Yes.

No, others would like to comment also.

I voted Roger Moore as I preferred the films.
I inly read the books recently and tend to agree that Sean Connery is likely closer to the Ian Flemming Bond but I don't think any of the films are close enough to that to matter.
After reading the books I was boring my friends by constantly §entioning how miuch I would like to see a period piece seriese set at the time of the books with everything being almost word-for-word as the books were, intollerance and all, as I think the prejudices of both the writer and character, as well as their weaknesses, would be social commentary as well as action packed.
Edit: Thrilling Cities pretty much demonstrates that the Bond novels were very well researched.

but he is soooooooo fine.

I think this is tangentially related to this thread.

The movie reviewer for my local rag, Mal Vincent, whose reviews I remember reading when I was a teen, had an article in today's paper recounting his memories of Roger Moore. He had several encounters with him (all positive), I gather mostly during the Bond years.

Please note that I dont hate Roger Moore as Bond, its more his movies that were rather silly.
Moonraker anyone?
The only other film that is sillier is Die another Day.

Bond movies that were also true to the books, I would rate "From Russia with Love" higher than "Dr No" even. Minor details like Grant protecting Bond in the skirmish at the gypsy camp for and liquidating minor baddies to create a wrong impression etc The menace of Robert Shaw - as Grant - added to my enjoyment.

I read the books as they were published and much before the movies were released (in India. upto an year after world wide release).

OK

I read once that Ian Fleming expected that his first book, Casino Royale, would cause folks to be appalled at the spy game, particularly by the scene in which Bond is tortured by having his private parts beaten, and was quite taken aback by the unexpected public reaction.

Daniel Craig #1 imo, then Sean Connery #2 .