/lit/ - Literature

>>16257023
it's why people collect retro games and play on original hardware. There's a feeling you can't replicate with things like emulators or in this case an e-reader

>>16257023

Same. Having to convert formats is a bitch but literally takes like 10 to 15 seconds so it's not a big deal. Hope you got one with a backlight, though.

>>16257028
Yeah, I suppose that's true. I can also see the collection aspect being fun, seeing the bookshelf fill out and such. For me personally though, nothing beats the convenience of just having one device tuned perfectly to my needs with every book I'm reading on it.

>>16257023
My work is on a digital screen, I just don't want to tie one of my hobbies to one too, if you're not spending time at a screen otherwise though sure, it's a great invention.
I don't understand your complaints though, my forearms and grip are nothing to write home about, my eyesight is terrible and I'm poor, but none of your complaints ring true for me.
If it works for you then great, if it really doubled your reading time then that's incredible, definitely keep to it in the future if it got you reading like that.
Gonna stay with physical myself but I may get one in the future just for those rare books you can't get your hands on physically at all or without dropping a small fortune on them.

>>16257032
True, Calibre makes things very convenient. The only thing I'd like to have on this Kindle I have right now would be support for more formats such as epub but it's no biggie. Also fuck Amazon.

>>16257032
calibre converts epub to mobi easily.

Pdf though is a bitch to convert. The text remains small, but I like reading small text on my kindle so its all good for me.

>>16257023
Maybe the technology will be ready for prime time in 20 years or so. Right now, though, it's shit.

>>16257104
What is it missing for you? It's perfectly functionable

>>16257023
If you were a hipster pseud, an affordable device that facilitates reading would make you insecure too. Cause then what excuse would you have for not reading?

>>16257112
The whole concept of reflowable text is retarded. I expect each page to be designed and approved by a dedicated artisan. Layout is critical. Font styles are critical. I don't want to see pixels. I don't want a bright screen pummeling photons into my eyeballs.

>>16257162
i'm not sure if i could be as pretentious as you if i tried..you listed all the things that aren't critical desu. most paperbacks aren't designed either

>>16257217
Your best bet is suicide.

>>16257217
You're the faggot who can't read without a hi-tech gizmo. The vast majority of people prefer print books -- that's the unpretentious, populist choice.

>>16257028
Placebo

>>16257270
their best album was Meds

>>16257255
i'm glad you enjoy your unpretentious paper books
i enjoy having nearly every book in the world at my fingertips for free
have a nice day!

>>16257028
just read your ebooks with crt-shaders

>>16257023
nice one, got kindle oasis for my mom not too long ago

>>16257255
I have no preference, but ebooks are simply more practical. My library is several times larger than i could ever afford

>>16257023
It's good for all popular, and almost all lesser known titles. If you need a book for a more academic purpose (norton critical edition for example), then I think it falls short. Also on rare prints of collected works by foreign writers (I had this problem with some Chicago edition of Antonin Artaud). I have one and love it, but it does have limits.

>>16257226
hope for your sake you grow out of your cringey "aesthetic" edgy phase, champ

>>16257376
You're on /lit/, kiddo. Literature without aesthetics is just information. Go back to /sci/ and commune with your fellow bugmen drones.

>>16257403
note the quotations.

pseudoaesthetics. hard cover, looks good on a bookshelf, thinks it increases his social capital. no concern for the language itself.

the actual books that matter are not available because jews will censor them

>>16257414
Wow, you really don't get it. Go play with your funko pops, bugman.

>>16257023
i got an onyx coming in the mail. im trying to be minimal in what i own, but half of it is books. making the switch. i can understand why other's haven't. it's expensive and the tech is still developing quite rapidly

>>16257028
>it's why people collect retro games and play on original hardware.

Those people don't play their games.

It's very useful for reading books with difficult vocabulary in foreign languages: I can simply tap on a word and get a translation + explanation.
Having a dictionary nearby was normal in the past and it was especially limiting when one was travelling where weight and space had to be considered.
On top of that I stopped buying books, which saves money, time and space. Not a hardcore minimalist but I prefer owning as little rarely used things as possible, especially when moving.

>>16257023
>I don't understand why people shill physical books so damn hard on here.
Most people don't like technology here, distrust e-readers, don't find them pretty and are elitist.

>>16257067
I just use both. Mostly use my kindle for short books, usually nonfiction and if I'm going to be reading a 700+ page novel I'll buy it in physical.

