Memory cards and internal memory

[Valloric]

First off, my PRS-505 is currently shipping.

I have read on this forum that memory cards drain battery juice, even if the reader is in "sleep mode", and Memory Sticks drain less than SD cards.

So... is it possible to load a bunch of books on the card, and transfer books from the card to internal memory without the use of a computer? What I'm saying is, using the internal memory as a sort of temporary location for currently-being-read books, but having a memory card around with several gigs of other books, and when you read the ones in internal storage, you insert the card, transfer a few books and take it out again. You also transfer the ones from internal memory to the card.

Is it possible to do this from the menus of the device?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Valloric

First off, my PRS-505 is currently shipping.

I have read on this forum that memory cards drain battery juice, even if the reader is in "sleep mode", and Memory Sticks drain less than SD cards.

So... is it possible to load a bunch of books on the card, and transfer books from the card to internal memory without the use of a computer? What I'm saying is, using the internal memory as a sort of temporary location for currently-being-read books, but having a memory card around with several gigs of other books, and when you read the ones in internal storage, you insert the card, transfer a few books and take it out again. You also transfer the ones from internal memory to the card.

Is it possible to do this from the menus of the device?

No, it is not possible to do this on the 505.

I really wouldn't worry about battery lifetime. Using a memory card does indeed reduce memory somewhat, but are you really bothered about whether you have to recharge every 3 weeks or every 2 weeks? Battery life is still extremely good, even with a memory card.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it is not possible to do this on the 505.

I really wouldn't worry about battery lifetime. Using a memory card does indeed reduce memory somewhat, but are you really bothered about whether you have to recharge every 3 weeks or every 2 weeks? Battery life is still extremely good, even with a memory card.

Yes, but the other reason is lack of folder support. From what I understand, the Reader crams everything into a flat list, laughing in your face while completely disregarding your futile attempts at organization (drama added for emphasis).

And I would love it if I could just transfer stuff I'm going to read for the next week or so to internal memory, and not have to bother with wading through 4 gigs of books every time I feel like reading something different.

And I can't believe I'm saying this, but folder support is the killer feature to get for the Reader. What on God's green Earth were they thinking when they thought "meh... who needs that?". From what I gathered from the firmware update thread, one of the things they're working on is supporting epub, which is a format no one is using, and there is no mention what so ever about the most basic file browsing support.

[dhbailey]

While battery life is less important, speed may be an issue when using a memory card. I haven't gotten any sort of actual comparison in my other thread on speed with memory stick on the 500 compared to the same sort of card on the 505 (I'll just bring the memory stick into Border's and try it, I guess).

What I have observed is that with about 300 book on a memory stick (4GB but well under the 2GB of data which the 500 will recognize) it takes a long time to place or remove a bookmark in the current book, even if it's one of the internal memory books and not one that's on the card. Removing the card returned the action to instantaneous.

I don't know how things may have changed on the 505 but clearly the good folks at Sony have a long way to go to speed things up to where the memory cards and the internal memory function indentically and the location of the book being read doesn't make a difference.

I understand the enticement of having an entire library on a memory stick or SD card, but I can get around 300 novels (most LRF files converted from PG files with perhaps 30 or so commercially published files). With my current reading schedule (about an hour per day, unfortunately) it takes me a week or so to go through most of the novels (longer for some Dickens and Collins and Austen books), so I have about 6 years' worth of books on my reader currently. Certainly enough for a lengthy vacation!

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by dhbailey

What I have observed is that with about 300 book on a memory stick (4GB but well under the 2GB of data which the 500 will recognize) it takes a long time to place or remove a bookmark in the current book, even if it's one of the internal memory books and not one that's on the card. Removing the card returned the action to instantaneous.

Yes, that does seem like a major problem.

Also, when I get my PRS 505 in a few days, I'll PM you so you can send me the books you are using so we can test the speed (if you still want to). I'm planning on getting a Memory Stick card, and I believe I have an SD card lying around here somewhere....

Originally Posted by dhbailey

I understand the enticement of having an entire library on a memory stick or SD card, but I can get around 300 novels (most LRF files converted from PG files with perhaps 30 or so commercially published files). With my current reading schedule (about an hour per day, unfortunately) it takes me a week or so to go through most of the novels (longer for some Dickens and Collins and Austen books), so I have about 6 years' worth of books on my reader currently. Certainly enough for a lengthy vacation!

Ahh, but I want to put in basically every book that has even the most remote chance of me reading it, plus a few I surely never will (hey, I may lend the Reader to a friend, and they will have different tastes). Basically, I want to create my Reader library, transfer it to a memory stick and practically never have to transfer anything to it again (maybe a few new releases, bu that would happen like once a year).

I gathered 1.3 GB of ebooks already, and I'm currently in the process of converting thousands of them to LRF (the important ones by hand through Book Designer, the less important ones by converter... but it depends on the format too)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Valloric

And I can't believe I'm saying this, but folder support is the killer feature to get for the Reader. What on God's green Earth were they thinking when they thought "meh... who needs that?". From what I gathered from the firmware update thread, one of the things they're working on is supporting epub, which is a format no one is using, and there is no mention what so ever about the most basic file browsing support.

It is almost without doubt the case that Sony have not implemented folder support because this is a device aimed at non computer-experts and many less-knowledgeable computer users get very confused by folders. Look at the typical home computer and you'll find that people tend (on a Windows machine) to put everything in the "My Documents" folder. Implementing folder support would probably have resulted in large numbers of support calls from people complaining that their books have "disappeared".

Companies like Sony spend lots of money doing market research; the way the Reader is the way it is (reading but not displaying folders) is very likely because that's what they found that people wanted.

