Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT - what is the best E-book device
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Arcadian Rises
Feb 5, 2012, 11:33:31 AM2/5/12
to
A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
or it just expired?
Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
performance?
didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
or it just expired?
Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
performance?
Peter Duncanson
Feb 5, 2012, 12:06:38 PM2/5/12
to
Hi,
You posted this message via Google Groups. Unfortunately, posts from GG are not getting to the outside world. Therefore many of the people who could help will not have seen your message.
I will post your request using my normal newsserver so that people can see it.
You posted this message via Google Groups. Unfortunately, posts from GG are not getting to the outside world. Therefore many of the people who could help will not have seen your message.
I will post your request using my normal newsserver so that people can see it.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Feb 5, 2012, 12:10:07 PM2/5/12
to
The following post was made via Google Groups but has not arrived in the
outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
LFS
Feb 5, 2012, 12:32:02 PM2/5/12
to
become very fond of it. It has all sorts of features that I have never
used like note making and sound. It is a little heavier than a Kindle
and slightly thicker. Books have to be downloaded onto my PC and then
transferred but I think if I had a Kindle the instant access would mean
that I would spend too much money, although I do now have the Kindle app
on my phone and I read on that sometimes. I found holding it in one hand
less convenient than reading a book so I bought a cover.
It is excellent for travelling so I no longer worry about running out of
reading matter, although I now worry about whether it is fully charged.
But I still read and buy books, it's in no way a replacement. E-books
don't smell, for a start: there is nothing like the smell of a new book.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
James Silverton
Feb 5, 2012, 1:06:23 PM2/5/12
to
(rather than looking at magazines or pictures.)
--
Jim Silverton
Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
erilar
Feb 5, 2012, 1:32:11 PM2/5/12
to
In article <iqdti7hf7l8870tat...@4ax.com>,
Not at all
> Or do they vary in quality and
> performance?
Greatly.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Not at all
> Or do they vary in quality and
> performance?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Vinny Burgoo
Feb 5, 2012, 2:35:03 PM2/5/12
to
In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote:
>On 05/02/2012 17:10, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> The following post was made via Google Groups but has not arrived in the
>> outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
>> my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
Have a knighthood for services to the public. They're in a bucket under
>On 05/02/2012 17:10, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> The following post was made via Google Groups but has not arrived in the
>> outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
>> my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
the desk.
>> From: Arcadian Rises
>>
>> A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
>> didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
>> sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
>> I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
>> or it just expired?
>>
>> Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
>> performance?
>I have owned a Sony e-reader since the days before Kindle and I have
>become very fond of it. It has all sorts of features that I have never
>used like note making and sound. It is a little heavier than a Kindle
>and slightly thicker. Books have to be downloaded onto my PC and then
>transferred but I think if I had a Kindle the instant access would mean
>that I would spend too much money, although I do now have the Kindle
>app on my phone and I read on that sometimes. I found holding it in one
>hand less convenient than reading a book so I bought a cover.
>
>It is excellent for travelling so I no longer worry about running out
>of reading matter, although I now worry about whether it is fully
>charged. But I still read and buy books, it's in no way a replacement.
>E-books don't smell, for a start: there is nothing like the smell of a
>new book.
Reader has the advantage of being able to handle e-books borrowed from
public libraries. The last time I looked, Kindles still couldn't do
that.
Plus you can buy a nifty cover with a foldaway reading lamp for a
Reader.
And Readers can be run and simultaneously charged with a generic
external USB power supply. I'm not sure Kindles allow that.
And Readers are said to be better than Kindles at handling PDFs.
Downsides: Sony Readers are more expensive than Kindles. The supplied
on-computer Reader Library software insists on trying to synch Reader
and PC whenever both are connected.
--
VB
Mike Barnes
Feb 5, 2012, 2:51:57 PM2/5/12
to
Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk>:
charging most modern mobile phones) either from a PC or a dedicated
charger. If it's a PC connection the Kindle automatically establishes a
data connection and displays a message to the effect that if you want to
read your content while charging you have to Eject the device from the
PC. That isn't necessary if charging from a dedicated charger.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
>And Readers can be run and simultaneously charged with a generic
>external USB power supply. I'm not sure Kindles allow that.
My Kindle can be charged with a micro-USB (the same plug that's used for
>external USB power supply. I'm not sure Kindles allow that.
charging most modern mobile phones) either from a PC or a dedicated
charger. If it's a PC connection the Kindle automatically establishes a
data connection and displays a message to the effect that if you want to
read your content while charging you have to Eject the device from the
PC. That isn't necessary if charging from a dedicated charger.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Tom Friedetzky
Feb 5, 2012, 2:55:26 PM2/5/12
to
On Sun Feb 5 2012 at 19:35:03 UTC, Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> For people in the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales), the Sony
> Reader has the advantage of being able to handle e-books borrowed from
> public libraries. The last time I looked, Kindles still couldn't do
> that.
I don't think they can.
> For people in the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales), the Sony
> Reader has the advantage of being able to handle e-books borrowed from
> public libraries. The last time I looked, Kindles still couldn't do
> that.
> Plus you can buy a nifty cover with a foldaway reading lamp for a
> Reader.
expensive though - almost half the price of the Kindle itself).
> And Readers can be run and simultaneously charged with a generic
> external USB power supply. I'm not sure Kindles allow that.
called).
> And Readers are said to be better than Kindles at handling PDFs.
they generally look very nice (they tend to contain links, mathematical
notation and figures, and I never experienced any problems).
What I came to like rather a lot about my 3G Kindle is the possibility
to use its builtin web browser, in a pinch. It's slow and all, but it
does a reasonable job for e.g. a quick google or wiki lookup. GMail
works as well, within reason. And it (the internet access) doesn't cost
a penny.
My biggest gripe with it is that it's got too many buttons. I'm
struggling to hold it comfortably without occasionally accidentally
pressing one or the other button (usually resulting in a page flip).
Arcadian Rises
Feb 5, 2012, 3:23:50 PM2/5/12
to
I know that sooner or later I must look into Google Groups and other
servers, perhaps even before I learn how to download pictures from my
cellular.
Arcadian Rises
Feb 5, 2012, 3:39:19 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 5, 12:32 pm, LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05/02/2012 17:10, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
> > The following post was made via Google Groups but has not arrived in the
> > outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
> > my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
>
> > From: Arcadian Rises
>
> > A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
> > didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
> > sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
> > I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
> > or it just expired?
>
> > Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
> > performance?
>
> I have owned a Sony e-reader since the days before Kindle and I have
> become very fond of it. It has all sorts of features that I have never
> used like note making and sound. It is a little heavier than a Kindle
> and slightly thicker. Books have to be downloaded onto my PC and then
> transferred but I think if I had a Kindle the instant access would mean
> that I would spend too much money, although I do now have the Kindle app
> on my phone and I read on that sometimes. I found holding it in one hand
> less convenient than reading a book so I bought a cover.
>
> It is excellent for travelling so I no longer worry about running out of
> reading matter, although I now worry about whether it is fully charged.
I am not worried about running out of reading stuff. My must-read list
> On 05/02/2012 17:10, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
> > The following post was made via Google Groups but has not arrived in the
> > outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
> > my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
>
> > From: Arcadian Rises
>
> > A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
> > didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
> > sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
> > I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
> > or it just expired?
>
> > Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
> > performance?