>>16257255
I can read a paperback copy just fine but I don't understand why I would pay for a paperback when I could just pirate the digital version and have access to it and hundreds of other books instantly without having to lug them all around. If my library has a physical copy of a book I want, or if its on sale somewhere, then I may buy a physical, but I'm not going to cuck myself to jeff bezos or any other vendor that makes like 80% of the profit and gives 20% to the author (or their estate if they are dead which is even more cucked)

>>16257023
Not everything is in ebook format. If you think otherwise you are a massive faggot.

eReaders and digital books are superior in terms of utility. The only reason people buy physical books is for aesthetic reasons i.e. decorating their bookshelf and/or signaling to other's their status, education and ideology on the subway/park.

There's also the whole subconscious drive for consumerism and touching and smelling a physical book satisfies that drive for shiny new objects better than some abstract icon after you finish downloading a file. It feels tangible, as if you actually somehow already HAVE that knowledge/wisdom contained in the book simply buy purchasing it.

I still use physical books if I need to but you have to admit it's a fucking waste. Imagine having hundreds of books and you suddenly want to move. It's just trash that's tying you down.

Screens are small
I want to read A4

>>16257502
underrated post. i download books to read, not to collect downloaded books

>not using both
Gay

>>16257502
I do, I've had too many ds that I only bought digital for and when I got the new one didn't get to keep my digital library or they sure as hell didn't make the process convenient so games like stardew I got digital but risk of rain 2,dead cells, divinity 2, and other solid indie games I can see myself playing a decade down the line I have physical

On a side note are there any decent pocket sized ereaders or am I better of getting an e-ink phone like the hisence a5c?

>>16257023
It's a miraculous piece of technology.

>>16257023
I don't really like e-readers. I like to be able to feel how much I have read and how far I have left to go. Physical books will beat out ebooks any day.

>>16260291
if only ereaders displayed how far, pages or percentage wise, into a book you were, or how many minutes+hours remained before you finished a chapter or the whole book...

>>16257072
>My work is on a digital screen, I just don't want to tie one of my hobbies to one too

the adult (wagie) answer. also my own answer

i tried that bookz shit and guess what... none of the books i wanted were there

>>16260364
It's not the same as being able to feel it. There's something about feeling a book in your hands that just can't be emulated by an e reader.

>>16257028
t. consoomer

>>16257023
They're only good for reading fiction, reading nonfiction on those devices sucks and you retain less than when compared with paper books.

>>16261904
Being able to see the references without flicking to the back of the book is pretty neat but the device is absolute rubbish for maps so I would mostly agree

>>16260432
technically,
kindle is not a digital technology, its that typa sand-ink

Guys I need help,
my old Kindle died,
i am looking for a new reader,
should i get another one or
this for instance: https://www.amazon.com/PocketBook-Touch-Obsidian-Black-Built/dp/B07GJVH9GN/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=PocketBook+614&qid=1598956228&sr=8-1#HLCXComparisonWidget_feature_div
converting formats is hard but I enjoy kindle a lot otherwise,
- not to mention lot of books is in epub only.

Why is this debate always missing the fact that there are MILLIONS OF BOOKS WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE AS EBOOKS? Yeah, fine, if you want to read NYT bestsellers, Kindle has you covered. But anyone with even slightly broader interests will quickly find books they want to read have never been formatted in electronic formats. "Bookshelf aeshetics" and "hand feeling" and the pretentiousness thereof plus whatever other retarded crap you people are arguing about has literally nothing to do with it. I have to read physical books because the books I want to read are only available as physical books.

>>16260432
as the other anon suggested, e-ink screens are fundamentally different from LCD screens. they dont consume power when they arent moving, which means the battery life on an ereader is on the measure of weeks. its also very passive on the eyes as a result of just, in general, staring at less power consumption happening. lcds are straining and artificial, e-ink is more like looking at something in a daylit room

>>16258040
High IQ post. Most normies like muh smell, muh page turning on their fucking tiny font book. Most don't even finish the book, let alone read it. Normies gonna normie.

>>16261039
T. Cons00mer

>>16261039
T. Patrician

>>16257023
>reduces space needed for book storage
>can get new titles for free and without leaving the house in minutes
>battery life lasts weeks at a time
>can take it with me anywhere
no disagreements here

>>16257217
>>16257255
Stop fighting you poor fags. Anon here who can effort it all. The fancy pantsy device and real books. I far more enjoy reading an actual book. I personal preference is a descent paperback. The way i bents and twists in my hands, the smell and feel of paper and the little satisfaction you get from progressing through a t h i c c paperback boy will never be replicated. The kindle is nice though for traveling or test reading a book before i buy it. I find flowable text absolutely retarded too because it takes a lot of power from the otherwise amazing marking capabilities of these devices. I also hate the way it portraits pdf files. I could be a great tool for academic reading but for some reason they decided to screw those people over.