The Reader is not alone in this; the CyBook Gen3, Kindle, Pocket PC devices - they all work in this way, showing the contents of folders in a "flat list". There has to be a good reason for that, given the massive amounts of money these companies spend on product testing and market research.

We (on MR) don't represent the typical user of these devices; they are aimed at the NON-expert.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Valloric

Ahh, but I want to put in basically every book that has even the most remote chance of me reading it, plus a few I surely never will (hey, I may lend the Reader to a friend, and they will have different tastes). Basically, I want to create my Reader library, transfer it to a memory stick and practically never have to transfer anything to it again (maybe a few new releases, bu that would happen like once a year).

I'm afraid that you'll find that speed of indexing really doesn't make that a very practical proposition. What works best is to use your computer to store and organise your best, and keep a few dozen (perhaps up to a couple of hundred) on the Reader at any one time.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is almost without doubt the case that Sony have not implemented folder support because this is a device aimed at non computer-experts and many less-knowledgeable computer users get very confused by folders. Look at the typical home computer and you'll find that people tend (on a Windows machine) to put everything in the "My Documents" folder. Implementing folder support would probably have resulted in large numbers of support calls from people complaining that their books have "disappeared".

Companies like Sony spend lots of money doing market research; the way the Reader is the way it is (reading but not displaying folders) is very likely because that's what they found that people wanted.

The Reader is not alone in this; the CyBook Gen3, Kindle, Pocket PC devices - they all work in this way, showing the contents of folders in a "flat list". There has to be a good reason for that, given the massive amounts of money these companies spend on product testing and market research.

We (on MR) don't represent the typical user of these devices; they are aimed at the NON-expert.

Oh I seriously doubt they didn't include it because "users would be confused". One word: iPod. There's millions of them, and 90% of them are used by people who do not know a great deal about computers. The iPod automatic meta data based sorting would be awesome on the Reader, but I'll take folders any day.

And come on... users being confused by folders? Anyone who's buying a tech gadget like the Reader knows about folders... tech savvy is one thing, but understanding folders... my grandmother understands them, and she's 86.

Your problem is that you think that it's such an obvious feature (and it is!), there must be same grand reason why they haven't included it. Sadly, that's not the way the world works. It's probably something trivial really...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Valloric

And come on... users being confused by folders? Anyone who's buying a tech gadget like the Reader knows about folders... tech savvy is one thing, but understanding folders... my grandmother understands them, and she's 86.

I honestly think that you overestimate peoples' abilities. I run my own software business, and most of the support calls that I get for my software are precisely due to lack of basic computer knowledge.

Your problem is that you think that it's such an obvious feature (and it is!), there must be same grand reason why they haven't included it. Sadly, that's not the way the world works. It's probably something trivial really...

Stop and think about it for the moment. The Reader does actually support folders - it just doesn't visually show you the folder hierarchy. Don't you think that generating a flat file list from a folder tree is actually rather more work than simply showing the folder tree in the first place? There has GOT to be a reason why they decided to hide it from users.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Stop and think about it for the moment. The Reader does actually support folders - it just doesn't visually show you the folder hierarchy. Don't you think that generating a flat file list from a folder tree is actually rather more work than simply showing the folder tree in the first place? There has GOT to be a reason why they decided to hide it from users.

Of course it is less work. The hard part with folder support is to implement a good user interface and even a browser that shows the directories is more work than just globbing the files.

[Valloric]

Just to illustrate my point of "the world not working this way"...

Several years ago, my father worked on the design of an MP3 player (brand and model are not important). The device ended up not supporting AAC playback, even though they internally planned on supporting it. The reason? Nothing to do with licensing or the like... It was bug. A bug in the decoder chip they used. They caught the bug too late to make it financially viable to order a new batch, so they shipped the player to the market as it was, without AAC support. It still sold very well, and the second generation of the device had full support for AAC.

And it wasn't "market research" that told them not to include this feature, it was a simple cockup. These things happen, and they happen very often, in every device these days... when was the last time anyone bought a computer game that didn't have a patch out the first week of release?

I'm not saying it's that there's no folder support in the reader because of a bug, but it's more than likely that it's not present because of some similar consequence of the design environment.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course it is less work. The hard part with folder support is to implement a good user interface and even a browser that shows the directories is more work than just globbing the files.

I'm not sure that I agree with you. Implementing a simple folder browser isn't difficult. Simply display the contents of a folder and have two different icons to represent files and folder. If you "select" a book, open it; if you select a folder, move down a level and display its contents. A flat list is considerably more work, because you have to keep track of the actual location of everything you're displaying, allow for duplicate names in different folders, and so on.

I am convinced, personally, that not displaying folder trees was a deliberate design decision based on market research feedback from the intended user base. Of course, that's just a personal opinion and I have absolutely no evidence to back it up.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course it is less work. The hard part with folder support is to implement a good user interface and even a browser that shows the directories is more work than just globbing the files.

I just meant to say that. Proper folder support would take more time, and a good UI to go with it even more...

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am convinced, personally, that not displaying folder trees was a deliberate design decision based on market research feedback from the intended user base. Of course, that's just a personal opinion and I have absolutely no evidence to back it up.

I refuse to believe that during testing of the Reader, no one what so ever at Sony remarked "Ya know, this flat list is waaaaay too cumbersome, there should be a way to organize this." They definitely tested the unit with the card full with gigs and gigs of e-books, and to think no one thought "this makes the card practically useless" is simply ridiculous.

[HarryT]

The only eInk reader on the market (that I'm aware of) which does have folder support is the iLiad.