Real Book vs E-Book: Which Do You Prefer & Why?

[The legend]

Yeah ... so which one would you prefer? And Why?

 

[Pengwuino]

Real books.

Because you can't fill a room with oak Kindles and Ipads to show everyone that you know way more than they do.

 

[The legend]

yeah... but you can always show you have read a thousand real books calling yourself a well read guy!

 

[mechprog]

Real books.

Because you can't fill a room with oak Kindles and Ipads to show everyone that you know way more than they do.

Very right!

 

[GeorginaS]

I wouldn't know how to decorate my home if I didn't have real books.

 

[S_Happens]

I have a decent library and will continue to add to it. I enjoy reading real books, and especially for references an actual book in your hand is invaluable.

That being said, I just received a Kindle 3 for my birthday last month. I've been using it for the past week and a half and so far I am really enjoying it. It's fantastic for reading something you plan to read page by page, such as a novel (straight through without jumping back and forth). I love the e-ink display and I can tell you that it's much more comfortable to get into a single position and not have to move anything more than a single digit a fraction of an inch to "turn" pages. Adjusting an entire book to read opposing pages properly and even just flipping pages of a small paperback can be annoying (especially if you are a fast reader).

I can say that each has its advantages. I am glad I have the Kindle and I will also continue to expand my library. My collection is mostly reference books anyway, which I prefer to have in paper form, so that won't really be affected.

 

[Dadface]

Real books take up too much space but my first thought was that I prefer these because they are in a format which is probably much more comfortable to read.Not having tried an E book and having read the comment of S Happens I am now not so sure.

 

[Redsummers]

I prefer real books. For me it is pleasant to enter in a room and see there are plenty of books in the shelf. I guess that you can also take a book, read some pages and then put it back and take another with the E-books, but I think it totally loses the 'magic' of reading a book. Really, to turn the page manually is a way of interacting with the book that you cannot do with the E-books, not to mention the smell and the weight of the book itself, the physical presence of the book is part of reading it.

 

[Jack21222]

I said real books, just because I had a Nook for 3 days. The thing repeatedly crashed when trying to turn the page, and eventually stopped working altogether.

They offered me a free replacement, but I just got my money back.

You'll never need to worry about being physically unable to turn the page of a real book without closing it, letting it sit for 30 seconds, and opening it back up.

 

[Topher925]

I prefer ebooks as its much better for the environment.

 

[DaveC426913]

I prefer ebooks as its much better for the environment.

You sure about that?

Trees are a renewable resource. What is the environmental footprint of an electronic device?

 

[Evo]

I still prefer real books. I like the weight and feel and the turning of pages. In novels I like to quickly flip ahead if I get to a boring part, or flip back if I need to check something. It's easy to do by thumbing the pages to find where I want to be.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am right on the cusp of buying an e-reader.

The only real reason I can think of for an e-reader is that I could boost the font size enough to allow me to read while exercising.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Good thing about e-books is you can just download all the books for school for free instead of paying a thousand dollars for them.

 

[Astronuc]

Yeah ... so which one would you prefer? And Why?

I actually would prefer both, with the exception that I'd like that book in pdf format from which I can extract text or figures for reports or articles, or if it's a technical book, data for analysis or plotting. Files can be backed up.

I prefer paper as a permanent record. Electronic systems can fail catastrophically, e.g. hard drive crash, etc. E-books may be prone to failure.

There are many books I have or plan to purchase which are not in e-book or otherwise electronic format because they are rather esoteric.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think that e-books are potentially very valuable to me, but they aren't there yet. Here are some things that could be implemented in an e-book and would make the reading experience better than a paper book for me.

To follow a cross-reference by touching an icon. This is especially important for equations.
To go to an index entry by simply touching the word. I mean the page in the book where the index points to, not to the index page itself.
To go to a section of the book by touching the entry in the table of contents.

If I could get all that and still be able to make handwritten notes in the margins, then e-book over paper book would be a no brainer for me. However, the current crop of e-books not only don't provide these features, they don't even paint a pdf in a size that I can read, so paper over e is a no-brainer.