>>16257023
I have a harder time concentrating when I'm reading on an ereader, so I prefer physical books. I read mostly ebooks though.

>>16257023
removes book from your device nothing personal kid https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-amazon-legally-delete-books-from-your-kindle

>>16257072
Text on a kindle isn't digital, it's physical (made out of logically displayed e-ink) and it is not emiting light (unless you lit it). It actually looks like text printed on a page of a book, under every angle, and not text on a smartphone

>>16262216
They almost certainly are, you just can't find them. (I'm talking about Internet in general, not Kindle Store which I never intend to use)

>>16262751
Call it electronic then, I don't care much for semantics, you get my point regardless. It's fascinating though.

>>16262216
This point is only right when you can get physical books as easy as they do exist. For someone who doesn't have access to bookstores with vast collections or the money to import books from other countries, or to find a seller (because books that aren't available in digital are most likely not available near where you are.). In my experience, I have failed to find physical copies more often than digital ones.

I prefer physical books too and I'd love to have my own library, but not because the consoomerism shit that is muh smell, muh feel, but instead, and this is the most important point, physical books fucking last forever or at least your lifetime. While digital books' life span depend on the number of backups you have

>>16262789
Do you call letters in books electronic because they are printed by printers run on electricity? Ereader are electronic devices that rearranged physical ink for you to read

i can't read on a kindle any more, just feels too humiliating, too demoralizing, i'm a human and i demand lindy tactile objects

>>16262792
It is a nice thought that your books will outlive you. I have this local book from 1863 that's just a collection of country tales. No real effort was made to preserve it so it's damaged here and there but it's readable and as far as I know, there are no digital copies of it and physical copies are a rare find online from what I gathered. It's a piece of history essentially.

>>16257023
Ted Kaczynski would not have done it.

>>16262828
?? what
i get the physicality, but why is it humiliating of all things.

>>16257023
I love it's purpose but God I fucking regret buying it, way too small for my liking, sticking with a 11" windows tablet for the time being

>>16257023
I prefer reading physical books, don't ask me why it's just somehow easier on me, but I don't look down at e-readers. Better than any other screen and you have tons of shit for free. If only pdf's were less of a chore on them it would be almost perfect.

I dunno how the fuck you retards hood physical books. It's so annoying having to hold it open and worry about it closing if you don't hold it open and also the gay weight of it.

In college, I created my own bookholder out of cardboard so I could read in bed and on the desk without breaking my neck.

Today? Kindle Oasis with a warm/red backlight that is lighter than my ballsack. I read in any position I want and without discomfort. I also read late into the light without inferior lighting projecting into my eyes.

To the niggers on this board: shut the fuck up unless you've tried a red backlight combined with inverted display (white on black text) at 1 am with all your lights out and your favorite novel.

Just shut the fuck up. Fuck you.

>>16263592
Basado. Warm light e-readers are the future.

>>16263592
Physical book fags GTFO this thread now.

>>16263510
Get the Oasis or Kobo clara

>>16263592
>>16263689
Listen to them.

>>16258040
this is the correctest answer in this thread and it's exactly how I feel about it. I occasionally buy physical books but having them on my ereader is a million times more practical. Sometimes I buy the book and still read a pirated digital copy.

>>16257023
>Imagine having millions of books at your fingertips

>Imagine having to imagine having books at your fingertips, instead of actually having them and touching them. Every caress bringing joy. Keep your toys away AND PERISH

>>16263592
Based

>>16263689
This man speaks the truth, there's nothing in the world that will give you great emotions as when you will finally get the new kindle oasis

>>16257023
Booo
Kobos are better

>>16257023
I completely agree, I've read 200 books on my kindle. How much would it have cost to purchase all those books, and how much space would they have taken up?

>>16263592
>the gay weight

I love you.

>>16264601
I was looking at the clara hd.. is that a good entry model to get?

>>16264680
Absolutely, but you should go for the oasis if you want a bigger screen. Ebook reader’s life cycles are much higher than many electronics so there’s no need to replace for years.

>b-but some ebooks are not available
>it's just bestsellers
>it doesn't cover my wide interests
Imagine actually believing this shit. It just proves you haven't even tried. Or haven't ever thought that maybe out of print books would be an issue as well.
You probably never heard of Emmanuel Bove and there are ebooks for most of his works, in translation and French. Same with Fleur Jaeggy. At least 800 New Directions books are available on ebook form. Dalkey Archive, small University publishers, etc. Most of the extended canon is online.
I refuse to believe a person reading 50 books per year, reading for 5 years, would not find at least 20% of their reading material online (saving about $300-400).

