The new version is the same length as the old, but a shorter width.

Bad news for birdcage owners.

The hardest thing to adjust to is that each column has been reduced in size, leaving fewer characters per line.

It seems a bit like a disappearing act. WSJ, too.

It's a heck of lot easier to read now in the bathroom. It was just a bit too wide before. Now all is right in the world.

heck of lot easier to read now in the bathroom

Next thing you know they'll be serving it up on a roll.

Size matters.

Perhaps the biggest impact is on the editorial and op-ed pages. Neither of those pages allow "jumps" to other pages, and so there's just less material there. On the editorial page, they've simply hacked away at the letters space -- reduced it by a third. They'll have more letters available on the web, yada yada, but that's how that cookie crumbled.

Over on the op-ed page, it looks like simply one fewer article, every day.

Sadly, but purely an economic decision, as with the WSJ earlier this year. It amounts to a greater proportion of advertising and a corresponding reduction in editorial content.

It was interesting to see the "spin" by the editors of both newspapers.

We can and will continue to see these "cuts" in the future, with all newspapers and print publications.

Over in the high-tech sector, where I work, many long-standing and traditional tech print publications, such as InfoWorld, have totally curtailed their print editions entirely (Computerworld is soon to follow), moving to a web-only format.

Soon it won't matter anyway.

"The hardest thing to adjust to is that each column has been reduced in size, leaving fewer characters per line."
Nothing worse than fewer characters....I like characters! Bring 'em on.

It surprises me you subscribe to it, Jack. Even when it fit its print with all the news, none of the fake fears, out-of-town got no Metro section -- never had it, never will -- the part that matters.

Alas, they coulda been a contender.

Whatever. When I dropped it after thirty-odd years, the sense of loss rivaled losing my infantile security blanket to a younger sibling.

Speaking of 'junior' ... Print is Dead blog, scroll down: “‘I really don’t know whether we’ll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don’t care, either,’ [junior Sulzberger] says. ... The Times has doubled its online readership, and now has 1.1 million subscribing to the print edition - and 1.5 million readers online, each day.”

Same blog, unscrolling the scroll farther down, or quick click it, finds the first verse, PoIT, reprised in the second place NY Times, ya, you betcha: "... the world’s oldest newspaper still in publication, Sweden’s Post och Inrikes Tidningar (or PoIT, as it’s known), which will stop producing print editions ...," [clink link] "A Distinctly Modern Demise for the World’s Oldest Newspaper, By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, February 5, 2007 -- The Swedes, who jumped into the newspaper game back in 1645, are taking another great leap forward: what is said to be the oldest newspaper in the world has gone digital and is now available online, and online only. ..."

US public sees news media as biased, inaccurate, uncaring: poll, Aug 9.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.

And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism ...