E-reader sizes

[gastan]

I've been reading thru some of the older posts here and something that I've noticed has me scratching my head a bit.

There seems to be a definite bias against larger screen devices. I keep reading, over and over, about how the new 8"/9"/10" readers are just too big. You can't "comfortably" hold them with one hand, they're "too big" for ease of use, you can't put them in your pocket, yada, yada, yada.

Can someone explain exactly what the problem is? After all, even the new larger screen devices like the eDGe, the Adam, the rumored Hanlin A9, or the Ditto Book D9, in their landscape orientation, are hardly any bigger than a standard paperback (opened for reading).

A standard paper back, when opened for reading, will be about 8" or 9" X 7".
A trade paperback will be even larger -- 10" or 11" X 8".
And I'm not even mentioning hardbound pbooks.

The smallest of the new devices I've mentioned, the Hanlin A9 is about 10.3" X 6.7".
Even the largest, the eDGe (when folded back on itself to use the e-ink screen), is only about 10.75" X 8.25" ... about the same size as a trade paperback.

And as far as I can see, a bigger screen means you can have more material available between page turns, not to mention the obvious benefit for pdf's and newspaper/magazines. And what's so hard about carrying something smaller than a pad of notebook paper?

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by gastan

I've been reading thru some of the older posts here and something that I've noticed has me scratching my head a bit.

There seems to be a definite bias against larger screen devices. I keep reading, over and over, about how the new 8"/9"/10" readers are just too big. You can't "comfortably" hold them with one hand, they're "too big" for ease of use, you can't put them in your pocket, yada, yada, yada.

Can someone explain exactly what the problem is? After all, even the new larger screen devices like the eDGe, the Adam, the rumored Hanlin A9, or the Ditto Book D9, in their landscape orientation, are hardly any bigger than a standard paperback (opened for reading).

A standard paper back, when opened for reading, will be about 8" or 9" X 7".
A trade paperback will be even larger -- 10" or 11" X 8".
And I'm not even mentioning hardbound pbooks.

The smallest of the new devices I've mentioned, the Hanlin A9 is about 10.3" X 6.7".
Even the largest, the eDGe (when folded back on itself to use the e-ink screen), is only about 10.75" X 8.25" ... about the same size as a trade paperback.

And as far as I can see, a bigger screen means you can have more material available between page turns, not to mention the obvious benefit for pdf's and newspaper/magazines. And what's so hard about carrying something smaller than a pad of notebook paper?

I can stuff my Kindle 2 (6" display), in its case, into my pants pocket. I cannot do that with any of the 8", 9" or 10" devices. If I want to transport one anywhere, I must grab a tote bag as I need both hands for my canes. Plus, when lying down, it's a bit awkward to hold - of course, so are most hardcover novels, so it's a wash there.

And the nifty thing about the 5" units is that I can stuff a suitably cased device into the pocket on my t-shirt.

Even so, I lust after a larger device as I have plenty of tech manuals in PDF that would go fine on one. Still, the price is far too high at this point - for me.

Derek

[lene1949]

I love my kindle2, but of course I would also love a larger device, just for the sake of it... I'll probably go for the kindleDX in a few months, if nothing better comes along.

[Terisa de morgan]

Well, for me it's more confortable a smalle one, that I can keep with one hand, the screens you mention I can't. And they don't fit in my bag or they're going to damage my back if I carry then. Besides, I needn't that screen, it's not useful for my reading.

[Iphinome]

They weigh a bit more than a paperback I find my kindle 1 awkward enough one handed i usually have to brace it against something for one handed reading.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I can stuff my Kindle 2 (6" display), in its case, into my pants pocket. I cannot do that with any of the 8", 9" or 10" devices. If I want to transport one anywhere, I must grab a tote bag as I need both hands for my canes. Plus, when lying down, it's a bit awkward to hold - of course, so are most hardcover novels, so it's a wash there.

And the nifty thing about the 5" units is that I can stuff a suitably cased device into the pocket on my t-shirt.

Even so, I lust after a larger device as I have plenty of tech manuals in PDF that would go fine on one. Still, the price is far too high at this point - for me.

Derek

You have some huge pockets . My PRS-500 won't fit in any of my pockets or my husband's pockets.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by gastan

I've been reading thru some of the older posts here and something that I've noticed has me scratching my head a bit.

There seems to be a definite bias against larger screen devices. I keep reading, over and over, about how the new 8"/9"/10" readers are just too big. You can't "comfortably" hold them with one hand, they're "too big" for ease of use, you can't put them in your pocket, yada, yada, yada.

Can someone explain exactly what the problem is? After all, even the new larger screen devices like the eDGe, the Adam, the rumored Hanlin A9, or the Ditto Book D9, in their landscape orientation, are hardly any bigger than a standard paperback (opened for reading).

A standard paper back, when opened for reading, will be about 8" or 9" X 7".
A trade paperback will be even larger -- 10" or 11" X 8".
And I'm not even mentioning hardbound pbooks.

The smallest of the new devices I've mentioned, the Hanlin A9 is about 10.3" X 6.7".
Even the largest, the eDGe (when folded back on itself to use the e-ink screen), is only about 10.75" X 8.25" ... about the same size as a trade paperback.

And as far as I can see, a bigger screen means you can have more material available between page turns, not to mention the obvious benefit for pdf's and newspaper/magazines. And what's so hard about carrying something smaller than a pad of notebook paper?