>
> I have owned a Sony e-reader since the days before Kindle and I have
> become very fond of it. It has all sorts of features that I have never
> used like note making and sound. It is a little heavier than a Kindle
> and slightly thicker. Books have to be downloaded onto my PC and then
> transferred but I think if I had a Kindle the instant access would mean
> that I would spend too much money, although I do now have the Kindle app
> on my phone and I read on that sometimes. I found holding it in one hand
> less convenient than reading a book so I bought a cover.
>
> It is excellent for travelling so I no longer worry about running out of
> reading matter, although I now worry about whether it is fully charged.
keeps getting bigger by the day. And now I get all that very
interesting mail fwd which I keep saving because I truly intend to
read it in due course.
.
> But I still read and buy books, it's in no way a replacement. E-books
> don't smell, for a start: there is nothing like the smell of a new book.
anymore. Right now I read 2-3 books in paralel (professional, fiction,
etc) which I know I will be able to continue with e-books.
But when I start reading just for pleasure, the minute I get bored, I
put the book aside with no compunction: I don't need to write reviews,
or be tested, and I someone would benefit from when I give it away or
donate to the local library; or even save it for future reading, like
I do with the interesting mail forward which I don't have the heart to
delete it...yet.
But if I pay and/or spend time with downloading I would feel guilty
not to read it and my hedonistic reading will give way to the sensible
"you paid it, now you read it". Not to mention my shallow habit of
judging a book by, well, yes by its cover and skimming through a few
pages...
Jeff Urs
Feb 5, 2012, 3:59:02 PM2/5/12
to
"Tom Friedetzky" <tfn...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjitnle...@ID-friedetzky.user.individual.net...
book is downloaded directly from Amazon.
Amazon is capitalizing on it by sending an email when the loan period
expires that points out that the book is for sale and that a borrower buying
it will be able to keep all of his or her bookmarks and annotations.
--
Jeff
news:slrnjitnle...@ID-friedetzky.user.individual.net...
> On Sun Feb 5 2012 at 19:35:03 UTC, Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> For people in the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales), the Sony
>> Reader has the advantage of being able to handle e-books borrowed from
>> public libraries. The last time I looked, Kindles still couldn't do
>> that.
>
> I don't think they can.
It may well be that they can't in the UK, but in the U.S. they now can. The
> wrote:
>> For people in the UK (or perhaps just England and Wales), the Sony
>> Reader has the advantage of being able to handle e-books borrowed from
>> public libraries. The last time I looked, Kindles still couldn't do
>> that.
>
> I don't think they can.
book is downloaded directly from Amazon.
Amazon is capitalizing on it by sending an email when the loan period
expires that points out that the book is for sale and that a borrower buying
it will be able to keep all of his or her bookmarks and annotations.
--
Jeff
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Feb 5, 2012, 4:07:06 PM2/5/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:35:03 +0000, Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote:
>>On 05/02/2012 17:10, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
>>> The following post was made via Google Groups but has not arrived in the
>>> outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
>>> my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
>
>Have a knighthood for services to the public. They're in a bucket under
>the desk.
>
Thank you Lord Burgoo.
wrote:
>In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote:
>>On 05/02/2012 17:10, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
>>> The following post was made via Google Groups but has not arrived in the
>>> outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
>>> my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
>
>Have a knighthood for services to the public. They're in a bucket under
>the desk.
>
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Feb 5, 2012, 4:10:38 PM2/5/12
to
Reposting the reply from Arcadian Rises:
> On 05/02/2012 17:10, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
> > The following post was made via Google Groups but has not arrived in the
> > outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
> > my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
>
> > From: Arcadian Rises
>
> > A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
> > didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
> > sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
> > I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
> > or it just expired?
>
> > Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
> > performance?
>
> I have owned a Sony e-reader since the days before Kindle and I have
> become very fond of it. It has all sorts of features that I have never
> used like note making and sound. It is a little heavier than a Kindle
> and slightly thicker. Books have to be downloaded onto my PC and then
> transferred but I think if I had a Kindle the instant access would mean
> that I would spend too much money, although I do now have the Kindle app
> on my phone and I read on that sometimes. I found holding it in one hand
> less convenient than reading a book so I bought a cover.
>
> It is excellent for travelling so I no longer worry about running out of
> reading matter, although I now worry about whether it is fully charged.
>
> > The following post was made via Google Groups but has not arrived in the
> > outside world [see Richard Yates's thread on GG] so I'm copying it via
> > my newsserver to make it visible to to all AUE-ers.
>
> > From: Arcadian Rises
>
> > A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
> > didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
> > sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
> > I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
> > or it just expired?
>
> > Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
> > performance?
>
> I have owned a Sony e-reader since the days before Kindle and I have
> become very fond of it. It has all sorts of features that I have never
> used like note making and sound. It is a little heavier than a Kindle
> and slightly thicker. Books have to be downloaded onto my PC and then
> transferred but I think if I had a Kindle the instant access would mean
> that I would spend too much money, although I do now have the Kindle app
> on my phone and I read on that sometimes. I found holding it in one hand
> less convenient than reading a book so I bought a cover.
>
> It is excellent for travelling so I no longer worry about running out of
> reading matter, although I now worry about whether it is fully charged.
I am not worried about running out of reading stuff. My must-read list
keeps getting bigger by the day. And now I get all that very
interesting mail fwd which I keep saving because I truly intend to
read it in due course.
.
keeps getting bigger by the day. And now I get all that very
interesting mail fwd which I keep saving because I truly intend to
read it in due course.
.
> But I still read and buy books, it's in no way a replacement. E-books
> don't smell, for a start: there is nothing like the smell of a new book.
> don't smell, for a start: there is nothing like the smell of a new book.
Nick Spalding
Feb 5, 2012, 5:08:08 PM2/5/12
to
Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in
<iqdti7hf7l8870tat...@4ax.com>
on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:10:07 +0000:
I only have experience of the Kindle and I like it a lot.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
<iqdti7hf7l8870tat...@4ax.com>
on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:10:07 +0000:
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Mike Barnes
Feb 5, 2012, 5:24:39 PM2/5/12
to
Tom Friedetzky <tfn...@btinternet.com>:
>[...]
>On Sun Feb 5 2012 at 19:35:03 UTC, Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>[Kindle]
>> Plus you can buy a nifty cover with a foldaway reading lamp for a
>> Reader.
>
>That exists for Kindles as well (the one that I've seen is idiotically
>expensive though - almost half the price of the Kindle itself).
I don't there's (yet) such a cover for the new keyboardless Kindle.
>> Reader.
>
>That exists for Kindles as well (the one that I've seen is idiotically
>expensive though - almost half the price of the Kindle itself).
>[...]
>
>My biggest gripe with it is that it's got too many buttons. I'm
>struggling to hold it comfortably without occasionally accidentally
>pressing one or the other button (usually resulting in a page flip).
Me too.
>My biggest gripe with it is that it's got too many buttons. I'm
>struggling to hold it comfortably without occasionally accidentally
>pressing one or the other button (usually resulting in a page flip).
franzi
Feb 5, 2012, 5:55:21 PM2/5/12
to
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> wrote
I have no dedicated device, but I have a Samsung netbook with a free
Kindle app downloaded from Amazon which works perfectly well. I admit
that it has a keyboard at the bottom, a hinge in the middle (a boon! I
can close it), and a screen at the top with a landscape aspect ratio,
but it's light in weight, and also runs the MS Office suite, a web
browser, a powerful relational database, Skype, WordPerfect, Freehand, a
contract bridge player, the Shorter OED, Sage accounts, PAYE tools from
HMRC (OK, not everyone's going to want that), roaming broadband, and all
sorts of other software, with a nine-hour battery life. A bargain, I'd
say.
