4 ms·
No, no, and no. I think this depends on how much you read. If reading books is just a past-time, maybe those responses make sense? But if you're a heavy read
by lallysingh 13y ago
No, no, and no.
I think this depends on how much you read. If reading books is just a past-time, maybe those responses make sense? But if you're a heavy reader, there's just no competition.
- The physical feeling of a book is nice until you need to carry it around. Or more than one, if you're reading more than one book at a time. I'll take my nexus 7 over a mid-sized paperback (or 4) any day of the week.
- Bookstores in my home town were filled with "Network Marketing" people who just walked around there all day with paper planners, trying to get people into their pyramid schemes.
- E-readers are getting better at note-taking. And you can search your notes, and search the text. I wish there was better math support, obviously, but I also don't get constrained by how much margin space there is in the book.
Still, my daughter's getting a bunch of paper Dr. Suess (&etc) books for some time :-)
- colomon 13y agoIt really seems to me it depends on the book and the circumstances. A nice, reasonably sized paperback or hardcover is great for reading; it's less great for carrying around with you or storing. On the other hand, a 1000+ page monster is much easier to read as an e-book. (Though it might look beautiful on your bookshelf.) And the convenience of having 5000+ pages of reading material on my phone is completely unbeatable. The great thing is, there's absolutely no reason not to do both. Usually at any time I'm reading two or three physical books and two or three e-books.