 

[Bararontok]

I prefer e-books because digital text files occupy billions of times less space than physical books and a whole library can fit in today's modern hard drives. Titles can also be found more quickly in hard drives thanks to the automatic search function built into many operating systems, and information in e-books can also be found more quickly because there are text finders that allow a user to type in a word or phrase and the finder would automatically jump to the section the user is searching for, there are also page jumpers that allow a user to type a page and they could automatically jump to the page they are searching for and links that allow a user to click on the table of contents and index and they would automatically jump to the information they are searching for. There are also automatic bookmarks that store information about the last page the user has visited so that when they open the file again, they are automatically taken to the last read page, eliminating the need for bookmarks. Digital text files also do not experience paper decomposition, they do not carry any weight because they are in electronic form, and they can be duplicated easily owing to their small file sizes and the fact that they are electronic, making it possible to back up the entire digital library in a backup memory device or on the internet. And because e-books are purely electronic, paper, ink, energy and equipment does not have to be spent publishing the book which makes the e-book more environment friendly. The environmental cost of the hard-drive and other electronics is nothing if it can store an entire library without the need for tons of paper, cabinets and a room.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm with Astronuc on this, and Jimmy Snyder. If E-Readers become as easy to use and read as a paperback, it would be a big deal, but it would still be digital media. I have a couple of terabytes of data that I'm constantly backing up... I'd hate to have to back up my personal library. The only solution there is buying rights that let's you re-download, but in reality sometimes that isn't practical.

Books are incredibly refined devices, and until e-books match that level of refinement and utility, they'll be a FAR second.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tsu is on her second Kindle and she's a complete E-addict. I recently downloaded the Kindle-for-PC software from Amazon and bought my first electronic book. From my point of view, there is no comparison. E-books are by far superior to paper.

My world began to change as technical manuals transitioned to PDFs. The value of the ability to access manuals online, immediately, is beyond measure. It has literally changed my world. For me, perhaps the most valueable function in electronic media, is Ctrl-F. This saves me a tremendous amount of time in my work. No thumbing through pages or trying to find that one sentence that I saw around page 900, two months ago, or a year ago, that tells me what I need to know. I can find in seconds what used take minutes, or even hours.

A few years ago I burned about 600 Lbs of manuals and technical information that I had spent twenty years accumulating. That was truly a day for celebration.

A related discussion
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=403301

 

[fluidistic]

I never seen any Kindle or e-books of the sort. It seems to me that the only real advantage of paper books is... their smell. Unless the Kindle has a nice smell too, of course.
I'm not sure but can you read through a Kindle in a dark room? If so, then it's a real advantage. You can read a book while your wife/husband sleeps and you don't even bother with light.
And as it has been said here, it's very easy to look up for a word or expression using Ctrl+F.

 

[fourier jr]

real book, & for most of the reasons people have given. I can see how a search thing could be handy with an e-book though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A quote from Russ from the thread linked, one of the few times that Russ and I agree.

20 feet away from me at work is a 20 foot wide wall covered with cataloges. If I can download the fan curve I want faster than I can get up, walk to the wall, find the cat I need, walk back to my cube, and flip through it to find the fan curve...why bother using it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You sure about that?

Trees are a renewable resource. What is the environmental footprint of an electronic device?

A valid concern for one book, but not for hundreds of books for each person.

How much energy goes into making and distributing those books? Nevermind that there is already plenty of pressure on our forests.

I think the relative cost of paper vs electronic media is a reasonable indicator of the energy requirements for each option. When you look at the basis for the price of a product, esp something like a book, the price is a reflection of the energy investment in that product.

 

[JaredJames]

When it comes to reading a manual, I prefer to have it in PDF format (for the reasons Ivan has given).

My only problem with books in PDF format is that I find staring at a laptop (or my phone) screen for a long period of time reading them to cause my eyes to hurt and sometimes I get headaches. Now I don't have experience with a Kindle, so have they improved the screen to reduce the eye strain and make it more natural as with a book?

If so, I'd be very interested. I hate having books all over the place, nothing but clutter and dead weight (not because they're useless but how often do you honestly pickup the books and read them?).