--
franzi
Kindle app downloaded from Amazon which works perfectly well. I admit
that it has a keyboard at the bottom, a hinge in the middle (a boon! I
can close it), and a screen at the top with a landscape aspect ratio,
but it's light in weight, and also runs the MS Office suite, a web
browser, a powerful relational database, Skype, WordPerfect, Freehand, a
contract bridge player, the Shorter OED, Sage accounts, PAYE tools from
HMRC (OK, not everyone's going to want that), roaming broadband, and all
sorts of other software, with a nine-hour battery life. A bargain, I'd
say.
--
franzi
Leslie Danks
Feb 5, 2012, 6:02:48 PM2/5/12
to
reading classics which I should have been reading years ago instead of
dissoluting my youth--all to be had for nothing, or a few pence. My first
act was to download the KJV and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
(GBP1.44 each), thereby rendering the device desert-island ready and, with
the aid of Kindle's search function, providing a useful resource for the
better class of crossword puzzle.
I would say it's worth spending the extra for the version with a keyboard,
and for a case--preferably the model of case which has an attached reading
light. I use this a lot of the time and the recharging intervals are not
bothersome at all.
--
Les
(BrE)
erilar
Feb 5, 2012, 6:56:12 PM2/5/12
to
In article <acvti7lciiaa9piub...@4ax.com>,
should add my experience with the luxury reader, iPad 8-) I have apps
for Kindle, Nook, Google, Overdrive and its native iBooks. The last is
my favorite because I can manage its details, including creating as many
categories as I please, but I'm told that some of this can be done on
native Kindles, though not with the Kindle.app. I don't need a light
for it because it provides its own. I have a combination case/keyboard
for it. It has longer battery life than a little laptop, though not as
long as Kindle claims, but 10 hours or so is enough for me. I can also
do MANY other things with it, including a few even my home computer
can't. I didn't buy it primarily as a book reader, but I have many books
and .pdfs of many kinds on it, along with a lot of sheet music. People
keep telling me how great it is that the Kindle can be read in bright
sunlight, which is not a place I choose to read, but that strikes me as
a rather trivial "advantage". It's much more expensive. Needs and
tastes vary.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
> >Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
> >performance?
>
> I only have experience of the Kindle and I like it a lot.
Since most of the replies so far are either Kindle or Sony, I decided I
> >performance?
>
> I only have experience of the Kindle and I like it a lot.
should add my experience with the luxury reader, iPad 8-) I have apps
for Kindle, Nook, Google, Overdrive and its native iBooks. The last is
my favorite because I can manage its details, including creating as many
categories as I please, but I'm told that some of this can be done on
native Kindles, though not with the Kindle.app. I don't need a light
for it because it provides its own. I have a combination case/keyboard
for it. It has longer battery life than a little laptop, though not as
long as Kindle claims, but 10 hours or so is enough for me. I can also
do MANY other things with it, including a few even my home computer
can't. I didn't buy it primarily as a book reader, but I have many books
and .pdfs of many kinds on it, along with a lot of sheet music. People
keep telling me how great it is that the Kindle can be read in bright
sunlight, which is not a place I choose to read, but that strikes me as
a rather trivial "advantage". It's much more expensive. Needs and
tastes vary.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Duggy
Feb 5, 2012, 8:23:58 PM2/5/12
to
your replies.
===
= DUG.
===
Dr Nick
Feb 6, 2012, 2:39:48 AM2/6/12
to
have no complaints at all - it was a wonderful gift - but I might have
explored the others in more detail had I been paying).
But all the ereaders have electric paper, not a standard screen. The
difference in reading experience is hard to describe until you
experience it.
Netbooks are wonderful devices though, and I do like the idea though of
having the same app on multiple devices and doing a bit of reading from
time to time on your netbook or phone and synching your "where have I
read up to" point.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Nick Spalding
Feb 6, 2012, 5:29:01 AM2/6/12
to
Dr Nick wrote, in <87aa4wf...@temporary-address.org.uk>
on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:39:48 +0000:
That's how I acquired mine.
>But all the ereaders have electric paper, not a standard screen. The
>difference in reading experience is hard to describe until you
>experience it.
Agreed, the screen is very impressive.
>Netbooks are wonderful devices though, and I do like the idea though of
>having the same app on multiple devices and doing a bit of reading from
>time to time on your netbook or phone and synching your "where have I
>read up to" point.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:39:48 +0000:
>But all the ereaders have electric paper, not a standard screen. The
>difference in reading experience is hard to describe until you
>experience it.
>Netbooks are wonderful devices though, and I do like the idea though of
>having the same app on multiple devices and doing a bit of reading from
>time to time on your netbook or phone and synching your "where have I
>read up to" point.
--
BrE/IrE
Nick Spalding
Feb 6, 2012, 5:33:00 AM2/6/12
to
Leslie Danks wrote, in
<4f2f0a98$0$1582$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>
on 05 Feb 2012 23:02:48 GMT:
>On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:08:08 +0000, Nick Spalding wrote:
>
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in
><iqdti7hf7l8870tat...@4ax.com>
> on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:10:07 +0000:
> >
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
<4f2f0a98$0$1582$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at>
on 05 Feb 2012 23:02:48 GMT:
>On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:08:08 +0000, Nick Spalding wrote:
>
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in
><iqdti7hf7l8870tat...@4ax.com>
> on Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:10:07 +0000:
> >
>>>Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
>>>performance?
>>
>> I only have experience of the Kindle and I like it a lot.
>
>Likewise. I have embarked on a programme of self-dephilistinisation,
>reading classics which I should have been reading years ago instead of
>dissoluting my youth--all to be had for nothing, or a few pence. My first
>act was to download the KJV and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
>(GBP1.44 each), thereby rendering the device desert-island ready and, with
>the aid of Kindle's search function, providing a useful resource for the
>better class of crossword puzzle.
>
>I would say it's worth spending the extra for the version with a keyboard,
>and for a case--preferably the model of case which has an attached reading
>light. I use this a lot of the time and the recharging intervals are not
>bothersome at all.
Yes, the on-screen keyboard is a pain. Gift horse though.
>>>performance?
>>
>> I only have experience of the Kindle and I like it a lot.
>
>Likewise. I have embarked on a programme of self-dephilistinisation,
>reading classics which I should have been reading years ago instead of
>dissoluting my youth--all to be had for nothing, or a few pence. My first
>act was to download the KJV and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
>(GBP1.44 each), thereby rendering the device desert-island ready and, with
>the aid of Kindle's search function, providing a useful resource for the
>better class of crossword puzzle.
>
>I would say it's worth spending the extra for the version with a keyboard,
>and for a case--preferably the model of case which has an attached reading
>light. I use this a lot of the time and the recharging intervals are not
>bothersome at all.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Mike Barnes
Feb 6, 2012, 4:30:14 AM2/6/12
to
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>:
I also have the free Kindle app on my phone and it's really useful to be
able to read my current book any time, anywhere, if I have to wait
around for any reason. The devices even talk to each other to share my
bookmark.
