13-year-old shares e-reading habits

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

You know what the weird stuff is?

When it comes down to it, I dislike digital stuff. If I could, I'd still have 800 CD's, 1000 books, all my video games in boxes (yeah, I know they're digital, but I mean, as opposed to download only), do analogue photography, write with a fountain pen only, and not buy stuff over the internet.

It isn't possible. I listen to too much music, read too much, play too many games to have it all in physical format, can't fit it in my house (not even the 1000 books, let alone the rest) not to mention that it's cheaper digitally. Analogue photography is a no-go because I can't have a darkroom, writing with only a pen and not using a computer is impossible if I want to get something useful done, and when not buying stuff over the internet, I can't even get half the things I want.

So yeah, while I'd love to (almost) unplug from the digital world for day-to-day stuff and live like it's 1850, it's just completely impossible to do so.

1500 books makes good wall insulation. So do albums.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by bbqncigars

800 vinyl albums is certainly possible (I've got about half that), and not subject to some of the degradation that the digital format may suffer from.

Provided you don't actually play them.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by bbqncigars

800 vinyl albums is certainly possible (I've got about half that), and not subject to some of the degradation that the digital format may suffer from. I appreciate the flexibility the digital world allows. As long as my stuff lasts as long as I do, I'm good.

What degradation is there in digital media?

If you start out with as open and lossless a format as possible (FLAC for audio, EPUB for e-books), you can convert to any future format without losing anything. As EPUB and FLAC files are still sold today, I expect the format to last at least another 20 years before the industry is going to start phasing them out. They're so common that it might take more than half a century. (I don't see mp3 or jpg become obsolete for general use anytime soon, for example.)

And as j.p.s. noted above: LP's get worse when you play them often. CD's, let alone files, don't (if you don't scratch the CD's and don't corrupt the files, obviously).

The two things that suffer from degradation are:

- Graphics. After monitors switched to pixel-based structure with LCD (instead of CRT, which was sharp at any resolution), graphics created for smaller amounts of pixels will become blurrier and blurrier as the amount of pixels in monitors rise, and the size becomes bigger.

- Software. Microsoft is doing a good job of keeping old software running, but sometimes you need hacks to get it done. At some point, more and more legacy code will be dropped, and some software will just be impossible to run without resorting to virtualisation and/or emulation of old operating systems and hardware.

[Philippe D.]

Originally Posted by bbqncigars

I appreciate the flexibility the digital world allows. As long as my stuff lasts as long as I do, I'm good.

I understand that, by nature, digital works can last forever since perfect copies can be made at virtually no cost (except when DRMs come into play, of course), but there are some aspects of paper books that are clearly lost with ereaders: sharing and transmission.

I mean, when I was a teenager I got into some books that were my parents', well, because they were just lying there, and I was bored (including some erotica - a revelation at the time). Paper books are something you have lying around, and that means you can naturally borrow them, you can inherit them... Basically, paper books, when treated well, naturally last longer than people, and that's sometimes a good thing.

[Panchax]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

What degradation is there in digital media?

I think the poster was referring to the tendency of SD cards, hard drives and CDs to corrupt the files stored on them over really long periods of time. Not relevant to you (or me) in any way, I think.

Originally Posted by darryl

That's one I haven't actually heard before. Is it because you have paid more for the print book and feel you need to finish it to get value? Is it because you have so many alternatives at your fingertips on an ereader? If the book you are reading has failed to hold your attention you may in fact be better reading something else.

Originally Posted by John F

If 2 is important to you and you give it a little thought, you should be able to come up with a way to have just one book on your ereader.

You have a point, but I have a hard time sticking to one book sometimes, even if I like it. It happens more when I'm reading nonfiction then when I'm reading fiction, but sometimes I start to itch for something else. If I stick to the book usually it redeems itself, but if not I end up with a 'stack' of unread books. With an ereader you have them calling to you all the time. Yes, John F, if a book isn't holding your interest and not teaching you something, it needs to be forgotten. To keep only one book on my ereader would be destroying its biggest advantage, It would be like removing your browser to help you focus.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Actually, Readers are MORE delicate than pBooks. A Reader has to be treated carefully because of the glass substrate. The pBook has none and doesn't need to be treat with such care. I can put a lot of weight on a pBook and the pBook will be good to go. Put that same weight on a Reader and chances are, the Reader's screen will be damaged.