I have a PRS-500 right now and I'm most likely going to move up to the iPad since I rarely use the PRS-500 anymore since Reader apps became available for the iPhone.

[TallMomof2]

Smaller screens are simply more portable. I prefer a larger screen but keep my K2 because it's easy to tuck it into a purse. The DX will fit in my purse, too but it's noticeably heavier and takes up almost all the space.

[ardeegee]

My only objection is the price-- if I could have bought a 8 or 10 inch e-ink reader for 200 bucks instead of my 5 inch Sony, I would have been all over that like condoleezza on rice.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

They weigh a bit more than a paperback I find my kindle 1 awkward enough one handed i usually have to brace it against something for one handed reading.

I have the 505 with a lightwedge cover, and it's definitely not something I'd want to hold in one hand to read from. Having said that, I don't normally hold a paperback in one hand either, (I hate bending the cover back; as far as I'm concerned that ruins the book) so the difficulty of reading one-handed doesn't really bother me.

As for larger devices, I'd love one - I want something that can properly handle letter-size PDFs.

[wallcraft]

The 8.1" DR800SG isn't much bigger than the Kindle 2:

Hanlin A9: 262 x 170 x 12.0 mm (10.3" x 6.7" x 0.5")
DR800SG: 193 x 149 x 10.7 mm  (7.6" x 5.9" x 0.4")
Kindle 2:   203 x 135 x   9.0 mm  (8.0" x 5.3" x 0.4")
Nook:       196 x 126 x 13.0 mm   (7.7" x 4.9" x 0.5")
PRS-600:  175 x 122 x   9.7 mm   (6.9" x 4.8" x 0.4")

Minimizing the overall device size is a potential advantage of a touch screen, and presumably a 6" device relying more heavily on touch could be made smaller than the PRS-600. A SiPix 9" screen is 15 mm wider and 20 mm taller than the Vizplex 8.1", so perhaps 8.5" x 6.5" is the smallest practical size (the A9 has a D-pad ring below the screen which makes it taller than this).

[afv011]

I am definitively after a larger device, mostly to read technical books, which more often than not come in PDF are are next to impossible to read on a smaller device. I'm after something in the 9" or 10" range, so it can display a full 8.5"x11" page without using a tiny font, maybe after the help of a margin crop. Ideally with a small bezel, so the device is not too large, which probably means touch screen. And cheaper than what the current devices are sold for. Hopefully sometime this year.

[drplokta]

Originally Posted by gastan

I've been reading thru some of the older posts here and something that I've noticed has me scratching my head a bit.

There seems to be a definite bias against larger screen devices. I keep reading, over and over, about how the new 8"/9"/10" readers are just too big. You can't "comfortably" hold them with one hand, they're "too big" for ease of use, you can't put them in your pocket, yada, yada, yada.

Can someone explain exactly what the problem is? After all, even the new larger screen devices like the eDGe, the Adam, the rumored Hanlin A9, or the Ditto Book D9, in their landscape orientation, are hardly any bigger than a standard paperback (opened for reading).

A standard paper back, when opened for reading, will be about 8" or 9" X 7".
A trade paperback will be even larger -- 10" or 11" X 8".
And I'm not even mentioning hardbound pbooks.

The smallest of the new devices I've mentioned, the Hanlin A9 is about 10.3" X 6.7".
Even the largest, the eDGe (when folded back on itself to use the e-ink screen), is only about 10.75" X 8.25" ... about the same size as a trade paperback.

And as far as I can see, a bigger screen means you can have more material available between page turns, not to mention the obvious benefit for pdf's and newspaper/magazines. And what's so hard about carrying something smaller than a pad of notebook paper?

The problem is that a standard paperback is already much too big, so just because an ereader is no larger than a paperback, that doesn't prove it's the right size. I don't like to carry a bag when I travel. I don't wear a coat or jacket in summer. I therefore need an ereader that fits in a shirt or trouser pocket.

Fortunately, my iPhone fits the bill, but ereaders like the Kindle aren't just a bit too big, they're overwhelmingly, insultingly too big.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by gastan

A standard paper back, when opened for reading, will be about 8" or 9" X 7".
A trade paperback will be even larger -- 10" or 11" X 8".

A 6" screen e-ink reader is considerably bigger than that standard paperback. It's about the size of a trade paperback because, it's got hardware in addition to the screen. An 8" e-ink reader is the size of a hardcover book.

And as far as I can see, a bigger screen means you can have more material available between page turns, not to mention the obvious benefit for pdf's and newspaper/magazines. And what's so hard about carrying something smaller than a pad of notebook paper?

It's hard to safely carry & balance in one hand. (I regularly read standing up on the train on the way to work.) It's heavier; again, a problem for one-handed reading. The buttons are more likely to be placed in a way that doesn't allow for one-hand use. It's likely to show the text all the way across the screen, which may be too wide for comfortable reading. (There's a reason coffee-table book text is usually arranged in columns instead of all the way across the page.) And I don't like people being able to read over my shoulder, 'cos a lot of what I read is, erm, not suitable for public display.

I don't object to larger screens for the people who like them, but they don't meet my needs for a portable reader.

[Penforhire]

You can't compare carrying around most paper books to an e-reader because of its value. If you're in a restaurant, by yourself, and you need to use the bathroom do you leave your e-reader sitting on the table? I don't. But I have no real concern about leaving a book behind. Lots of other similar travel circumstances mean an e-reader has be in-hand more often than a paper book.