Others have discussed the Kindle case with a built-in light. I don't
have a need for a special light, because I use whatever I'd have used
for a paper book. I did briefly try the official case-light but I found
it rather dim and uneven. And I'm quite happy without a case, which
would add to the bulk and weight, not to mention the expense.
>I only have experience of the Kindle and I like it a lot.
Ditto.
I also have the free Kindle app on my phone and it's really useful to be
able to read my current book any time, anywhere, if I have to wait
around for any reason. The devices even talk to each other to share my
bookmark.
Others have discussed the Kindle case with a built-in light. I don't
have a need for a special light, because I use whatever I'd have used
for a paper book. I did briefly try the official case-light but I found
it rather dim and uneven. And I'm quite happy without a case, which
would add to the bulk and weight, not to mention the expense.
Mike Barnes
Feb 6, 2012, 7:12:34 AM2/6/12
to
Dr Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk>:
lost in the post, twice. She thought the iPad was wonderful, but when
the Kindle arrived, she realised that it was even better.
>The difference is the screen. I was given a Kindle for my birthday (I
>have no complaints at all - it was a wonderful gift - but I might have
>explored the others in more detail had I been paying).
>
>But all the ereaders have electric paper, not a standard screen. The
>difference in reading experience is hard to describe until you
>experience it.
SWMBO used our iPad to read her Kindle books while her real Kindle was
>have no complaints at all - it was a wonderful gift - but I might have
>explored the others in more detail had I been paying).
>
>But all the ereaders have electric paper, not a standard screen. The
>difference in reading experience is hard to describe until you
>experience it.
lost in the post, twice. She thought the iPad was wonderful, but when
the Kindle arrived, she realised that it was even better.
Vinny Burgoo
Feb 6, 2012, 3:05:54 PM2/6/12
to
In alt.usage.english, Mike Barnes wrote:
>Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>>And Readers can be run and simultaneously charged with a generic
>>external USB power supply. I'm not sure Kindles allow that.
>
>My Kindle can be charged with a micro-USB (the same plug that's used for
>charging most modern mobile phones) either from a PC or a dedicated
>charger. If it's a PC connection the Kindle automatically establishes a
>data connection and displays a message to the effect that if you want to
>read your content while charging you have to Eject the device from the
>PC.
Neat. My Sony Reader (PRS-650) doesn't offer that option. If the thing
>Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>>And Readers can be run and simultaneously charged with a generic
>>external USB power supply. I'm not sure Kindles allow that.
>
>My Kindle can be charged with a micro-USB (the same plug that's used for
>charging most modern mobile phones) either from a PC or a dedicated
>charger. If it's a PC connection the Kindle automatically establishes a
>data connection and displays a message to the effect that if you want to
>read your content while charging you have to Eject the device from the
>PC.
is connected to a computer, you can't access it directly. (Not even by
ejecting everything in sight; I've just tried that.)
>That isn't necessary if charging from a dedicated charger.
branded job or will any old 5V power source with a USB plug do?
(And are SD cards readable by later Kindles? This option is useful for
memory-consuming audio.)
--
VB
Vinny Burgoo
Feb 6, 2012, 3:23:51 PM2/6/12
to
In alt.usage.english, Vinny Burgoo wrote:
>Does that necessarily mean an expensive branded job or will any old 5V
>power source with a USB plug do?
Scrub that. I've just tried a USB battery with the Sony Reader and it
>Does that necessarily mean an expensive branded job or will any old 5V
>power source with a USB plug do?
didn't work. Mains-powered generic USB power sources do, though.
--
VB
Mike Barnes
Feb 6, 2012, 3:37:35 PM2/6/12
to
Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk>:
What I meant was a power-only USB connection with no computer. The only
company I know of that goes out of its way to make its stuff not work
with "any old USB" is Apple.
company I know of that goes out of its way to make its stuff not work
with "any old USB" is Apple.
John Varela
Feb 6, 2012, 4:35:44 PM2/6/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:02:48 UTC, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
wrote:
> I would say it's worth spending the extra for the version with a keyboard,
I think you have that backwards. Depending on the model
(with/without 3G, with/without ads) the Touch costs the same as or
more than the Keyboard model. They are all so cheap that it doesn't
really matter.
--
John Varela
wrote:
> I would say it's worth spending the extra for the version with a keyboard,
(with/without 3G, with/without ads) the Touch costs the same as or
more than the Keyboard model. They are all so cheap that it doesn't
really matter.
--
John Varela
John Varela
Feb 6, 2012, 4:37:56 PM2/6/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:24:39 UTC, Mike Barnes
<mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Tom Friedetzky <tfn...@btinternet.com>:
> >On Sun Feb 5 2012 at 19:35:03 UTC, Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>[Kindle]
> >> Plus you can buy a nifty cover with a foldaway reading lamp for a
> >> Reader.
> >
> >That exists for Kindles as well (the one that I've seen is idiotically
> >expensive though - almost half the price of the Kindle itself).
>
> I don't there's (yet) such a cover for the new keyboardless Kindle.
There is.
<mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Tom Friedetzky <tfn...@btinternet.com>:
> >On Sun Feb 5 2012 at 19:35:03 UTC, Vinny Burgoo <hlu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>[Kindle]
> >> Plus you can buy a nifty cover with a foldaway reading lamp for a
> >> Reader.
> >
> >That exists for Kindles as well (the one that I've seen is idiotically
> >expensive though - almost half the price of the Kindle itself).
>
> I don't there's (yet) such a cover for the new keyboardless Kindle.
--
John Varela
Leslie Danks
Feb 6, 2012, 4:54:44 PM2/6/12
to
the region of 20 euros (which is doubtless peanuts to many people). The
pricing arrangements may be different in the USA. The extra convenience
offered by a keyboard means (IMO) that you should buy a keyboard model if
you possibly can--that was the point I was making. I'm not sure what you
think I had arsey versey.
--
Les
(BrE)
Peter Moylan
Feb 6, 2012, 6:17:51 PM2/6/12
to
with a computer connection, but only if the computer was running
Windows, and only if the right device driver was installed. Eventually
the phone was declared obsolete (are we expected to throw away phones
that are still working, once they're old enough to attend primary
school?) and I'd had a change of computer at work, so the device driver
was unfindable and charging didn't work any more.
Charging in my car was not an available option, because my car's
cigarette lighter didn't have a Motorola device driver.
I haven't yet tried it with my current phone, because I don't have the
right sort of USB cable. Mobile phone manufacturers seem to go out of
their way to make their connectors incompatible with one another.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Mike Barnes
Feb 6, 2012, 5:29:31 PM2/6/12
to
John Varela <newl...@verizon.net>:
keyboard and no 3G for £90. All without ads.
And, confirming what you posted, a cover with light is now available for
the keyboardless version at £40. (Keyboard version £51).
>On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:02:48 UTC, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
>wrote:
>
>> I would say it's worth spending the extra for the version with a keyboard,
>
>I think you have that backwards. Depending on the model
>(with/without 3G, with/without ads) the Touch costs the same as or
>more than the Keyboard model.
In the UK the only options are a keyboard and 3G for £150, or no
>wrote:
>
>> I would say it's worth spending the extra for the version with a keyboard,
>
>I think you have that backwards. Depending on the model
>(with/without 3G, with/without ads) the Touch costs the same as or
>more than the Keyboard model.
keyboard and no 3G for £90. All without ads.
And, confirming what you posted, a cover with light is now available for
the keyboardless version at £40. (Keyboard version £51).
