End of an era..
Plus I don't think an Encyclopaedia Britannica DVD case will look quite as good in a bookshelf as an entire 32 volume of the books of knowledge did..
Encyclopaedia Britannica is ending its hefty 32-volume print run after 244 years as it shifts its business entirely over to the digital publishing market. Sales of the world's oldest English-language encyclopaedia will continue until the company's remaining stock of 4,000 sets is depleted. A new edition of the collection is …
Got a set from a library sale for 20quid. The newer ones (after 1995?) aren't really an encyclopedia, they have half the volumes as short articles on lots of topics and the other half are longer (10+pages) articles on the most popular topics.
Interesting when they are well written. Anything science is mostly poor, except the few places that they have used articles from top writers. The technology coverage is terrible, reads like those 'future' bits from 60s 0r 70s magazines.
But I can read a book without switching it on. Doesn't demand that I download the latest version of the English language either. Or become unreadable because everyone has moved to Book v3.2.
Yep, digital information is more conveniently searchable. It's hardly a good archive format though.
You do it a dis-service sir.
If you only use WP for science-related articles (as I do) then their accuracy is '4 errors per article' compared to 3 for EB. Yes EB is more accurate (or rather has less errors) but I'd hardly call something that can run EB that close, FOR FREE, steaming shite (not for science topics anyway).And any errors is WP are mostly corrected when found (not corrected for a reissue in 2 years as with printed EB). There are more errors in the printed materials I have in my reference library (due to being out of date) than on WP, so I'm happy with it as a reference source - but as with EB, it should never be relied on as the sole source.
Admittedly the rest of WP is steaming shite. :-)
"And any errors is WP are mostly corrected when found "
No, they're not. They may be CHANGED, but that's not the same thing at all.
A wise man once said: "The internet does not need an encyclopedia, it IS an encyclopedia. What it needs is a good index".
I set up Opera to filter all my Google results so that WP no longer appears in them. The web is a lot more useful that way, but we still need a better search engine.
There's been a digital version of the Britannica for many years, probably since 2001.
I know because I foolishly bought it on DVD-Rom ...
The UI was permanently sized at 1024 x 768 and the images were a fraction of that. It couldn't be updated and was unpleasant to use.
I also had an early Britannica CD-ROM (late 1990's I think), I seem to recall it was so bad that it made Encarta (RIP) look good.
It was also chronically unstable (did it use Internet Explorer as its rendering engine?)
Mind you, the OED on CD looks little better, and is just as unupgradable. Erudition, it would appear, does not confer an ability in UI design, s/w design, or customer focus
I bought a DVD version a few years ago, but it was hobbled in the way some video games used to be. Even if you "installed" it on a system, you had to have the DVD permanently in the drive to be able to use it. I wanted to put on on my home fileserver so I could access it from a laptop without having to go find the DVD, etc. Couldn't even "install" it conveniently on my laptop because of the nuisance DRM. It hardly got used, and I've recently resisted their offer to upgrade to a new version, even at £9.99 it's no bargain.
A pity, I'd love to have room on my bookshelves for a full printed set. I do have a very entertaining 9-volume encyclopædia from around 1921. Entries like "motor car" are fun...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019