A PDF isn't terribly large in size and if (as with Nismar) you have a few hundred GB or a couple of TB of them (or any files for that matter), the cost of buying a set of backup drives and performing weekly/monthly backups is nothing. Plus you can store them off site so you don't have to worry about every copy being destroyed in the event of disaster (fire + books = bad times).

I like the idea of being able to backup my documents. You can't do that with books (not practically anyhow). I currently use an online storage service which allows me to access them anywhere via the internet or my phone, so an e-reader may just work for me.

 

[waht]

Reducing the experience of reading to just a transfer of raw bits of information is equivalent of quantity over quality duality - Made in China.

If you consider the holistic view of reading, there is the touch and feeling of the texture, the smell of new printing, the stimulation of retinas by different hues of paper, there is the occasional coffee stain or a dog ear - one immediately finds that reading a paper book is a much more richer experience for the mind than reading from the same e-book.

 

[Pengwuino]

My world began to change as technical manuals transitioned to PDFs. The value of the ability to access manuals online, immediately, is beyond measure. It has literally changed my world. For me, perhaps the most valueable function in electronic media, is Ctrl-F. This saves me a tremendous amount of time in my work. No thumbing through pages or trying to find that one sentence that I saw around page 900, two months ago, or a year ago, that tells me what I need to know. I can find in seconds what used take minutes, or even hours.

This reminds me of something that seems a bit pathetic these days. I forget who I was talking to, a professor or another grad student but they were saying they were telling a student how to look for a subject in a book and they had to go "now, go to the back of the book and there is something called an index". Apparently people are already dumb enough as it is on how to use a book, i hope this doesn't further the issue!

Then again, in your average Twilight or barnes and noble book, there's no index and the books that require an index probably aren't being used often by people who don't know how to use one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Reducing the experience of reading to just a transfer of raw bits of information is equivalent of quantity over quality duality - Made in China.

If you consider the holistic view of reading, there is the touch and feeling of the texture, the smell of new printing, the stimulation of retinas by different hues of paper, there is the occasional coffee stain or a dog ear - one immediately finds that reading a paper book is a much more richer experience for the mind than reading from the same e-book.

Uh, I appreciate the love of books as you describe [I don't particularly have it, but I appreciate it], but I think this goes way too far. It isn't like the entire message is lost in electronic media. In fact the substance of reading remains. It isn't just a transfer of bits of information as in a download. Reading is still the exloration of ideas and information. A drama is still a drama; Plato is still Plato, even in digital form. What is lost is purely esthetic. Additionally, the information of interest now comes with context in the form of immediate sidebar searches about the subject. For example, how much more texture is added to the experience when one can view archives of photographs, or hear the actual recordings of major events, or watch the videos, as one studies history? If a picture is worth a thousand words, a thirty-second video is worth 900,000 words. All of this is here or coming to your e-book soon. Obviously this is true already for pc readers, like me.

 

[S_Happens]

My only problem with books in PDF format is that I find staring at a laptop (or my phone) screen for a long period of time reading them to cause my eyes to hurt and sometimes I get headaches. Now I don't have experience with a Kindle, so have they improved the screen to reduce the eye strain and make it more natural as with a book?e.

The e-ink displays are nothing like starting at a computer screen. The e-ink is one of the very best parts of the e-readers that use one (I know Kindle and Nook use them, not sure about the rest). They are not back lit like an LCD (and don't produce their own light like other screens). I have a slight scotopic sensitivity, so major contrast makes my eyes hurt after reading for more than a few minutes. Unbleached paper is fine, but bright white, bleached paper is terrible for me. The e-ink display looks uncannily like reading an unbleached paperback.

Here is a link from the company that manufactures the technology used in Kindle and Nook.
http://www.eink.com/technology/howitworks.html"

I will tell everyone that until a couple months ago, I was pretty sternly against owning an e-reader. I kept doing my research, handled a few, and have reported my opinion on owning one. There are many ways in which the e-readers are lacking, but I'll never be looking to replace ALL of my books. For me, it's not an either/or.

P.S.- I did not vote, because I see no reason to choose one over the other. I will use each one as it suits me.

