Hi Veeky Forums!
I have been considering buying a kindle or a nook for quite some time now
Though I love being able to write in and annotate a physical book, having an electronic device seems like it would be so much more convenient
What do you think? Which do you prefer? If I were to buy a device, which one is best?
Got my paperback last week, it awesome no regrets.
Kindles are pretty okay. But I'm not a fan of the Kindle fire tablets
I had ended up with a free Kindle fire. And the UI is heavily geared to an heavy Amazon customer. Like like I get into the Kindle store, I will get a notification that I can get this book for free through Amazon prime or I'll be asked if I want to try Amazon prime.
On the positive side, You can convert most ebooks into Kindle formats with calibre or pick up converted old books from Amazon's eBook store.
There's a /G/ sticky with more information about e-readers.
I'll like you to check the page there and decide based on your needs.
Paper is objectively the worst of the three in everything, except for when you buy expensive editions in which case they are aesthetically better than the other two.
Nook and Kindle are very close. In general, ebooks are similar to each other in most ways. I don't know anything about the Nook, but the Paperwhite is very effective and has no real problems. However, if you are planning on pirating (which you should be), something like the Kobo is easier because it doesn't require epub conversion. It's easy to convert for Paperwhite, but you still have to do it.
Conversion it's basically a nonproblem if you use calibre too keep your e-library tidy.
As you use Calibre too organize your books beetween your pc and ereade it converts the ebooks to the proper format automatically
Get the kindle paperwhite. Don't know anything about the nook. Paper sucks.
KoboGlo or Paperwhite are the Kwisatz Haderach.
literal retards. reading paper books has been shown to improve comprehension and retention. also if these idiots don't understand the value of the social capital granted by a well-appointed, beautifully displayed bookcase, they need to associate with better people.
e-books are great because there are too many books out there to actually buy and store, and they're great for travel, but saying paper "sucks" and is "objectively the worst" is some of the most retarded millenial assclownery I have ever heard. post proof of your degree in the humanities if you want to shit talk paper books, you fucking pseuds.
>post proof of your degree in the humanities
I would like a degree that gets me a decent job. What's it like working in starbucks?
Replying to bait with bait means you were baited.
i baited the bait to get a bait response to that bait, which I got :^ )
It seems you have been rused, my friend, for I was awaiting that response.
>being this desperate for money in a post-scarcity economy
>wasting time with a STEM degree when you could be studying the principles and mastering the practice of aesthetics
>not having an office and a stipend provided to you by an academic institution with the express purpose of giving you a place to read and write in peace
>not living in an art house with a close circle of fellow aesthetes
wew lad. you must be an ugly manlet, it's the only valid excuse for holding such a moribund, impotent world view.
I know you did, I'm glad I could improve your day.
I'm 6'2, I'm also not presently studying a stem degree. I live with my parents. I'm unemployed.
Thank you, friend!
>thinks he's into aesthetics
>doesn't understand the aesthetics of ugliness
>literal retards. reading paper books has been shown to improve comprehension and retention
If you mean the study which compared paper books to e-books, you are partially right. It was only tested on users who used tablets and smartphones, the test had a very minor (about 1% I believe) e-ink users. IIRC the reason e-books scored less in retention and comprehension was because tablet & smarphone users were easily distracted by music, social media, etc. something that is not possible to have (nor they should be aim to have) on an e-ink tablet. This is not to say paper "sucks", however.
sure, stoner was a 'great work', go to bed
I have the orginall kindle and I love it. It's super durable and battery lasts forever. Plus you can pirate books easily and if you want to buy any they're pretty cheap.
The only downside is pictures tend to get fucked up but I presume that isn't a problem on the newer versions .
It isn't a problem on newer ones.
I prefer paper. Perhaps because I've grown up with it. But I do like the look of books on a shelf. There's also one thing you'll NEVER get with digital readers:
The new book smell.
I agree. I have a paperwhite but I'm a regular at the local used bookstore. I try to get quality versions that have some kind of quality to it. If not I just have it on the Kindle.
jesus christ i'd like to go one day on the internet without someone talking about how fucking books smell
Paper is objectively better. Many Scientific papers have covered this. If you use an E-Reader, comprehension and immersion will suffer greatly.
>really thinking your comprehension suffers based on reading on basically identical screens
>because you're parroting results of a poorly conducted study/parroting others here without having read or critically evaluated the study yourself
I guess I expected to find slightly more intelligent people on Veeky Forums, I simply found slightly longer sentences and more periods
>Implying I haven't read many of the studies thoroughly
>implying this is parroting and it's not just me giving the daily reminder
Just get an eBook. Don't believe the retention and immersion memes. It's just words on a screen. Unlimited free books. No guilt in not finishing a book.
>kindle is ok
>don't know shit about nook
>paper is good for rare or favorite books
I have a kindle, pirate a shit-ton of books and the ones I really like I actually buy them in paper and read them again, feels good man
>this
Show me where any study concludes that reading comprehension suffers """greatly""" when users read on an e-book. Pure dogshit.
>many of
oh you read multiples of the one poorly conducted study? :>>
I love how demi-intelligent people think a study existing proves anything, when literally 90% of studies are invalidated by their methods and like 70% are nonreproduceable anyway.
These are just a few of many.
Tell me what in particular you think is wrong in any of these papers. Tell me why you think they are poorly conducted instead of just talking out of your ass.
> (2013) Anne Mangen, University of Stavanger - Reading linear texts on paper vs. computer screen: effects on reading comprehension.
> (2007) Erik Wästlund, University of Karlstad - Experimental studies of human-computer interaction : working memory and mental workload in complex cognition
> (2001) Daniel K Mayes, University of Central Florida - Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading
> (1994) Jan Olsen, University of Cornell - Electronic Journal Literature: Implications for Scholars
>can tell just from the names of the studies that multiples aren't even about e-ink readers whatsoever
you are really bad at this
Oh wow.