TITLE: Vladimir Zorich vs Rudin/Pugh/Abbott
QUESTION [25 upvotes]: There have been various comparisons between books on Analysis. I was surprised to find out that Zorich's book on Analysis was not compared anywhere. 
Can anyone give a comparison between Zorich and the other books by Rudin, Pugh and Abbott?
A Little Background
I am doing self-study of Analysis on my own. I am a graduate student in Engineering which involves a lot of Mathematics and slowly I am getting in love with Mathematics and thinking of doing a major in Mathematics later. With this in mind, I am determined to consolidate my mathematical background. 
So, I have started reading Zorich's texts on Analysis. But when I looked on the internet for reviews, Rudin, Pugh and Abbott had more reviews. Also, Zorich's texts are in two volumes and will take some mighty effort. 
In any case, I am actually loving Zorich and would like to continue with this book. Please provide me some comparison between these books. 
PS: An additional insight into how should I approach Analysis for self-study and how much time should it take to self-study this course would be much appreciated.

REPLY [3 votes]: I am deeply dissatisfied with Analysis books. They do not provide solution manuals in general. I self study this stuff, and its really aggravating not to have solutions. I like to do ALL the problems. I despise this whole Rambo macho mathemtician thing, of spending days if necessary on any particular problem. I dont think its time well spent in general. I think its a kind of thinking that is outdated. 
Particularly if this is a side excursion. 
I do like Zorich though. I only got it recently, and its a good reference to have. Abbot brushes over the theory and then provides questions without solutions which are absolutely not self contained. I am getting started on Pugh. I just want to have a clear book, with a set of problems, and solutions for if i havent understood.