 

[nismaratwork]

The e-ink displays are nothing like starting at a computer screen. The e-ink is one of the very best parts of the e-readers that use one (I know Kindle and Nook use them, not sure about the rest). They are not back lit like an LCD (and don't produce their own light like other screens). I have a slight scotopic sensitivity, so major contrast makes my eyes hurt after reading for more than a few minutes. Unbleached paper is fine, but bright white, bleached paper is terrible for me. The e-ink display looks uncannily like reading an unbleached paperback.

Here is a link from the company that manufactures the technology used in Kindle and Nook.
http://www.eink.com/technology/howitworks.html"

I will tell everyone that until a couple months ago, I was pretty sternly against owning an e-reader. I kept doing my research, handled a few, and have reported my opinion on owning one. There are many ways in which the e-readers are lacking, but I'll never be looking to replace ALL of my books. For me, it's not an either/or.

P.S.- I did not vote, because I see no reason to choose one over the other. I will use each one as it suits me.

E-ink or ultra-thin OLEDS could be a winner for this kind of tech. I think OLEDS have the benefit of being readable in the dark, and being even more flexible (in theory) than E-Ink, and more likely to be integrated into a touch-screen so you can take notes in the "margins" and such.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Good thing about e-books is you can just download all the books for school for free instead of paying a thousand dollars for them.

I don't think the question is which do you prefer stealing

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't think the question is which do you prefer stealing

ba-zing!

 

[General_Sax]

I like e-books because I can pirate them.

 

[Pengwuino]

I like e-books because I can pirate them.

Pff and real books can't be pirated? It's called a photocopier

 

[airborne18]

I bought a sony e-reader. While I still prefer physical books for academic and studying. I do like the e-books for the massive amount of classic lit. that is available.

 

[Dembadon]

I like real books. I've yet to feel as comfortable when "curling-up" with an electronic device as I do with a book. I like the feel of turning pages. I like to underline things and make notes. I like seeing the effects that years of use give them: unique scratches/creases. The physical characteristics of a book, its size, shape, weight, even smell, help distinguish one from another.

 

[Proton Soup]

Pff and real books can't be pirated? It's called a photocopier

i have one like that. but because it was received on interlibrary loan, it's officially not piracy.

as for books, i do like the real thing, they're easier on my eyes and it's easier to flip around through them.

but i still like ebooks for different reasons. if they're searchable, at least. they make for great archives, imo.

 

[DaveC426913]

i have one like that. but because it was received on interlibrary loan, it's officially not piracy.

How does that make it not piracy?

Oh. I'm oging to guess they promised you a book but couldn't deliver, so they sent you a photocopy? Then they said "don't bother returning it".

 

[waht]

Uh, I appreciate the love of books as you describe [I don't particularly have it, but I appreciate it], but I think this goes way too far. It isn't like the entire message is lost in electronic media. In fact the substance of reading remains. It isn't just a transfer of bits of information as in a download. Reading is still the exloration of ideas and information. A drama is still a drama; Plato is still Plato, even in digital form. What is lost is purely esthetic. Additionally, the information of interest now comes with context in the form of immediate sidebar searches about the subject. For example, how much more texture is added to the experience when one can view archives of photographs, or hear the actual recordings of major events, or watch the videos, as one studies history? If a picture is worth a thousand words, a thirty-second video is worth 900,000 words. All of this is here or coming to your e-book soon. Obviously this is true already for pc readers, like me.

I'm deviating on a tangent here:

A picture is a worth a thousand words has a deeper meaning. Consider this: Where do the thousand words come from? If you quantify the size of the picture in bits, and the words to describe it in bits, one immediate finds that the number of bits of words is greater than the bits of the picture. So in as sense, there is more information contained in a picture which the brain unpacks, or unzips to give a sort of subjective but meaningful experience.

People in general are uninterested in statements, or pictures where one has to do little unpacking of information. If you compare for example, Van Gogh painting with a picture of a blank wall, same size and same number of bits, Van Gogh is more appealing because it engages you in unpacking those multilayer meanings.