And if you can't pirate them, guess what. You could buy a physical volume.

I need to feel the weight of a massive cock, you know... smell it, feel it, hold it in my hands. Nothing compares to a thick fat throbbing nigger donger.
No eye strain whatsoever, a feeling in my mouth no tiny dildo can properly emulate.

>>16265063

They're unusable for textbooks.

>>16265063
based and BBCpilled

>>16262817
He is directly interacting with the electronics, he wants all of his interactions to be mechanical.

I like to own the things that I read, and not be tied to terms and conditions despite buying them.

>>16257426
>Originality Coefficient:
Big phat zero, sorries

>>16257028
Not a straight comparison. I can hook an emulator up to a tv and use an original controller and get virtually the same experience.
Ebooks are like using the keyboard instead of a controller.

>>16264631
:3

>>16265537
stop posting this thot

>>16265626
You don't get it

>>16257023
i have the suspicion that these wreck your eyes. i get terrible eye strain and the occasional headache reading off of them, but with books (provided im reading them in a well-lit space) i never have that problem.

>>16265929
It shouldn't, tho; maybe it's brightness issue

On my phone or pc I can't read for too long, but since I bought my paperwhite so far I had no trouble at all (I never use it with brightness above 6, 7)
Still, supposedly its screen display is different than that of a tablet, pc, etc

>>16265537
who tf is this and why is she posted everywhere

>>16258040
this make coomsumers seethe

i exclusively buy used books for maximum soul

>>16257023
It hurts your eyes because its digital + reading a book physically is better for your eyes

>>16263689
the forma is the kobo equivalent to the oasis

>>16262751
no man, it looks like a phone

>>16266371
>It hurts your eyes because its digital

https://youtu.be/6NRT8E5-reM

no

>>16257023
What a horrible watch.

>>16257162
>Layout is critical.
Download a PDF.
>I don't want to see pixels.
Get an e-reader with an e-ink screen, and make sure the pixel density is 300 ppi.

>>16260291
>he can't gauge how far into the book he is by feeling the weight of the electrons shifting from one side of the device to the other
ngmi

>>16266378
Phones have reflective glass-like screens. There's glare and they look bad under direct sunlight.
To emulate the look of an e-ink screen you'd have to make the background 20% gray and decrease the brightness by a lot. And it still won't look like any random ereader.

>>16266371
You're retarded, turn off the backlight and it's just like reading a book.

>>16262216
>there are MILLIONS OF BOOKS WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE AS EBOOKS
You are digitizing books that you can't find on Z-Library/Libgen/Archive.org, etc... and uploading them, aren't you, Anon?

>>16266378
No it doesn't you fucking retard

>>16258040
>>16262234
>>16264062
>>16266248
Literal retards.

>>16267123
Literal retard

>>16267135
Go play with your action figures.

So if I'm going to be travelling with potentially limited wifi in a foreign land, what e-reader do y'all suggest? If I can setup a VPN on it, that would be great. I'm a little partial to the e-paper displays, but willing to hear out color displays.

>>16257023
Books look prettier. I'm too poor to buy one of those anyways.

>>16267207
i got a new Kindle for $60 a few weeks ago
and 500 free books came with it

>>16263592
Stfu

>>16257023
The e-reader just does not appeal to me at all. Maybe for travel, that's it.

>>16266349
found the necromancer

>>16267411
were any of them good

Okay I love my e-reader but I hate one thing: People on the bus can't see what I read. This is unironically a problem for me, because I had a couple of really nice conversations with strangers in the park, on the bus, ... about the books I were reading and two of them evolved into very good friendships. Sacrificing this wasn't easy but OP is right in everything else

>>16257023

Amazing tool. For me the truly amazing thing is the dictionaries

If only the useful 13.3" models were not $800.

>>16268976
cringe

>>16268976
Oh no, people will think you're just browsing facebook like some pleb. Try wearing some snarky woke t-shirt like "this is what a male feminist looks like", those are always great conversation starters!

>>16269667
I don't care what people think, I just want to get to know people with similar hobbies. Nothing weird about that in my opinion. I know that it sounds stupid that I want to be seen with a book in public but that is literally the easiest way of making contacts without any effort. You can call it cringe but it has helped me to make good friends, so why would I not be bothered by not doing it?

>>16269650
>>16269667
People here actually wonder why everyone in their life thinks they're antisocial, all while replying like this.

