Chris,

I have a small request for you regarding the upcoming review. Could you please practice controlling the device with your index finger's nail? Well, it actually doesnt take much practice since it's real simple.

I can see why you are not really satisfied with the scrolling using your thumb. I suppose you are used to the hyper sensitivity of iphone or other capacitive displays. But resistive is a different technology so you have to take a different approach to it.

Hold the device like you do in your video but use your right index finger's nail for all scrolling actions. I believe you'll soon realize how much it makes sense.

In actuality, this way you can do many tasks more quickly. For example, try scrolling a very long webpage very quickly from bottom to top (starting from bottom that is). This is actually a quite frequent task when you're browsing the internet. I'm sure you'll notice how much easier and quicker it is using your index finger's nail compared to your thumb.

If you omit this type of pointing, one might even have to say you are not quite qualified for using the device ;)

Also, please consider including Google Wave and Calendar web use in the review. And maybe remote desktop connection? Those are nice examples which address the benefit's of resistive's accuracy.

I hope Nokia comes with a capacitive version soon so that Maemo's success won't depend on this truly silly matter.

Capacitive - Salvation for all the pointing-impaired. Just kidding ;). Capacitive is great, so is resistive.

Hey Engadget,

Try turning your index finger clockwise about 55 degrees. Your fingernail gives you a very smooth way of controlling any sliding motions in the UI, including scrolling. The nail slides nicely across the screen. Very easy, effortless. I actually miss this method on a capacitive screen.

You see, you are allowed to use other than flesh parts of your body, get it?

There's a youtube video showing google docs and calendar use in N900. Imagine using those services without a fingernail/stylus. Constant zooming, no thanks.

Detox, your "analysis" is cracking me up. Nokia not a well recognized brand? COME AGAIN?

Currently Nokia is the world's fifth most valuable brand and has been that for years according to several research institutes.

http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx

Might be best for you to steer clear of marketing.

What kind of jerk would not let impaired people enjoy the same things as unimpaired. There are reasons why SMS is preferred in certain situations. Are you the kind who wants his jerk friends calling you for each and every small matter they might have? Like a random short joke for instance?

Some are blind AND deaf, so this could be useful for them.

Also, I'm sure many blind people would love to not play out loud their text messages in public places, or be forced to put earbuds on to hear text messages privately in public areas.

A whole lot of ignorance in your comments people.

If this shapes out to be anything what they claim in the video, this will truly be revolutionary. Goodbye traditional capacitive and resistive. Now bring it in!

Price, 1GB RAM and your preview experiences make it COMPLETELY useless... Hmm.. maybe you are completely useless :)

You fail at making a snark remark. Or was it humor you were after? Fail anyway.

There are a lot of things justifying the price:
- 16-cell battery which is user replaceable
- single-piece aluminum casing
- GPS
- 3G
- accelerometer
- HDMI
- beautiful design, which naturally is subjective
- fanless cooling solution

I also hope the integrated graphics will be a pleasant surprise. Not holding my breath though..

Rocket Raccoon hits spot-on.

In my utopia albums would be released as vinyls which included a voucher for an at least 24bit/96kHz FLAC download including detailed meta data (composers, performing personnel) and high resolution artwork. There would also be a significantly cheaper option of purchasing only the download.

All older recordings would have gone through a remastering process of the highest degree.

You can dream...

TT: You make it seem such a simple scenario. "Just throw in the vinyl and you're set to go with pristine audio quality." Not so fast.

First of all, you have to pay a much higher premium in order to get great sound out of vinyl. Mostly due to the mechanical nature of sound reproduction from vinyl. Mechanical means more labour in manufacturing the turntable, tonearm and cartridge (which also wears which leads to even more costs). You also have to buy an expensive RIAA-stage in order to get high fidelity.

Secondly, you have to pay a much higher premium for the medium itself. Great sounding vinyl requires high quality mastering and pressing processes. Fullfilling those criteria equals high premium. And, in order to get a well mastered and pressed vinyl, high premium is not always enough, since you cant's just walk/log into a store and pay for the product. There are thousands and thousands of beautiful recordings which have never been re-released in high quality vinyl editions. So, you have to look for the original pressings. Nowadays it's relatively easy since we have musicstack.com and such but those original pressings require, you guessed it, even higher premium.

So, if you have infinite funding and infinite time on your hands, sure, you can get the best audio quality out of vinyl. Actually it's highly subjective. Vinyl has a lot of harmonic distortion and lacks in resolution. But I admit, good vinyl sounds damn nice.

I personally have a decent vinyl system in addition to an accurately-ripped-flacs outputting PC media player hooked to a high quality DAC. I prefer, to the nth degree, the cost and ease of operation of the PC media player.

Vinyl rules for the ritual that is taking out that PVC slab from the seventies scenting jacket and putting it on the platter and dropping the needle and listening to the earthy, fleshy tone! The album art also in sensationally better then ones in CD or downloads... Still, I love the flac-thing...

Not palmface but *headdesk*

Engadget bloggers are pure and simple laughable.

You quite directly imply resistive screens have 5% loss of registration. Pure nonsensical crap. If you make such a claim on resistive tech, why don't you bring up bull like "capacitive screens have a 105% touch registration", meaning that you occasionally touch the screen by mistake and for it's hyper-sensitivity send a command you never meant to send.

I use resistive screen on a mobile device and I NEVER get loss of touch registration, and my fingers aren't hurting either. And I never use a stylus either.

It's true that you only need the absolute slightest touch on a capacitive screen to register the touch, which is nice, but why on earth are you making it such a humongous deal? Resistive needs a touch, capacitive needs only a slight touch. Difference in real-world applications is minimal.

I actually prefer the lightness of touch when using my fingernail to flick the screen content around. You need to use less human resources (muscular activity) flicking a screen with your fingernail, that is a fact. On capacitive you have to slide your whole thumb or index finger across the screen. Firstly, you need to use more muscles in your hand and secondly there is more friction and resistance due to the larger surface area of the finger.

Tapping on the another hand requires less human resources on a capacitive screen. But in the end, the difference between the two techs is nowadays so small that it is a non-issue as long as each tech is well implemented.

Engadet bloggers seem like little kids calling names of the other guy's bicycle because it's not the same brand as theirs. Simply put the ignorant and uninformed gripe on resistive tech makes Engadget staff seem juvenile. I'm sorry to make such remarks but I can't help seeing it in that light.

You also have the nerve to call HTC's claim bullshit: "More realistically, the resistive display is probably a cost sacrifice the company made to keep sticker shock to a minimum". You have nothing substantial there. Pure assumption and speculation. You willingly choose to ignore the fact that HTC has used R&D resources in coming to their conclusion. What do you have? When exactly have you been experimenting between the two techs on a small screen? All you have is an unhealthy romance with capacitive tech.

Finally, you don't even understand the technology behind the two. You imply that the accuracy of capacitive and resistive techs is only due to the surface area of the pointing device. That one claim proves outright how uneducated you are on the matter.