I claim it is the same with paper books. Paper books are more interesting because you are engaging them like a picture. Handling a paper book is also worth a thousand words. There is more information in a paper book which gives you a pleasure of unpacking. But an e-book reader on the other hand is uniform, homogeneous plastic medium containing less number of bits that your brain could unpack. The margin is small of course, but if you add up all the contributions of processing every day meaningless raw information in the information age; the cell phones, email, webpages, the Cyberspace in all convenient formats delivering bits of information on a silver platter - There is little human substance. There is little unpacking of bits.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you quantify the size of the picture in bits

This is where you go off track. A picture is a picture because its meaning is far more than just its bits.

 

[nismaratwork]

How does that make it not piracy?

Oh. I'm oging to guess they promised you a book but couldn't deliver, so they sent you a photocopy? Then they said "don't bother returning it".

Closer to the used game industry... people buy games but the developers never see a cent of the used game sales. It's not illegal, but it still screws the developers, much as this screws the authors.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm deviating on a tangent here:

A picture is a worth a thousand words has a deeper meaning. Consider this: Where do the thousand words come from? If you quantify the size of the picture in bits, and the words to describe it in bits, one immediate finds that the number of bits of words is greater than the bits of the picture. So in as sense, there is more information contained in a picture which the brain unpacks, or unzips to give a sort of subjective but meaningful experience.

People in general are uninterested in statements, or pictures where one has to do little unpacking of information. If you compare for example, Van Gogh painting with a picture of a blank wall, same size and same number of bits, Van Gogh is more appealing because it engages you in unpacking those multilayer meanings.

I claim it is the same with paper books. Paper books are more interesting because you are engaging them like a picture. Handling a paper book is also worth a thousand words. There is more information in a paper book which gives you a pleasure of unpacking. But an e-book reader on the other hand is uniform, homogeneous plastic medium containing less number of bits that your brain could unpack. The margin is small of course, but if you add up all the contributions of processing every day meaningless raw information in the information age; the cell phones, email, webpages, the Cyberspace in all convenient formats delivering bits of information on a silver platter - There is little human substance. There is little unpacking of bits.

This is very fanciful, but utterly divorced from reality.

 

[S_Happens]

E-ink or ultra-thin OLEDS could be a winner for this kind of tech. I think OLEDS have the benefit of being readable in the dark, and being even more flexible (in theory) than E-Ink, and more likely to be integrated into a touch-screen so you can take notes in the "margins" and such.

If it were an OLED screen, then I would not have been interested. One of the biggest factors for me was getting away from the lighted screen. E-ink is far easier on the eyes (which also answers someone elses comment about real books being easier to read; the e-ink display looks uncannily like a real piece of printed paper) and I would consider the OLED to be too similar to a computer and simply use my laptop or desktop rather than pay for a little more portability.

I can add notes, "highlight," search, and categorize although I have yet to play with some of those functions. I have about 9 hours to kill so I'll try to do that. I forgot to bring my cable with me to add some pdf files.

Astronuc's comment made me look around, and in fact some of the books that I have downloaded have links in the Table of Contents that allow you to jump to that chapter/section.

I'm kind of wondering if I need to make a separate thread so that people can ask questions about it that I can try to answer. It might help me get familiar with some of the functions that I might not try to mess with on my own, and it would certainly address some of assumptions people are making (whether it be to validate or not).

As far as waht's post, I don't see the problem. For me, usually reading a work of fiction (which is mostly what I'll be doing with the Kindle) means winding down and is really a break for my brain. I think the margin of difference between a real book and the e-reader is very small, but any more simplicity just fits the majority of what I will be using it for anyway.

So far I haven't pirated any books. There are enough classics available for free to keep me busy for a while.

 

[G037H3]

I use e-books a lot more because I'm far too poor to buy all the books that I want to study, or look at before I decide to study.

That said, I prefer books (hardcover -_-) because they provide more of a sense of accomplishment as you work your way through them, and they don't require an electronic device.

 

[nismaratwork]

If it were an OLED screen, then I would not have been interested. One of the biggest factors for me was getting away from the lighted screen. E-ink is far easier on the eyes (which also answers someone elses comment about real books being easier to read; the e-ink display looks uncannily like a real piece of printed paper) and I would consider the OLED to be too similar to a computer and simply use my laptop or desktop rather than pay for a little more portability.