John Varela
Feb 6, 2012, 11:01:31 PM2/6/12
to
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 21:54:44 UTC, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
about prices.
>The extra convenience
> offered by a keyboard means (IMO) that you should buy a keyboard model if
> you possibly can--that was the point I was making. I'm not sure what you
> think I had arsey versey.
The keyboard model is larger and heavier. Reasonable men may differ
as to which is preferable.
--
John Varela
wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:35:44 +0000, John Varela wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:02:48 UTC, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I would say it's worth spending the extra for the version with a
> >> keyboard,
> >
> > I think you have that backwards. Depending on the model (with/without
> > 3G, with/without ads) the Touch costs the same as or more than the
> > Keyboard model. They are all so cheap that it doesn't really matter.
>
> According to Amazon.de, you pay more for an equivalent keyboard model--in
> the region of 20 euros (which is doubtless peanuts to many people). The
> pricing arrangements may be different in the USA.
They are. I checked the Amazon.com site before making that assertion
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:35:44 +0000, John Varela wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:02:48 UTC, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I would say it's worth spending the extra for the version with a
> >> keyboard,
> >
> > I think you have that backwards. Depending on the model (with/without
> > 3G, with/without ads) the Touch costs the same as or more than the
> > Keyboard model. They are all so cheap that it doesn't really matter.
>
> According to Amazon.de, you pay more for an equivalent keyboard model--in
> the region of 20 euros (which is doubtless peanuts to many people). The
> pricing arrangements may be different in the USA.
about prices.
>The extra convenience
> offered by a keyboard means (IMO) that you should buy a keyboard model if
> you possibly can--that was the point I was making. I'm not sure what you
> think I had arsey versey.
as to which is preferable.
--
John Varela
John Varela
Feb 6, 2012, 11:03:48 PM2/6/12
to
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 22:29:31 UTC, Mike Barnes
<mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> In the UK the only options are a keyboard and 3G for £150, or no
> keyboard and no 3G for £90. All without ads.
I haven't checked to make sure, but I believe all possible
<mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> In the UK the only options are a keyboard and 3G for £150, or no
> keyboard and no 3G for £90. All without ads.
combinations of keyboard or touch, 3G or not-3G, and ads or no ads
are offered at Amazon.com in the US.
--
John Varela
Mike Barnes
Feb 6, 2012, 6:24:26 PM2/6/12
to
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>:
nowadays. How long that will last I don't know. It's the same connector
as a Kindle.
Ignoring the device end of the lead, the charger end is often normal
USB-A nowadays. Which means that at worst you need to carry one USB PSU
and a selection of leads.
Things are getting better. Slowly.
>Mobile phone manufacturers seem to go out of
>their way to make their connectors incompatible with one another.
I think that for charging purposes the micro-USB is pretty-much standard
>their way to make their connectors incompatible with one another.
nowadays. How long that will last I don't know. It's the same connector
as a Kindle.
Ignoring the device end of the lead, the charger end is often normal
USB-A nowadays. Which means that at worst you need to carry one USB PSU
and a selection of leads.
Things are getting better. Slowly.
MC
Feb 7, 2012, 3:47:44 AM2/7/12
to
In article
<17325406.2348.1328461598693.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhn11>,
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You posted this message via Google Groups. Unfortunately, posts from GG are
> not getting to the outside world. Therefore many of the people who could help
> will not have seen your message.
>
> I will post your request using my normal newsserver so that people can see
> it.
It got to me in the outside world via MT Newswatcher (Mac only).
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
<17325406.2348.1328461598693.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhn11>,
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You posted this message via Google Groups. Unfortunately, posts from GG are
> not getting to the outside world. Therefore many of the people who could help
> will not have seen your message.
>
> I will post your request using my normal newsserver so that people can see
> it.
It got to me in the outside world via MT Newswatcher (Mac only).
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Leslie Danks
Feb 7, 2012, 4:52:20 AM2/7/12
to
Kindle with keyboard, plus case with reading light:
weight: 463 g; length: 19.7 cm, width: 13.3 cm, thickness: 2.0 cm
"On the Psychology of Military Competence" by Norman Dixon, paperback:
weight: 475 g; length: 21.4 cm, width: 13.5 cm, thickness: 3.4 cm
The book is (admittedly) slightly heftier than the average piece of
airport chic-lit, but is a lot smaller than some other paperbacks in my
possession.
I conclude that anyone who would be physically challenged by the extra
weight of the Kindle keyboard would have trouble carrying any kind of
reading material on to a plane.
--
Les
(BrE)
Mike Barnes
Feb 7, 2012, 5:36:37 AM2/7/12
to
Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>:
light. IME if you need a light for a Kindle, you need one for a book as
well.
Kindle with keyboard:
weight: 247 g; length: 19.0 cm, width: 12.3 cm, thickness: 0.85 cm
The thickness figure is the most different, closely followed by the
weight.
Clearly some people like having a case for their Kindle when they
wouldn't bother with one for a book. But in my experience a Kindle is
quite robust and a simple plastic wallet of negligible weight and
thickness is perfectly adequate.
>Kindle with keyboard, plus case with reading light:
>weight: 463 g; length: 19.7 cm, width: 13.3 cm, thickness: 2.0 cm
>
>"On the Psychology of Military Competence" by Norman Dixon, paperback:
>weight: 475 g; length: 21.4 cm, width: 13.5 cm, thickness: 3.4 cm
>
>The book is (admittedly) slightly heftier than the average piece of
>airport chic-lit, but is a lot smaller than some other paperbacks in my
>possession.
A fairer comparison might be the Kindle without the case and reading
>weight: 463 g; length: 19.7 cm, width: 13.3 cm, thickness: 2.0 cm
>
>"On the Psychology of Military Competence" by Norman Dixon, paperback:
>weight: 475 g; length: 21.4 cm, width: 13.5 cm, thickness: 3.4 cm
>
>The book is (admittedly) slightly heftier than the average piece of
>airport chic-lit, but is a lot smaller than some other paperbacks in my
>possession.
light. IME if you need a light for a Kindle, you need one for a book as
well.
Kindle with keyboard:
weight: 247 g; length: 19.0 cm, width: 12.3 cm, thickness: 0.85 cm
The thickness figure is the most different, closely followed by the
weight.
Clearly some people like having a case for their Kindle when they
wouldn't bother with one for a book. But in my experience a Kindle is
quite robust and a simple plastic wallet of negligible weight and
thickness is perfectly adequate.
Leslie Danks
Feb 7, 2012, 6:01:29 AM2/7/12
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:36:37 +0000, Mike Barnes wrote:
> Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>:
>>Kindle with keyboard, plus case with reading light:
>>weight: 463 g; length: 19.7 cm, width: 13.3 cm, thickness: 2.0 cm
>>
>>"On the Psychology of Military Competence" by Norman Dixon, paperback:
>>weight: 475 g; length: 21.4 cm, width: 13.5 cm, thickness: 3.4 cm
>>
>>The book is (admittedly) slightly heftier than the average piece of
>>airport chic-lit, but is a lot smaller than some other paperbacks in my
>>possession.
>
> A fairer comparison might be the Kindle without the case and reading
> light. IME if you need a light for a Kindle, you need one for a book as
> well.
True, but having the light there whenever you need it is very convenient.
> Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>:
>>Kindle with keyboard, plus case with reading light:
>>weight: 463 g; length: 19.7 cm, width: 13.3 cm, thickness: 2.0 cm
>>
>>"On the Psychology of Military Competence" by Norman Dixon, paperback:
>>weight: 475 g; length: 21.4 cm, width: 13.5 cm, thickness: 3.4 cm
>>
>>The book is (admittedly) slightly heftier than the average piece of
>>airport chic-lit, but is a lot smaller than some other paperbacks in my
>>possession.
>
> A fairer comparison might be the Kindle without the case and reading
> light. IME if you need a light for a Kindle, you need one for a book as
> well.
> Kindle with keyboard:
> weight: 247 g; length: 19.0 cm, width: 12.3 cm, thickness: 0.85 cm
>
> The thickness figure is the most different, closely followed by the
> weight.
>
> Clearly some people like having a case for their Kindle when they
> wouldn't bother with one for a book.
would normally be distributed over all the books you read during x years.
> But in my experience a Kindle is
> quite robust and a simple plastic wallet of negligible weight and
> thickness is perfectly adequate.
should compare notes five years hence.
--
Les
(BrE)
erilar
Feb 7, 2012, 12:18:52 PM2/7/12
to
In article <copespaz-CBD379...@news.eternal-september.org>,
since MTNW needs a portal to the outside world and my ISP, like so many
others, believes the canard that everyone now uses Facebook instead.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> In article
> <17325406.2348.1328461598693.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhn11>,
> Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > You posted this message via Google Groups. Unfortunately, posts from GG are
> > not getting to the outside world. Therefore many of the people who could
> > help
> > will not have seen your message.
> >
> > I will post your request using my normal newsserver so that people can see
> > it.
>
> It got to me in the outside world via MT Newswatcher (Mac only).
That's mine, too, but I suspect eternalseptember was more important,
> In article
> <17325406.2348.1328461598693.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhn11>,
> Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > You posted this message via Google Groups. Unfortunately, posts from GG are
> > not getting to the outside world. Therefore many of the people who could
> > help
> > will not have seen your message.
> >
> > I will post your request using my normal newsserver so that people can see
> > it.
>
> It got to me in the outside world via MT Newswatcher (Mac only).
since MTNW needs a portal to the outside world and my ISP, like so many
others, believes the canard that everyone now uses Facebook instead.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
LFS
Feb 7, 2012, 1:37:18 PM2/7/12
to
On 07/02/2012 10:36, Mike Barnes wrote:
>
> Clearly some people like having a case for their Kindle when they
> wouldn't bother with one for a book. But in my experience a Kindle is
> quite robust and a simple plastic wallet of negligible weight and
> thickness is perfectly adequate.
>
The case I bought for my Sony makes holding it more like holding a book
>
> Clearly some people like having a case for their Kindle when they
> wouldn't bother with one for a book. But in my experience a Kindle is
> quite robust and a simple plastic wallet of negligible weight and
> thickness is perfectly adequate.
>
so I find it more comfortable than the neoprene sleeve it came in which
was perefectly adequate for protecting the device.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Snidely
Feb 7, 2012, 2:23:59 PM2/7/12
to
Arcadian Rises <Arcadi...@aol.com> scribbled something like ...
> A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
> didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
> sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
> I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
> or it just expired?
If you're looking in the GG archives, it is still there. The magic is in
figuring out what incantation will summon it.
> Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
> performance?
Mary S hasn't chimed in on this yet, but she lubs her five Kindles. Her
impressions have been recorded in That Other Usenet Group.
I have spent a few minutes with a basic Kindle, and find it easy on the
eyes and light enough in the hold that I'd like it for bedtime reading.
I've used my G2 (Android phone) that way, but the smaller screen seems
much heavier.
(Once upon a time, I used a Handspring Visor Deluxe for my e-books. I
consider that a positive experience.)
/dps
> A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
> didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
> sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
> I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
> or it just expired?
figuring out what incantation will summon it.
> Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
> performance?
impressions have been recorded in That Other Usenet Group.
I have spent a few minutes with a basic Kindle, and find it easy on the
eyes and light enough in the hold that I'd like it for bedtime reading.
I've used my G2 (Android phone) that way, but the smaller screen seems
much heavier.
(Once upon a time, I used a Handspring Visor Deluxe for my e-books. I
consider that a positive experience.)
/dps
John Varela
Feb 7, 2012, 3:32:04 PM2/7/12
to
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:06:38 UTC, Peter Duncanson
Google must have solved whatever their problem was. My news reader
properly inserted the posts from Google in the tree ahead of
yesterday's posts.
--
John Varela
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You posted this message via Google Groups. Unfortunately, posts from GG are not getting to the outside world. Therefore many of the people who could help will not have seen your message.
>
> I will post your request using my normal newsserver so that people can see it.
It's now on news.individual.net
> Hi,
>
> You posted this message via Google Groups. Unfortunately, posts from GG are not getting to the outside world. Therefore many of the people who could help will not have seen your message.
>
> I will post your request using my normal newsserver so that people can see it.
Google must have solved whatever their problem was. My news reader
properly inserted the posts from Google in the tree ahead of
yesterday's posts.
--
John Varela
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Feb 7, 2012, 4:31:31 PM2/7/12
to
intitially independent of that in GG. Arcadian Rises posted the original
message in GG. I then started a thread of the same name in AUE via
news.individual.net. The two threads have been treated as one by both GG
and usenet newsservers, presumably because of the identical Subject
lines.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Nick Spalding
Feb 7, 2012, 4:38:27 PM2/7/12
to
Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in
<al53j71q245rbg78g...@4ax.com>
on Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:31:31 +0000:
Options | Display | Message List Pane |
[X] Enable threading by subject
does the same.
That is how I have it.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Feb 7, 2012, 4:59:45 PM2/7/12
to
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:38:27 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:
Ah, right. I have that set as standard. I had not thought to unset it to
see what would happen with this thread.
wrote:
see what would happen with this thread.
Mike Barnes
Feb 7, 2012, 5:25:37 PM2/7/12
to
LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>:
I can't say I've particularly wanted it to feel like holding a book,
but I think you might have stumbled on something: a cardboard sleeve
that protects it and makes it feel almost like holding a book. Those
Blue Peter skills might come in handy yet again.
but I think you might have stumbled on something: a cardboard sleeve
that protects it and makes it feel almost like holding a book. Those
Blue Peter skills might come in handy yet again.
LFS
Feb 7, 2012, 5:33:13 PM2/7/12
to
useful but in others I've found it tiring.
Robert Bannister
Feb 7, 2012, 10:58:02 PM2/7/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
tony cooper
Feb 7, 2012, 11:35:03 PM2/7/12
to
though. It will be forwarded on to Denmark.
I'm looking forward to checking it out before sending it on...just to
see what it's like.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mike Barnes
Feb 7, 2012, 6:00:23 PM2/7/12
to
LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>:
Ah, I see, you hold it with the cover open like a book.
When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
J. J. Lodder
Feb 8, 2012, 3:47:55 AM2/8/12
to
Arcadian Rises <Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
> A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
> didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
> sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
> I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
> or it just expired?
>
> A while ago there was a thread on this forum about e-book devices. I
> didn't pay any attention to it. But now, since I decided to partially
> sacrifice the traditional way of reading for the sake of convenience,
> I remember that thread, but I cannot locate it. Was itys name changed,
> or it just expired?
>
> Are all e-book devices created equal? Or do they vary in quality and
> performance?
No.
> performance?
