Doesn't really work in practice
I read 2 journals regularly, the New Scientist and The Times. The NS I have switched to digital download. It is worth it for the price saving and it is just practical to read it on a large LCD monitor and the software supplied is adequate for the job. I have been looking at switching from paper for The Times, but having tried the trial version, it just doesn't cut the mustard. It is cumbersome and quite unsatisfactory after getting used to scanning through the paper copy.
On one specific usability feature, NS allows annotations, The Times doesn't.
Even so, with the NS I do tend to get a backlog of unread/part read copies. Now I have gone digital, I can no longer catch up in the bath.
I would like to try reading either on any existing e-book reader. My comments above relate to a 24 inch monitor.
I've have been (occasionaly) reading books on screen since Bruce Sterling released Hacker Crackdown a public domain e-text (was that about 1995?). I have no intention of going to e-books yet. Most of my books come from book swap sites (BookHopper.com and BookMooch.com) or from the charity shop (typical price 75p).
Why would I want to pay for an e-book that I don't own, when it is priced the same as the RRP of the paper version, although who ever pays RRP for a book? At present, if I drop my book in the bath, my onnly worry will be that I cannot finish the story until I find another copy. All my other books will remain perfectly functional.
I regard my self as tech savvy as a retired systems programmer/designer/engineer with cable, HD TV, PVR, Xbox, etc. and building my own PCs.
Perhaps I will go for an e-book reader when there is a reasonably priced model with flexible A4 size colour e-ink display.