Ladies and gentlemen, our long, global nightmare is over. Alright, that's a significant overstatement -- but Nokia's lack of capacitive adoption has unquestionably hurt opinion of its
5800 and
N97 models, the first to use its touch-ready S60 5th Edition platform. Happily,
afterdawn.com is reporting -- and we've been able to independently confirm -- that the
X6 will indeed be using a capacitive display, something that we suspect will significantly improve usability if you're not interested in using a stylus (or plectrum, as the case may be) to navigate your way through the interface. For the record, Samsung's already proven that S60 5th is totally doable with capacitive tech on its
i8910 HD, so we're sure Nokia's going to be able to pull this off with aplomb -- the real question might be whether this signals a wholesale abandonment of resistive across the range. Since resistive's cheaper, we wouldn't be surprised to see it continue to hang around on the low end for some time to come, but at least we've now got the choice. Sadly, it's too late to save the
N900's screen -- but now that
Maemo's made the bold leap into GSM telephony, maybe we'll see some worthy capacitive action the next time around.
posted Sep 2nd 2009 12:23PM
This resistive vs capacitve approach is nonsense...
Agreed
Ok, I should know this but how does capacitive differ from resistive ? With my HTC Mogul cell I can use my finger, pen, pencil, stylus or any "stick" object, so is it C or R ? My Electrovaya Tablet PC requires a special stylus and cannot use fingers, pens, etc as input, so which is it ? Thanks.
Mogul is resistive then. Capacitive only works with fingers, nothing else.
But this whole argument is pointless. Only iPhone fanbois ever cared anyway.
ok, answering my own question ... Resisitive is passive, permits any pressure based input, allows for multi-touch and is cheap and battery friendly. Capacitive REQUIRES a bare finger (to alter the capacitance of the surface) and is more expensive and uses more battery power, it might be multi-touch capable. SoI don't see why capacitive screens seems to be preferred in these blogs. Do YOU guys even know this much about them ?!
Everything just flows better with capacitive screens, because added pressure isn't needed, so flicking through pictures, song selections, web browesing, most things are easier to do w/ a capacitive screen. Plus, less moving parts result in a longer lasting screen [unless you completely smash it of course]...
@Chris You've obviously never used a well-implemented resistive touch screen and are just regurgitating what you've heard all the Apple fanboys say. I can say from first-hand experience with a Nokia 5800 that its resistive screen is very responsive. I never felt like I was having to "press" the screen to get it to register, just touching it did the trick. And flick is simple, you just learn to use your fingernail to do it, which is actually more natural than trying to use the pad of your finger like you have to do with a capacitive.
Having used both the i8910HD (capacitive) and the N97 (resistive) extensively, I am sold on capacitive for 5th Edition. Really hoping Nokia announces a proper flagship with a capacitive touchscreen soon.
@ Eludium-Q36
Wow I was thinking the same exact thing, capacitive displays are a complete deal breaker for me especially on a windows phone and if you happen have nails, all I can say is good luck because using the phone becomes a total pain in the ass.
There's never been a capacitive Windows Mobile phone, so it can't have broken that many deals for you.
Where the heck have I seen a design like this where the back and sides are curved like that with a flat, slightly angled top and bottom?
Wow, this looks like a taller skinnier BB Storm.
this looks very familiar to the nokia phone seen in the first part of the new star-trek movie. The part where young captain Kirk is driving in that antique car.
Capacitive has also the advantage to be better viewable in the outside, especially under direct sunlight. On the other hand, being sensitive just to bare fingers, nails or gloves don't work.
Furthermore, with a resistive display and a stylus it's possible to draw, write notes using hand-writing and use the letters recognition system in place of the virtual keyboard; with a capacitive display all these are not possible.
Both have pros and cons, and I believe there's not an absolute best. It depends by personal taste and needs.
How to tell the difference between a capacitive and resistive touch screen? The capacitive is the one that your technology-avoiding mum can use without being taught how. The resistive is the one you have to teach her to press down. And watch in frustration on how she struggles to push down and slide to move things around. Try to use a capacitive screen for a couple of weeks and then switch to resistive. It's an absolute nightmare. In my experience, going from resistive to capacitive is almost painless simply because it's more intuitive.
I see resistive screens as a leftover relic from the PDA days, where stylus was the input tool. For phones, one-handed intuitive operation demands capacitive screens or well trained nails. I might switch back to Nokia because of this phone offering capacitive. It's a major feature for me.