And are you sure you want one, rather than an iPad?
(which does so much more for you)
Jan
LFS
Feb 8, 2012, 3:53:32 AM2/8/12
to
that's not what makes it uncomfortable sometimes for me to hold it in
one hand. It's not at all comfortable to hold in two hands, without the
cover.
Percival P. Cassidy
Feb 8, 2012, 9:18:11 AM2/8/12
to
On 02/07/12 10:58 pm, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> In the UK the only options are a keyboard and 3G for £150, or no
>>> keyboard and no 3G for £90. All without ads.
>>
>> I haven't checked to make sure, but I believe all possible
>> combinations of keyboard or touch, 3G or not-3G, and ads or no ads
>> are offered at Amazon.com in the US.
> They won't sell all types of Kindle outside America, maybe not any.
I may not have read all the messages in this thread, so if anyone
>>> In the UK the only options are a keyboard and 3G for £150, or no
>>> keyboard and no 3G for £90. All without ads.
>>
>> I haven't checked to make sure, but I believe all possible
>> combinations of keyboard or touch, 3G or not-3G, and ads or no ads
>> are offered at Amazon.com in the US.
> They won't sell all types of Kindle outside America, maybe not any.
mentioned the Barnes & Noble "Nook" series, I missed it. I assume they
are not sold outside North America, but I could be wrong. We bought a
pair of Nook Color devices because they can be "rooted" (=hacked) to
function as a regular Android device on which Kindle and other apps can
be installed as well as the Nook app. We have ours configured so that
they can boot either into the regular Nook mode or into the Android
mode, the Android OS being installed on a micro-SD card.
Perce
erilar
Feb 8, 2012, 4:13:01 PM2/8/12
to
In article <JhIYGs2H...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
finger, more like a paper book. But then, mine is an iPad.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
> always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
> thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
> buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
> they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
You have to use a button to turn a page? EEK! I just flip it with my
> When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
> always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
> thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
> buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
> they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
finger, more like a paper book. But then, mine is an iPad.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Mike Barnes
Feb 8, 2012, 4:49:52 PM2/8/12
to
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>:
But can you do that with the hand you're using to hold it?
Peter Moylan
Feb 8, 2012, 5:21:05 PM2/8/12
to
your finger looks flashy, but is hardly ergonomically sound.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Walter P. Zähl
Feb 8, 2012, 6:00:46 PM2/8/12
to
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> erilar wrote:
>> In article <JhIYGs2H...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
>> Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
>>> always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
>>> thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
>>> buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
>>> they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
>>
>> You have to use a button to turn a page? EEK! I just flip it with my
>> finger, more like a paper book. But then, mine is an iPad.
>>
> I don't plan to get an iPad until they add the buttons. Flipping with
> your finger looks flashy, but is hardly ergonomically sound.
Well, it /does/ simulate what you do with real paper books - but in iPad
> erilar wrote:
>> In article <JhIYGs2H...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
>> Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
>>> always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
>>> thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
>>> buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
>>> they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
>>
>> You have to use a button to turn a page? EEK! I just flip it with my
>> finger, more like a paper book. But then, mine is an iPad.
>>
> I don't plan to get an iPad until they add the buttons. Flipping with
> your finger looks flashy, but is hardly ergonomically sound.
readers you can usually also just tap the right or left side of the page to
flip back or forward.
/Walter
erilar
Feb 8, 2012, 6:01:51 PM2/8/12
to
In article <zMOdnYggY83PaK_S...@westnet.com.au>,
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> erilar wrote:
> > In article <JhIYGs2H...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
> > Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
> >> always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
> >> thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
> >> buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
> >> they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
> >
> > You have to use a button to turn a page? EEK! I just flip it with my
> > finger, more like a paper book. But then, mine is an iPad.
> >
> I don't plan to get an iPad until they add the buttons. Flipping with
> your finger looks flashy, but is hardly ergonomically sound.
You have buttons on your paper books?
> erilar wrote:
> > In article <JhIYGs2H...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
> > Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
> >> always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
> >> thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
> >> buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
> >> they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
> >
> > You have to use a button to turn a page? EEK! I just flip it with my
> > finger, more like a paper book. But then, mine is an iPad.
> >
> I don't plan to get an iPad until they add the buttons. Flipping with
> your finger looks flashy, but is hardly ergonomically sound.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
Feb 8, 2012, 6:02:38 PM2/8/12
to
In article <MrZ5UIOA...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>:
> >In article <JhIYGs2H...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
> > Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
> >> always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
> >> thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
> >> buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
> >> they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
> >
> >You have to use a button to turn a page? EEK! I just flip it with my
> >finger, more like a paper book. But then, mine is an iPad.
>
> But can you do that with the hand you're using to hold it?
How do you turn pages with a paper book?
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>:
> >In article <JhIYGs2H...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
> > Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> When I read a Kindle in my hand (as opposed to on a table) it's almost
> >> always one hand. I never have been able to figure out how the designer
> >> thought I would hold it in one hand so that one of the page forward
> >> buttons was conveniently located. Perhaps that's because that's not what
> >> they intended at all. They intended me to use two hands, like a book.
> >
> >You have to use a button to turn a page? EEK! I just flip it with my
> >finger, more like a paper book. But then, mine is an iPad.
>
> But can you do that with the hand you're using to hold it?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Robert Bannister
Feb 8, 2012, 6:31:02 PM2/8/12
to
LFS
Feb 9, 2012, 5:38:13 AM2/9/12
to
across the screen.
J. J. Lodder
Feb 9, 2012, 5:19:34 PM2/9/12
to
Jan
erilar
Feb 9, 2012, 7:25:42 PM2/9/12
to
In article <WADYq.2952$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>,
I never considered anything but an iPad; using it as a book reader is a
minor part of what I bought it for.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
minor part of what I bought it for.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Mike Lyle
Feb 10, 2012, 7:13:46 AM2/10/12
to
line of descent from those illuminated treasures with clasps.
--
Mike.
LFS
Feb 10, 2012, 7:20:39 AM2/10/12
to
wonder what happened to it.
I have several prayer books with ivory covers and clasps.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Feb 10, 2012, 7:45:46 AM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:13:46 +0000, Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
I inherited one of those. It was printed by the Cambridge University
Press in the 1950s.
That zip-up style of cover was used as a protection. The more pious
people of the Protestant persuasion[1] would carry a pocket Bible with
them at all times. Having a pocket Bible in a zip-up case would be just
right for such use.
[1] I know nothing about the Bible carrying customs of Catholics and
others.
wrote:
Press in the 1950s.
That zip-up style of cover was used as a protection. The more pious
people of the Protestant persuasion[1] would carry a pocket Bible with
them at all times. Having a pocket Bible in a zip-up case would be just
right for such use.
[1] I know nothing about the Bible carrying customs of Catholics and
others.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 10, 2012, 11:09:28 AM2/10/12
to
on my Android phone, the two buttons on the right side that are normally
increase / decrease volume become page forward and page back. It also
understands a finger flip on the touch screen, but I can hold the device
with finger on the page forward button very easily, leaving me a hand
free to eat dinner, pet the cats, or something. *Having* to use both
hands to turn the page is a significant downgrade in convenience.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Snidely
Feb 10, 2012, 1:53:50 PM2/10/12
to
Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> scribbled something like ...
> Mary S hasn't chimed in on this yet, but she lubs her five Kindles.