I guess the ereaders are delicate. The only time I know of anyone breaking one is when I got into a fight with a friend of mine in highschool, which ended with me throwing him into a bush. His ereader screen broke. However, pbooks fall apart from regular use. Unless you have a good binding, just reading them will break them. The tiniest drop of water will make a pbook swell, turn wavy and sometimes even make its pages stick together (sometimes this can be fixed with a knife and a vise, sometimes not). There are cases where a pbook will hold up better, but my bets will stay on the ebook.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Of course, the problem with that argument is that everyone who has moved exclusively to e-readers at one point read a paper book and then followed it up with an e-book and did not agree with your statement. Unless there has been some recent advance in book technology that we are unaware of

Yes and no. I own an ereader and still feel the pbook wins in many cases.

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I do not think there is some 1 dimensional better scale that can be applied to books, so no universal claim can be made that one is better than the other or regarding the size of the difference.

I did read a hardback paper book a few weeks ago and another a few months before that, and I will say that for some books, an e-book is every bit as good as a physical book. I also say that sometimes an e-book is much better, sometimes much worse, and everything in between.

And those differences are not carved in stone, We are nearing the time when e-books can blow coffee table books to smithereens.

Yes and no. A pbook can be handed from one friend to the next, from one generation to the next, can sit on your bookshelf for you to look at, and is not subject to the whims of a monster like Amazon. Are pbooks obsolescent? Yes. Will they ever be obsolete? I don't think so. At this point, I think they are two different tools, both good each for its own thing. You wouldn't want to be without a car, but there are times when what you need is a bicycle.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

A paper book may be better for you but that is not the case for everyone.
1.) I tend not to flip back in books.
2.) If you do not have another book with you, what do you do when you finish the book and are stuck somewhere with nothing to do?

Curiosity,
You have been saying how much better paper books are, so why get an ereader? You said yourself you like one book at a time in more than one post. You did get one for a great price.

The answer to your question is that, like you said, an ereader can carry many books, while a pbook can carry only one. Another reason is that I read a lot of classics - three or four books and the ereader will pay for itself. The main reason I bought it, though, was to root it and get a distraction free word processor. The best case scenario would be to have both
I also have to say that when I wrote my first post about the superiority of the book, I hadn't had an ereader in two years. Now that I have one again, I am not so sure. I am not giving up my pbooks anytime soon, though.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Panchax

I think the poster was referring to the tendency of SD cards, hard drives and CDs to corrupt the files stored on them over really long periods of time. Not relevant to you (or me) in any way, I think.

You have a point, but I have a hard time sticking to one book sometimes, even if I like it. It happens more when I'm reading nonfiction then when I'm reading fiction, but sometimes I start to itch for something else. If I stick to the book usually it redeems itself, but if not I end up with a 'stack' of unread books. With an ereader you have them calling to you all the time. Yes, John F, if a book isn't holding your interest and not teaching you something, it needs to be forgotten. To keep only one book on my ereader would be destroying its biggest advantage, It would be like removing your browser to help you focus.

I guess the ereaders are delicate. The only time I know of anyone breaking one is when I got into a fight with a friend of mine in highschool, which ended with me throwing him into a bush. His ereader screen broke. However, pbooks fall apart from regular use. Unless you have a good binding, just reading them will break them. The tiniest drop of water will make a pbook swell, turn wavy and sometimes even make its pages stick together (sometimes this can be fixed with a knife and a vise, sometimes not). There are cases where a pbook will hold up better, but my bets will stay on the ebook.

Yes and no. I own an ereader and still feel the pbook wins in many cases.