>>16269712
>not being a social signalling faggot means you're anti-social

>>16269712
I am schizoid, but not antisocial. That means that I will socialize and be kind from the bottom of my heart to other people, if they need it. But I myself will never show that I need such affection nor I will start any interactions without a clear signal

>>16269730
You're angry and calling people "faggot" for wanting to connect with others. This is antisocial behavior.

>>16269760
You can call it "connecting" but it's about as subtle as a girl lifting up her skirt to show she's not wearing any panties. Even if it might work, the quality of the company that would be impressed by that kind of signalling is usually low quality.

Personally, I put a cucumber in my jeans while riding the tram to "connect" with the ladies. Works a lot better than reading War & Peace.

>>16269815
Your view seems warped or misguided. I don't see why reading a book in public potentially acting as a catalyst to meeting someone must be akin to bedding a slut. Why to you does meeting someone have to be challenging?

>>16263040
Fragility

>>16268717
No u

>>16269746
Are you me?

>>16257028
ZOOM ZOOM CONZOOM

>>16257023
Same.

The only thing I miss is that when I want to find back to something in a book I read, I find it thousand times harder on the Kindle. When I read a physical book I'll remember around where the part was to find it again. When you read digitally you have no physical sense if you're in the last half, two thirds in or stuff like that.

Still no huge problem, and can be fixed if I just start using the highlight option more, but thats kinda gay too.

>>16271701
same, when i read even if the book is 1000 pages i can always remember the rough area the passage was in and where it was oriented on the 2-page segment i.e. top-right, left-middle, etc. on an ereader its at least twice as tedious

If I were to get one, would I still be able to highlight important passages while reading? Also, would I be able to import files from libgen onto it?

So much cope in this thread. /lit/ has universally revealed themselves as pseuds who care more about the "aesthetic" of reading and what their covers look like, than the practical aspect of actually reading. E-readers make reading significantly more comfortable.

>>16271962
im using an onyx note2 and you can write all over the book files, highlight, draw dicks, etc. im sure you can do it with the nova2 which is cheaper as well. poke2 probably not

>>16271962
Yes you can do both of those. However, using a kindle paperwhite, im not sure if you can resize the font for the pdf. I can only view them as full pages. That might be different for the other kindle devices. Also there is a bug on my device where, when I use a pdf from libgen letters disappear on the kindle. I fixed this by converting the pdf to some other file type, then back to pdf, then putting it on kindle. I dont know why, but that worked

>>16271976
Yep, paperwhite is pretty based

Alright, since this is the rare eReader thread, I'm gonna ask here what's a good model for a first time user? I'm a student, so price is a bit of a concern, and being able to load in my own files (such as pdfs) is a must. Sure, 300 DPI is nice but I can go lower (I guess 200 shouldn't hurt too much).

And yeah, I too prefer physical when possible/not ridiculously expensive, but I'm under the impression that eReaders are a lifesaver for academic texts.

>>16271962
Buy something other than a kindle and you can use epub files, which are very common on libgen. If you want to make Jeff vetos richer you have to convert every epub before being able to read it on the kindle

>>16272154
Get Kindle paperwhite 2015

>>16257023

You can't flip through an ebook on an ereader like you can with a normal textbook or fiction book. It is not as easy to bookmark and revisit specific passages or pages. It treats reading like a linear experience (fine for fiction you just want to read once, shit for everything else i.e. textbooks).

>>16265389
I still don't understand the problem.

>>16258040
>are superior in terms of utility.

No - they really are not. The utility of a book goes beyond just being a stream of words in linear organization that you work through from A to B to C etc.

Even ignoring the aesthetic value it has been proven time and time again that people study better from a physical copy of a book then from the screen.

>subconscious drive for consumerism

People buy books primarily because it contains something interesting to them in some way - whether a cookbook, a story, or a useful textbook for academic purposes. That the only way this was accomplishable was by buying a physical copy is incidental and has no connection to being 'consumerist' as you imply. Reading as a hobby or for knowledge sake is easier from a book that you can flick through at leisure.

>but you have to admit it's a fucking waste.

A waste of what? It's capitalist society and the fact every dumb celebrity thinks every idiot wants to read their dumb 'my life' autobiography that causes waste not so much the book itself. If you don't care for buying then you can always use a library.

The only convenience afforded by an ereader is storage space and being able to instantly bring up a book at any moment (assuming you have it downloaded). Anyone who knows how to use an index, contents page, and has two functioning hands can use a physical book to look stuff up quicker than anybody on an ereader though.

i like watching bookshelf grow

>>16262769
>They almost certainly are, you just can't find them

You're an optimistic retard.

