I mention this only because the N900 is resistive and I hear people asking for a Capacitive screen.

I made an interesting observation last night.

I bought my Girlfriend an ITouch for Christmas (i know, it's not yet Christmas), but I gave it to her last night.

To sum it up....she can't use it as she has fingernails and the screen doesn't recognize her "touches". Why does resistive get such a hard time when it can do everything the capacitive can do (plus more)? Is this an over looked issue with capacitive screens?

I should add that it didn't even cross my mind when i ordered this. She doesn't have freaky nails, but a nail is a nail...if it comes out past your finger, it's too long for the itouch.

Yes, resistive screens are superior to capacitive in terms of precision and they have the ability to use any object as a pointer, but they must be soft for the pressure to register and that significantly lowers their durability. And I certainly don't want my €500 device's screen scratched.

Because Apple has clever marketing that is able to sell the worst crap as best innovation. And because resistive touchscreens are associated with WinMo devices which are a horror to use.

Resistive is usually designed to be single point precision, where as capacitive came with two form single and multi points but less point accuracy.

Yet Resistive is cheaper to make (now), but only single point. Multi points is harder to achieve and expensive. Resistive doesn't require heat or skin contact to operate. Easier to scratch if you scratch it. lol

Capacitive is also quite cheap to make as well. But easier to implementing Multi points contact than resistive. Does required skin and body heat contact. For this matter you cant use stylus or with nail or gloves. Less feel on the screen because you dont get the feed back pressure. Though, it has better protection against rough surfaces and scratches due to its using body heat to operate. Therefore the screen can be coated glass.

Which is exactly my reason for prefering resistive, and one of the many reasons I chose n900.

1. Whats an iTouch?

2. When I had my iPhone -- even though I don't have nails protruding past my finger tips -- I'd use the print of my thumb to poke at the screen. The natural look probably looks way better on your girlfriend anyway.



Buy a screen protector they're like 5 bucks.

I'm for either resistive or capacitive but I hate people that strongly take sides, they both are excellent at what they do and offer some great features on both sides. One isn't better than the other. (not trying to single anyone out with this one)

Basically an IPhone without the Phone and camera. It's also skinner and lighter.

The main differences have been pointed out:
Capacitive:
- hard surface
- faster response to input(?)
- higher cost per pixel for a given screen size
- less accuracy (end of finger is smallest object that can be "hit"?)
- multi touch

Allows you to assign different "meaning" to one and two finger swipes etc. NOTE so far this has only really been seen on Apples new mouse!

- Danger of a "big" sheet of glass (cracking, chipping etc)


Resistive:
- lower cost per pixel for a given screen size
- anything can be used for input
- accuracy

This combined with the higher resolution screens means that you don't need to zoom as much.

- worry of scratches

minor worry for me, only after a year of HARD stylus use did my old palm pilot start to show scratches in the "grafitti" area, but as most of the time I'm using my finger, or the keyboard, I think it will last OK.
Anyone with an N8x0 care to comment on durability of the screen?

I think much of this argument has been caused by the iPhone. What was revolutionary was the UI was better and faster, and it seems the tech press confused this with the switch to capacitive.
Also, I think this was the first mass-market device with a capacitive screen that did not cost stupid amounts of money.

I had a chance the other day to have a short play with a Nokia X6 (3.2“, capacitive, 360 x 640) and at the same time(on the same display was an N97 mini (3.2“, resistive, 360 x 640).
From that, I could not find much to recommend one over the other (reaction time, responsiveness etc) all were about the same! [Disclaimer: this was a 5-10 minute semi-random stabing at icons play, not a proper scientific test, in Verkkokauppa.com's Helsinki Store]

for comparison of screen resolutions, the iPhone has a 480 x 320 screen (i.e half hight VGA), and the N900 wins with a 800 x 480 one.
So total Pixel counts are:
iPhone - 153600
S60 5th - 230400
N900 - 384000

The browser on the N900 would be severely compromised if the device had a capacitive screen.

Due to the screen being small when webpages are rendered the html links are small in size.

In order to accurately select the required link when two links are close together a high resolution touch interface is required.

I was being sarcastic, the name of the product is iPod Touch.