Wow.
You actually said that looking at images on a computer monitor or
TV screen is better than seeing them properly printed and in your own
hand.
I give up.
I hadn't tried to analyze what made projected slides and even monitor viewing better for me than prints; they always just seemed more lifelike to me. Size is one issue, of course. Projected slides are huge compared to any print I'll ever make or have made, and even the approximate 10 1/4 X 13 3/4 inch viewing area of my computer monitor is larger than I would ever print regularly.
In searching for a way to describe the quality of the viewing experience, I came across the parameters of dynamic range (or luminance ratio or contrast, terms varying by article and author, but referring to the same idea--the difference between brightest and darkest parts of an image), color gamut and color accuracy. With respect to dynamic range, one author wrote, "One clear conclusion from this chart is that the experience of seeing the original scene, then capturing it, to reproducing it for others to see, is one of progressively losing DR." The chart referred to shows our eyes being capable of a 10,000:1 ratio; a digital camera about 400:1; computer monitors ranging from 500:1 to 1000:1; and prints ranging from 100:1 to 250:1 (film was up around 2000:1). One conclusion is that a computer monitor can display more of the captured dynamic range than a print can.
Another aspect was differences in color gamut and accuracy between the RGB color space of the monitor and the CMYK world of prints. One author said that because of the way our eyes see, the real world is RGB, and that RGB devices are more capable of reproducing color fairly accurately. Also, because CMYK has a different and more limited color gamut than RGB, the conversion to print always results in some inaccuracies of color rendition. Another author put it this way, "The net effect of these different color spaces is a mismatch between the color that can be represented in RGB but not CMYK. Many of the brilliant colors that are displayed on a monitor are not reproducible using printer’s inks." As an aside, slide film has an even broader color gamut than computer monitors.
Cost and convenience are other factors. Slide film and processing was less costly than than having prints made, and storage less bulky than photo albums. Monitor viewing of digital images is even easier, with files on the hard drive and some back-up disks, and cheaper as there are virtually no running costs (no film, processing, or printing expenses).
The bottom line for me is still what I started with--projected slides and monitor viewing are more lifelike for me than prints, a closer representation of what I actually saw. In this post I've tried to find some reasons for this. That doesn't mean you or anyone else has to agree, but I'm surprised by your dismissive attitude ("I give up"). So what is it you find so satisfying in prints? You mentioned being able to have them in hand. Is it the tactile pleasure of holding the image that makes it compelling for you?
http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_2.htm
http://jura.wi.mit.edu/bio/graphics/photoshop/colman.htm
http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/88/2/761.pdf
http://www.techcolor.com/help/rgb.html 