>open physical textbook
>ink smell
Enjoy your brain damage. I'll read my free PDF instead. :)

>>16272466
>No - they really are not. The utility of a book goes beyond just being a stream of words in linear organization that you work through from A to B to C etc.

Like what? The value of the book is in the content, which can be entirely encapsulated digitally. What is left out is just sensual garbage - muh smell, muh feel, muh "can anyone see what book i'm reading" etc.

>A waste of what?

A waste of space and material. You are taking something inherently lightweight like text and imprinting it on a physical material. For what purpose? It smells nice and looks cool on your shelf as a decoration. After the initial consumerist dopamine hit goes away, it just sits there and collects dust, like a shitty figurine. I'm not going to go full treehugger, but it's a waste.

>look stuff up quicker than anybody on an ereader though.

You've clearly never done any kind of research because you would know how invaluable it is to be able to search for the relevant content of a paper or textbook, how useful it is to just click on a reference, jump to an endnote, bookmark, copy a particular quote etc.

I can only think of one reason a physical book would be more accessible: the person using it is technologically illiterate and/or a technophobic boomer. A proper digital copy (text+metadata, not scanned images) is always superior to the printed form for anything except maybe social signalling.

>>16272466
>No - they really are not. The utility of a book goes beyond just being a stream of words in linear organization that you work through from A to B to C etc.
which is a faulty characterization of ereading, or not relevant at all
>Even ignoring the aesthetic value it has been proven time and time again that people study better from a physical copy of a book then from the screen.
show me a study that compares e-ink study efficacy vs physical copies

>The only convenience afforded by an ereader is storage space and being able to instantly bring up a book at any moment (assuming you have it downloaded). Anyone who knows how to use an index, contents page, and has two functioning hands can use a physical book to look stuff up quicker than anybody on an ereader though.
It's cheaper by a long shot, my ereader is less expensive than half of the pdfs i read on it, can be read in a dark room, easier to hold, waterproof, highlights aren't permanent, takes up way less space, consequently quicker to pull up any book i want at any moment anywhere i go, basically the only advantage of a real book is what this anon said here >>16271729

>>16272959
>basically the only advantage of a real book is what this anon said here >>16271729
That is a gigantic advantage, along with seeing two full pages and not dealing with an interface.

>>16272986
also the lack of color, and the cost. The cost for a 13.3" ereader is ridiculous and not even worthwhile.

>>16257023
books don't run out of battery, that's about it.

this thread is exactly why everyone needs to lurk /g/ from time to time. Fucking disgusting amazon fags, you guys are filth. Enjoy your license agreements you piece of dirt

>>16274282
what distro you running bb? arch or debian?

>no buttons
my condolences

>>16274282
>tfw got a nexus 9 for next to nothing since the stock rom has crazy bad driver issues but the lineageos rom works perfectly
feels good man, i read books on it and watch 4:3 aspect ratio anime before bed for peak cozy

>>16257255
>hi-tech
>spent $90 in 2011
eeeh, if you still count the original iphone as hi-tech then, sure, maybe

>>16258808
You seriously see yourself replaying Divinity 2? I mean, it was fun turning into a dragon, but it got old quickly, and it's a janky as shit gamebryo monstrosity.

>>16271729
>>16271701
huh, print just makes me miss ctrl+f, personally
I'm fucking stoked it finally works on books.

I still perfer large tomes and long nonfiction books in physical. But buying some shit ass 300 page fiction book which you could just download for free is better

I finally broke down and ordered a Kobo Clara HD yesterday, waiting for it to come in now. Been downloading books to load on it when I get it. Pretty excited desu. I have a lot of physical books but I also travel a lot and have moved a lot (between countries) and plan on moving countries again soon. I think it's gonna make my life a lot easier and I really like that I can find most books that I want to read for free

>>16272183
that's done automatically when you export them through kindle anyway, it's a non-issue
I have a kindle 4 though so I don't know shit about recent models. Just make sure to get side buttons so you don't have to swipe like a retard, I heard they got rid of them for the touch meme.

Why would anyone get a Kindle Oasis? I don't see the appeal of having a side handle.

Which one do I get, though?

>>16272154
onyx boox max 3

Looking at the Kobo Libra vs. the Kobo Clara
Prices similar enough for it not to be a big deal.
One is slightly bigger and has physical buttons, this looks like a HUGE plus to me. Is it?
There is also a Forma that is even bigger

Anyone got experience with this, is bigger really better?

>>16274805
buttons are nice

>>16258040
my local used book store has a sweet doggo who wanders around trying to get pets from customers while they look for books. can't get that on a kindle

Anyone have the image of recommended settings/boxes to check while converting formats with Calibre?

>>16274919
Get a Kindle man

>>16276973
Why?

The only things I prefer having physical are specific deluxe editions and study/reference material.

>>16257023
why the FUCK are you wearing shoes inside a carpeted house, do amer*cans really?

I like mine, but honestly, reading shit on my monitor in portrait is just nicer. You don't have to hold anything up, you can get 2 columns of text side by side so you don't have to change pages as often, and I can read quite comfortably for 16 hours or so a day on it.

I'd like a full size e-ink screen instead, but nobody makes anything good.

>>16264736
>You say that, but I go through them faster than socks. Only takes a few recent impacts to fuck up your screen

>>16277264
Unlucky? Bad product? Carless?
I've had my (PocketBook) forever

>>16277264
dont drop it

>>16263592
I am honestly worried for the physical health of some of the Anons here.

>>16257023
I think that an ereader is definitely a useful supplement to a home library but there are reasons beyond ego to have physical copies. Digital rot is so much more of an issue than people think it is, and in 40 years format changes are going to fuck everyone out of their purely digital libraries. Sooner even if any ebook companies collude for planned obscelescence. I can't really be comfortable with my library being at risk from big tech companies. This ties into the byzantine licensing issues of ebooks, though I imagine most people here pirate so that's less of a problem. I'm skeptical of things that say retention with physical books is better but it's something to consider. Also if you're going to have kids
a home library is something that they can properly explore and associate memories with, and something you can pass down where no gung-ho future editor can modify the text.

>>16277547
You can store a library in the size of your fingernail these days, even if competing standards emerge, it won't be hard to convert them.

Obviously, all bets are off if you're dumb enough to buy DRM files and connect your device to the internet so a rights holder can remotely wipe it. But that's akin to being surprised when a public library replaces a 50 year old worn out copy with an "updated" version.

>>16277590
You're assuming more competence in digital records management than I've ever seen exist. It isn't really a matter of storage space, it's a matter of looking to the future and preparing for obscelescence. The tech industry intentionally does the opposite when there's a profit to be made. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but by any metric right now paper lasts longer. Plus I have a bunch of stuff not available online anyways.

>>16277547
>in 40 years format changes are going to fuck everyone out of their purely digital libraries.
This is only a risk for formats that are sufficiently proprietary, obscure or convoluted. epub is none of those things. It's open and well-documented, there are lots of independent implementations, and it's based straightforwardly on HTML, CSS, XML and zip, four standards that (assuming no civilizational collapse) will stay supported for another millennium or so, for better or worse.
If you strip off DRM or avoid it in the first place and use epub then your great-grandchildren will have no trouble converting it to something modern. Even if you use one of those fucked up kindle formats they'll probably be fine.

>worrying about the permanence of digital text
Has any book that ever hit the net disappeared?
I feel like you can't put the genie back in the bottle here, that it'll stay available until mankind can no longer maintain a net, or freedoms have been so restricted that you cannot use it to that purpose
In either case, that would be bigger problems than the equivalent of - my bookshelf disappearing

>>16277547
>>16277650
>in 40 years format changes are going to fuck everyone out of their purely digital libraries
Yeah, it's like worrying about nobody being able to read your physical books, because nobody can read the Latin alphabet in 40 years.
Not a realistic problem.

>>16277638
Quite the contrary, I just think people will always find ways around it. Even if it gets to the point where they're taking pictures of their screens and packaging the jpegs into books instead, DRM can never truly take hold on the written word.

While obsolescence of technology is inevitable and planned, data obsolescence will take much, much longer, well outside your lifespan.

>>16257023
My only issue is the tactile feel of it. Often I will accidentally swipe to the next page and doing any typing or backtracking is really time consuming. If they somehow increased the display frequency of the device it would be perfect.

>>16272948
Not the guy you're replying to, but

> how invaluable it is to be able to search for the relevant content of a paper or textbook, how useful it is to just click on a reference, jump to an endnote, bookmark, copy a particular quote etc.

None of this is fast or easy to do on an e-reader

>>16277712
It was better when the things actually had fucking buttons, the touch-screen cancer is completely at odds with low frequency displays.

>>16277693
>>16277696
I agree to an extent, but I unfortunately work in records management and have seen companies and public organizations lose huge amounts of data to this issue. It's not that it isn't possible to transfer or convert formats, it's that no one does it because nobody cares and before you know it nobody can.

>>16277729
>None of this is fast or easy to do on an e-reader
As opposed to? Searching relevant content is easier on ereaders as 1 > 0. Reading IJ was 5x easier on an ereader than it was physically, concerning endnotes and quotes. Not to mention the built-in dictionary

>>16274282
I never signed into Amazon. Been using mine with Calibre on airplane mode. Yes, proprietary OS, but the hardware was cheap and better than the competition.

