It's a nice idea to have the digital edition as it would be handy print Sue French's "Deep Sky Wonders" column to bring out on an observing session.
At the same time the printed magazine wins out in terms of convenience of having it to hand any time, any place. In terms of keeping a reference library it's so much handier skim through the pages instead of firing up the PDA/LapTop/iPhone beforehand. The search ability of a digital product will not be as cognitive as a human scanning pages -- just try looking up the help option in Microsoft packages!
A digital edition is technology limited too. If someone comes up with a whole new methodology for file storage and image formatting then bang goes your lovingly created digital archive! Anyone for MSX as an operating system that was supposed to be the bees knees for graphics handling back in the mid-80s? JPEG, GIF, etc. are only going to be as good as current thinking on file systems/compression techniques.
The other option is to subscribe to downloading only certain articles. It costs about $20 for 200 downloads and goes back many years. I have used it to check out equipment reviews and specific articles from old S&Ts that I don't have at home.
The Lord giveth, the Revenue taketh away. (John 1:16)
Although I was not invited to participate in the survey (I have a multi-yr subscription), I also do prefer the printed edition.
The digital version is nice since it allows for quick searches but then we have possible issues with storage, loss (failed hard disks) etc. With the printed copy, it is always there and can be read anywhere whereas the digital copy, as noted by Seanie, requires a computer anywhere and everywhere.
  