Yes and no. A pbook can be handed from one friend to the next, from one generation to the next, can sit on your bookshelf for you to look at, and is not subject to the whims of a monster like Amazon. Are pbooks obsolescent? Yes. Will they ever be obsolete? I don't think so. At this point, I think they are two different tools, both good each for its own thing. You wouldn't want to be without a car, but there are times when what you need is a bicycle.
The answer to your question is that, like you said, an ereader can carry many books, while a pbook can carry only one. Another reason is that I read a lot of classics - three or four books and the ereader will pay for itself. The main reason I bought it, though, was to root it and get a distraction free word processor. The best case scenario would be to have both
I also have to say that when I wrote my first post about the superiority of the book, I hadn't had an ereader in two years. Now that I have one again, I am not so sure. I am not giving up my pbooks anytime soon, though.

Did you do know you can get free classic ebooks here at Mobileread? Head on down to the Patricia Clark library. Heck give me a minute and I will hook you up.
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/fo...play.php?f=132
There you go. Classics to your hearts delight.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Hemmi

I've always been a reader. I would have loved an ereader when I was young. As far back as I can remember, at least one book has gone with me everywhere I go. Usually more. Now, it's always an ereader with me no matter what. I love having 300+ books at my fingertips at all times.

I'm much the same way. I often have several books on my Kindle that I switch between depending on my whim of the moment. i.e sci fi or mystery or whatever. And such is a lot more convenient when you have an ereader. With a paper book you are locked into whatever book you have with you at the time.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by crich70

I'm much the same way. I often have several books on my Kindle that I switch between depending on my whim of the moment. i.e sci fi or mystery or whatever. And such is a lot more convenient when you have an ereader. With a paper book you are locked into whatever book you have with you at the time.

Agree. It's just nice to have all my books available at my finger tips so I can read whatever I'm in the mood for. When I went on vacation, I use to pack 10 or more paperbacks. I don't have to do that any more.

I will say that I rarely see kids reading on dedicated ebook readers. I see a lot of paper books, and I see a lot of kids on tablets. I teach kids karate, so I've seen a lot of kids of the years.

To a certain extent, I think that as long as kids are taught to write on paper and use spiral notebooks, kids will be more comfortable reading paper. It's really only once they start using computers to do their homework that they start moving towards reading online, then to reading ebooks.

Now that my niece and nephew are in high school, it seems that they are mostly using computers (chrome books that were loaded by their high school) and everything is online. I don't think they have paper text books anymore. This is something that has just happened over the last couple of years for them. They are in a private school. I think the public schools are mostly all paper still.

[DNSB]

One advantage with pbooks is that it is rather hard to have an author autograph an ebook. And yes, I do have a fair collection of autographed books from various cons and book signings over the years. I still have horrible memories of when my daughter took my autographed Robert Heinlein books to show to one of her classes when they were reading Stranger in a Strange Land.

[JSWolf]

I know some people get their book autographed on a blank piece of paper, scan it and add it in to the book.

I've read of others printing out the title page from the eBook and getting that signed. scanning it and in the eBook it goes.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I know some people get their book autographed on a blank piece of paper, scan it and add it in to the book.

I've read of others printing out the title page from the eBook and getting that signed. scanning it and in the eBook it goes.

Why limit myself to one ebook? Get one autograph and add it to all the ebooks by that author I own. As an aside, the Robert Heinlein autographs were literally paid for in blood.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Why limit myself to one ebook? Get one autograph and add it to all the ebooks by that author I own. As an aside, the Robert Heinlein autographs were literally paid for in blood.

Robert Heinlein was a vampire????????????????
Apache

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Apache

Robert Heinlein was a vampire????????????????
Apache

Yeah, but he was one of those tortured, regretful vampires, like you see in movies aimed at teen-aged girls. He was the prototype.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

Robert Heinlein was a vampire????????????????
Apache

For those who don't know, Robert Heinlein had a medical issue that required donor blood and after that he was a big proponent of donating blood.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Why limit myself to one ebook? Get one autograph and add it to all the ebooks by that author I own. As an aside, the Robert Heinlein autographs were literally paid for in blood.

Thank you.