Sony crippled the PRS-300 the way it did. Imagining a PRS-505 successor with the faster CPU, a clear screen, support for open standards and PDF's, the one-disc control system, and without the library issues....

[richman]

I guess with the 505 sony did make it TOO GOOD and has found it hard to make a better model. The same thing happen to canon with High Def camcorders, it made the HV20 TOO GOOD and there are improvements in other ones but it TOO is considered excellent. Not a perfect analogy but shows how KEEPING it SIMPLE is sometimes MORE than adding other features that SCREW UP the BASIC BEAUTY of a functional device that WORKS.
As new eink tech level improves and we move to color screens then these ereaders will use different SCREEN technology and there will be improvement, but at this point they all are using the same tech to make and each company is adding their FEATURES to the mix. Sometimes with success and sometimes not.
Sony should have come up with the 505 super model that FIXES any problems users said would improve it. Faster processor , replaceable battery, and other things we talk about on this forum.

[bsg75]

I'm not bashing the 600. I have one on order and I'm sure I'll love it and keep it, assuming I don't get a lemon. The other upgrades outweigh the optical issues in my use. I'm just saying the 600 must have more reflection by the laws of physics, and it happens to have more glare by an even greater amount for the very reason he claims it has less.

That contention is like changing your private lexicon to reverse the meanings of light and dark and going around every thread in a forum of preschoolers arguing that daytime is dark and nighttime is light. The arbitrary distinction he uses is the opposite of both common lay usage and the usage in applied optical materials science. All anti-glare coatings increase glare and decrease reflection by his definition, exactly opposite. It's one thing repeatedly correcting others on a semantic issue when you are correct, but people usually stop when told authoritatively that their correction is wrong. That's alls I was sayin.

[Haesslich]

Originally Posted by richman

I guess with the 505 sony did make it TOO GOOD and has found it hard to make a better model. The same thing happen to canon with High Def camcorders, it made the HV20 TOO GOOD and there are improvements in other ones but it TOO is considered excellent. Not a perfect analogy but shows how KEEPING it SIMPLE is sometimes MORE than adding other features that SCREW UP the BASIC BEAUTY of a functional device that WORKS.
As new eink tech level improves and we move to color screens then these ereaders will use different SCREEN technology and there will be improvement, but at this point they all are using the same tech to make and each company is adding their FEATURES to the mix. Sometimes with success and sometimes not.
Sony should have come up with the 505 super model that FIXES any problems users said would improve it. Faster processor , replaceable battery, and other things we talk about on this forum.

I see what you did there.

The PRS-600 definitely has issues, and Sony seems to occasionally have issues where they decide that the latest fad is the new killer app (which is how we ended up with touch-controls on the PRS-700 to begin with), but at the same time I disagree that the PRS-600 isn't beautiful. As I've already noted, the PRS-300's interface is excellent with the single-disc control which makes it look less like a wanna-be analog controller on an ebook reader and more like a piece of functionally beautiful technology, which they sabotaged by removing the SD and MS slots.

But, as I pointed out earlier, if they'd kept most of the PRS-505's features on the PRS-300, they'd probably have killed the sales for their 'premium' machine of the moment, which is probably why they intentionally crippled it.. sorta like how Apple decided to limit the software that could be installed from the App Store on iPod Touch devices, which resulted in deployment issues where some games which were able to run on the Touch were barred from being installed on it due to the DRM restricting the devices the programs could run on, even though they functionally are identical where the OS and graphics are concerned.

bsg75: And as I noted, JSwolf1 sounds rather much like an apologist when he's refuting some of the legitimate complaints about the PRS-600. Glare is definitely there, if not to the same degree on the previous PRS-700 which was almost unreadable even inside the store, where they intentionally tried not to have lights shining down on the readers. Whether it's enough to kill any possibility of reading, or if it'll degrade clarity to the point of unusability is going to matter more with the conditions one's reading in, as well as one's personal preferences there. Maybe I'm spoiled after years of reading PDA screens and then a short bit on an iPod Touch.

[richman]

I think the 600 has a lot going for it and it is in improvement over the 700 and with some nice features. I agree with that. But the most important thing for me is reading clarity and contrast and obviously a device that doesn't suffer from glare issue. I guess the added layers of material for the touch screen on the 600 and the touch screen and LiGHT layer on the 700 just makes the READING experience not quite as good. The features I'm all for and most of us are for it , just not at the expense of clarity/contrast/non-glare.
Since they had 500, then 505 which was improvement of 500, they should have had 510 which would include faster processor, replaceable battery, search feature, wifi, features that would not effect the Beautiful Screen. The 300 is just a stripped down version of 505 with same type processor.

[wachuko]

Originally Posted by Haesslich

I wonder if everyone can find common ground in saying that the PRS-600, whatever its faults are, is a better reader outside than either the PRS-700 or an iPod Touch?...

Yes, it is.

[Riocaz]

Going from the 505 to the 600 isn't as hard as I thought it would be. The trick is to completely move from the 505 to the 600.

If you sit and compare the 505 to the 600 the screen is terrible.

But it's far easier to use day to day, than first impressions would give you to believe.

I can't wait for a decent cover to come out (come on tuff-luv).

[Haesslich]

Originally Posted by richman

I think the 600 has a lot going for it and it is in improvement over the 700 and with some nice features. I agree with that. But the most important thing for me is reading clarity and contrast and obviously a device that doesn't suffer from glare issue. I guess the added layers of material for the touch screen on the 600 and the touch screen and LiGHT layer on the 700 just makes the READING experience not quite as good. The features I'm all for and most of us are for it , just not at the expense of clarity/contrast/non-glare.
Since they had 500, then 505 which was improvement of 500, they should have had 510 which would include faster processor, replaceable battery, search feature, wifi, features that would not effect the Beautiful Screen. The 300 is just a stripped down version of 505 with same type processor.

I don't disagree with you about the release of a PRS-505 successor as being a good thing; the PRS-300 was really crippled when they remoed the memory slots and shrunk the screen to make it only slightly more pocketable than the PRS-505. The contrast difference isn't one that I would say I'd notice on day-to-day usage, at least not compared to the genuine reflection issues it does have... if not to the level of being completely unusable the way the PRS-700 was even indoors. Like I said, if they'd kept the PRS-505's features when designing the 300, and brought the price down to $199 as they did, they'd have a winner on their hands.

And THAT'S why they screwed up the PRS-300 by removing the memory slots, although I'm certain someone at Sony justified it by saying that they had to 'cut costs somewhere' and that 'they weren't useful enough for the average reader'. Never mind that photo-viewing capability, or the fact that PDF files can be several megabytes in size (versus the 500-1000KB size of most eBooks). You won't find me arguing that they shouldn't have released a PRS-505 upgrade with the PRS-300's software and hardware (faster processor, more RAM). It feels a bit like they're insulting their customers, by insisting that 'entry level' readers shouldn't have features that everyone else's entry-level ebook readers already do... and some at the exact same price point.

But this is Sony, so boneheaded decisions are to be expected (like the one about removing the PS2-hardware-emulation capability from the PS3 when the PS3 was being outsold by the PS2 by a factor of two-to-one, and when games were still being released regularly on the PS2, after advertising its full backwards compatibility as a selling point)

[jaxx6166]

Have we isolated "the issue" to the touch screen layer and not the side light layer?

Anyone here have a 700 and a 600 care to chime in?