System76 Tablet

[isantop]

Capacitive displays are good for multitouch. It is possible to do multitouch resistive touch screens, but they're generally less robust and more expensive than a single touch equivalent. Capacitive displays are lower maintenance too, as they don't require any calibration. They also don't react to non-capacitive surfaces, like cloth of a pocket or backpack, which is good for phones in a pocket. They may also be less susceptible to damage, as they typically now utilize a sturdy glass digitizer.

They are less accurate when it comes to super fine control, but then again, for finger interaction, a resistive screen is often far less accurate. For a writing tablet, a resistive screen is best. But given everything most modern consumers want a touchscreen device for, you'll want the extra bit of flexibility that the capacitive displays provide.

[satsujinka]

Capacitive displays are good for multitouch. It is possible to do multitouch resistive touch screens, but they're generally less robust and more expensive than a single touch equivalent. Capacitive displays are lower maintenance too, as they don't require any calibration. They also don't react to non-capacitive surfaces, like cloth of a pocket or backpack, which is good for phones in a pocket. They may also be less susceptible to damage, as they typically now utilize a sturdy glass digitizer.

They are less accurate when it comes to super fine control, but then again, for finger interaction, a resistive screen is often far less accurate. For a writing tablet, a resistive screen is best. But given everything most modern consumers want a touchscreen device for, you'll want the extra bit of flexibility that the capacitive displays provide.

I've never had to calibrate the resistive touch screen on my n900. Nor have I had any trouble with it reacting to my pocket. I suppose it is true that capacitive displays' glass digitizer does provide some scratch resistance. It is also true that multi-touch is easier on a capacitive screen. However, I would argue that the first point is negligible and the second is mostly useless beyond two points of contact (which isn't a huge cost overhead on the resistive side anyways.)

Aside from that, I think "modern" consumers are mislead in their wish for a capacitive display. A quality resistive touch screen will always trump a capacitive one. It is, however, in the best interests of companies selling touch screens to sell capacitive displays as the quality (and thus cost) doesn't need to be as high. So "wanting" a capacitive display is more akin to wanting a feature phone over a smart phone (which may be a valid wish, but as far as general usefulness goes...)