>>16274805
Has adjustable warm red backlight and the handles are nice to hold. Can't fit it in your pocket tho. Btw, the screen is glass and feels nice. I miss the rubber plastic though.

>>16277336
Which ones?

>>16277547
All my books are drm free lol

>dictionary
People actually use those?

>>16277638
>>16277742
Nigga, my shit is backed up to 5 different cloud providers automatically not even including my local copies. You'll be fine - you maintain them every year just like you do books. The difference is, digital books will never degrade.

>>16277750
I have an easier time looking for translations on my phone whilst I am reading than highlighting the appropriate word on kindle.

>>16277769
>Which ones?
There are multiple people in this thread who can't hold a book.

>>16277770
It's amazing on an ereader. I never ever read so comfortably and fast. Just press a word and the definition and examples pop up. Swipe and you'll get Wikipedia. Swipe again and you'll get a translator.

Best part? Custom dictionaries. I loaded mine with modern and old dictionaries and use specific ones depending on what era I'm reading from.

>>16277790
They can but they don't want to like me. You've clearly never held a multi lb volume in your hand. It's not fun. And no, I won't read it at a fucking desk.

>>16277731
Real shit, why the fuck are buttons an ultimate no-no in design?

I get the argument behind e-readers, but I hate using them. It looks so unnatural and you miss having the feel of the book in your hands.

One of the biggest things I don't like is not being able to underline, circle, write-in-the-margins, especially when dealing with a dense literary text. Also not being able to flip back and forth easily while referencing early portions of the work.

How do you e-reader stan fags answer this?

>>16277806
Buttons break eventually, and touchscreens are as cheap as adding a screen to something in the first place.

It's a completely cancerous environment, and the only thing that'll actually fix it will be the introduction of physical holograms. Then, you can press a simulated button, that retreats into the device how you expect, and can change shape and style based on the interface. The era of touch screens will seem as primitive as stone tools in the face of pleasing tactility.

>>16277797
>You've clearly never held a multi lb volume in your hand.
I did, it's not ideal but you can finish short stories just fine, you can also lay down and just hold it upwards with your hands which is even easier.
>And no, I won't read it at a fucking desk.
Autism? My condolences, but even if you don't want to read at a desk there are book stands that people have been using for millenias.

>>16277770
are you implying you know all the definitions of every word you see or do you seriously try to just guess by context?

>>16272948
Autism

>>16257023
books are way comfier for me BUT i am getting closer to buying one of these so i can read obscurer editions/translations and things which have no or only expensive physical copies
that and light novels

>>16277769
And that's definitely good. I'm certainly not arguing that it's impossible to avoid these issues but I do think that people assume that things on the Internet are more eternal than they are. There have already been lawsuits against the Internet Archive, and if it goes down that will be a colossal loss for posterity but I suppose that's a bit of a different topic.

>>16277779
That's excellent, you're handling your stuff better than many major organizations.

>>16277825
Yeah

>>16277742
the point is, these books aren't being backed up by a single entity. the point of file sharing is that files are held and stored by many many different people. anything short of a giant emp killing all the electronics around the world, which would lead to bigger problems than your ereader not working, isn't an issue.

iPad mini gang

>>16258040
I like reading physical books more but because I'm poor I download almost all of my books.

>>16257023
Use kindle for fiction, read physical for nonfiction and theory. Buy a book if you really want it and love it.

>>16257023
You never bought a KitchenAid mixer?

>>16278603
I only read fiction

>>16277824
Yes let me buy a fucking stand. Where shall I put it when I'm not using it? Up my ass?

Fuck you. I have a Kindle and I pirate every book I want. And it takes up no physical space. Increased comfort. And more.

Enjoy your shitty books and arthritis faggot.

>>16277818
You can highlight text and attach notes, even on the cheapest kindle. Most books also have metadata attached so you can open up the contents and jump to a particular chapter or to a bookmark or to a page number. I've personally never had the need to go back and jump around a lot unless I'm following a reference/footnote which is dead simple.

Newer devices like reMarkable also have a pen and feel essentially like paper so you can doodle over your documents if that's your thing.

https://remarkable.com/

>>16280078
Do they have a glass protective cover? Scraping a plastic tipped stylus against a plastic surface is not really a great idea
t. Wacom user

>>16257067What about audio versions? Convenient for various applications.

>>16257088
the amazon email converter is really good for pdfs , does a much better job than calibre.