> Her impressions have been recorded in That Other Usenet Group.
>
Some of her comments:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/msg/bb4925464453c049>
and
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/msg/fd4172324bee02b0>
/dps
> Mary S hasn't chimed in on this yet, but she lubs her five Kindles.
> Her impressions have been recorded in That Other Usenet Group.
>
Some of her comments:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/msg/bb4925464453c049>
and
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/msg/fd4172324bee02b0>
/dps
Mike Lyle
Feb 10, 2012, 6:19:03 PM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:45:46 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:13:46 +0000, Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>[...]
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:13:46 +0000, Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>>I was once given a Bible with a zip fastener. Presumably in direct
>>line of descent from those illuminated treasures with clasps.
>
>I inherited one of those. It was printed by the Cambridge University
>Press in the 1950s.
>
>That zip-up style of cover was used as a protection. The more pious
>people of the Protestant persuasion[1] would carry a pocket Bible with
>them at all times. Having a pocket Bible in a zip-up case would be just
>right for such use.
>
>[1] I know nothing about the Bible carrying customs of Catholics and
>others.
In our day, it was probably still on the Index. When I consider the
>>I was once given a Bible with a zip fastener. Presumably in direct
>>line of descent from those illuminated treasures with clasps.
>
>I inherited one of those. It was printed by the Cambridge University
>Press in the 1950s.
>
>That zip-up style of cover was used as a protection. The more pious
>people of the Protestant persuasion[1] would carry a pocket Bible with
>them at all times. Having a pocket Bible in a zip-up case would be just
>right for such use.
>
>[1] I know nothing about the Bible carrying customs of Catholics and
>others.
Christo-Taliban who seem to be taking over the United States, I wish
it still was.
--
Mike.
Peter Moylan
Feb 10, 2012, 10:51:27 PM2/10/12
to
back into power every few centuries. Our countries might be better off
than the USA in this respect right now, but I'm not optimistic about the
future.
Peter Brooks
Feb 10, 2012, 11:18:59 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 11, 6:51 am, Peter Moylan <inva...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:13:46 +0000, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk>
prediction. Religion thrives in times of hardship and the most fertile
ground is the poorly educated. The general trend for work to be more
skilled means that there are going to be more poor, unemployed,
unhappy people who, previously would have had gainful unskilled
employment.
I think that there's a lot to be said for a general return to the
acceptability of domestic servants - not simply as a luxury, but as a
means of providing employment to people who, otherwise, may turn into
religious fanatics.
wrote:
> Mike Lyle wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:45:46 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
> > <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:45:46 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>
> >> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:13:46 +0000, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> I was once given a Bible with a zip fastener. Presumably in direct
> >>> line of descent from those illuminated treasures with clasps.
> >> I inherited one of those. It was printed by the Cambridge University
> >> Press in the 1950s.
>
> >> That zip-up style of cover was used as a protection. The more pious
> >> people of the Protestant persuasion[1] would carry a pocket Bible with
> >> them at all times. Having a pocket Bible in a zip-up case would be just
> >> right for such use.
>
> >> [1] I know nothing about the Bible carrying customs of Catholics and
> >> others.
>
> > In our day, it was probably still on the Index. When I consider the
> > Christo-Taliban who seem to be taking over the United States, I wish
> > it still was.
>
> There seems to be a law of human nature that religious fanatics will get
> back into power every few centuries. Our countries might be better off
> than the USA in this respect right now, but I'm not optimistic about the
> future.
>
I fear that you're right in your pessimism and accurate in your
> >> [...]
> >>> I was once given a Bible with a zip fastener. Presumably in direct
> >>> line of descent from those illuminated treasures with clasps.
> >> I inherited one of those. It was printed by the Cambridge University
> >> Press in the 1950s.
>
> >> That zip-up style of cover was used as a protection. The more pious
> >> people of the Protestant persuasion[1] would carry a pocket Bible with
> >> them at all times. Having a pocket Bible in a zip-up case would be just
> >> right for such use.
>
> >> [1] I know nothing about the Bible carrying customs of Catholics and
> >> others.
>
> > In our day, it was probably still on the Index. When I consider the
> > Christo-Taliban who seem to be taking over the United States, I wish
> > it still was.
>
> There seems to be a law of human nature that religious fanatics will get
> back into power every few centuries. Our countries might be better off
> than the USA in this respect right now, but I'm not optimistic about the
> future.
>
prediction. Religion thrives in times of hardship and the most fertile
ground is the poorly educated. The general trend for work to be more
skilled means that there are going to be more poor, unemployed,
unhappy people who, previously would have had gainful unskilled
employment.
I think that there's a lot to be said for a general return to the
acceptability of domestic servants - not simply as a luxury, but as a
means of providing employment to people who, otherwise, may turn into
religious fanatics.
Mike Barnes
Feb 12, 2012, 6:07:22 PM2/12/12
to
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>:
How is that relevant?
erilar
Feb 13, 2012, 10:05:27 AM2/13/12
to
In article <TmhuX2Rq...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
I do it with the hand not holding the book, as I do with my iPad. I
don't know how anyone could turn book pages with the hand holding the
book.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
don't know how anyone could turn book pages with the hand holding the
book.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Mike Barnes
Feb 13, 2012, 10:39:13 AM2/13/12
to
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>:
I can see we're not connecting here. Just because I have to use two
hands for a paper book doesn't mean I should have to with a Kindle. If
the Kindle's buttons were positioned more thoughtfully it wouldn't be
necessary to use two hands. It's often inconvenient to use the other
hand for turning the page, for instance if it's holding a cup of tea.
I don't think swiping the Kindle screen would be any easier, though that
method works OK with a smaller device such as a phone.
hands for a paper book doesn't mean I should have to with a Kindle. If
the Kindle's buttons were positioned more thoughtfully it wouldn't be
necessary to use two hands. It's often inconvenient to use the other
hand for turning the page, for instance if it's holding a cup of tea.
I don't think swiping the Kindle screen would be any easier, though that
method works OK with a smaller device such as a phone.
David Dyer-Bennet
Feb 13, 2012, 12:04:38 PM2/13/12
to
easier with my Android phone (or my Nokia N800 tablet or my Palm Pilots)
than with paper books.
I generally don't read as a social activity. So I tend to layer it on
top of other things. I read while eating if I'm eating alone, for
example. And if I'm lying in bed reading I'm often joined by a cat that
requires (well, badly wants) attention. So it's useful to be able to do
the reading one-handed, while eating with the other, or petting the
cat.
Thus, I far prefer the devices mentioned to my Kindle for reading.
(Also I don't own books with DRM; that's not a policy statement on what
I buy, it's just a statement of fact. If they can take it away from me
at any time, I don't own it.)
(We will set aside the usual set of jokes on the phrase "one-handed
reading material". Especially since cats were also introduced.)
erilar
Feb 13, 2012, 5:58:02 PM2/13/12
to
In article <GMzL9qih...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
I usually swipe my pages on my iPad because it's more natural, but
tapping will do it, and that can be anywhere on the right-hand side. My
dog is often under my iPad when I'm reading in my chair, but he's less
demanding than a cat, and I set my tea or coffee down rather than
holding it in my hand all the time.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
tapping will do it, and that can be anywhere on the right-hand side. My
dog is often under my iPad when I'm reading in my chair, but he's less
demanding than a cat, and I set my tea or coffee down rather than
holding it in my hand all the time.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
0 new messages