I can add notes, "highlight," search, and categorize although I have yet to play with some of those functions. I have about 9 hours to kill so I'll try to do that. I forgot to bring my cable with me to add some pdf files.

Astronuc's comment made me look around, and in fact some of the books that I have downloaded have links in the Table of Contents that allow you to jump to that chapter/section.

I'm kind of wondering if I need to make a separate thread so that people can ask questions about it that I can try to answer. It might help me get familiar with some of the functions that I might not try to mess with on my own, and it would certainly address some of assumptions people are making (whether it be to validate or not).

As far as waht's post, I don't see the problem. For me, usually reading a work of fiction (which is mostly what I'll be doing with the Kindle) means winding down and is really a break for my brain. I think the margin of difference between a real book and the e-reader is very small, but any more simplicity just fits the majority of what I will be using it for anyway.

So far I haven't pirated any books. There are enough classics available for free to keep me busy for a while.

I can see your point about not wanting to have active lighting... and organic element or not, light is light. What we really need are holographic displays with implants in the hand allowing for Adaptive Haptic Feedback.

 

[lisab]

I use e-books a lot more because I'm far too poor to buy all the books that I want to study, or look at before I decide to study.

That said, I prefer books (hardcover -_-) because they provide more of a sense of accomplishment as you work your way through them, and they don't require an electronic device.

No doubt cost will be the deciding factor in the marketplace - it usually is.

 

[Proton Soup]

How does that make it not piracy?

Oh. I'm oging to guess they promised you a book but couldn't deliver, so they sent you a photocopy? Then they said "don't bother returning it".

the ILL request was for academic use, some mathematical transforms i needed for some project. i don't know why they didn't send the actual book (afraid of losing it?), but someone at that library actually photocopied the whole thing and sent that. i don't think I've used it since, it's in a box somewhere. there was no request to either return or burn the thing, and if they had sent the actual book, i certainly would have photocopied the pertinent sections and kept that.

i have to assume this was all legit, because this was just the way things were being done between university libraries, and they're normally pretty strict about things. educational/academic use gets a lot of waivers in copyright law, i guess. i think today digital scans are more the norm.

oh, and this reminds me. i had a freshman english prof once that composed his own book for the course using scanned chapters, one each from about a dozen books. he seemed to think it was fair use and had set up an arrangement with kinkos to print out spiral-bound copies for us. that seemed a bit more over the top.

 

[The legend]

at this rate e-books will never capture the readers!
(and it hasnt captured me yet! )

 

[nismaratwork]

I prefer real books because they help me kill small bugs. :evil:

JK, I put 'em outside except for mosquitoes and cockroaches, and for them a book is not necessary or wanted.

 

[JaredJames]

the ILL request was for academic use, some mathematical transforms i needed for some project. i don't know why they didn't send the actual book (afraid of losing it?), but someone at that library actually photocopied the whole thing and sent that. i don't think I've used it since, it's in a box somewhere. there was no request to either return or burn the thing, and if they had sent the actual book, i certainly would have photocopied the pertinent sections and kept that.

i have to assume this was all legit, because this was just the way things were being done between university libraries, and they're normally pretty strict about things. educational/academic use gets a lot of waivers in copyright law, i guess. i think today digital scans are more the norm.

My uni is very strict on copyright, but they have something of a 'workaround'. Basically, they tell you over and over you must adhere to copyright laws and not violate them in any way, at all. It is your responsibility not the universities. However, they don't actively police it. So long as no one gets reported for it, they don't seem to care and turn a blind eye. I don't think there is any waivers given to them. Not saying it isn't wrong, but they are giving a bit of room for students to maneuver.

oh, and this reminds me. i had a freshman english prof once that composed his own book for the course using scanned chapters, one each from about a dozen books. he seemed to think it was fair use and had set up an arrangement with kinkos to print out spiral-bound copies for us. that seemed a bit more over the top.

That is definitely copyright violation. Period.

He is actively copying and distributing copyrighted material. It's like me taking short clips from various blockbusters and compiling them together into a 'new' film and then putting it in cinemas. See how long you get away with that for.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I prefer real books because they help me kill small bugs. :evil:

You can do that we an e-book as well, once.