Open... and close... and open...

[Failbert]

The very reason for the resistive touchscreen is that a majority would not consider a capacitive screen an upgrade, it did not get a capacitive screen because people didn't want it.

It is not even a part of the screen but a separate layer glued on top of it.

Thanks for the swift reply. I am late enough to ordering the Pyra that I didn't know what was discussed and what were the arguments to each side (assuming this wasn't single-handedly outvoted)

 

[Grench]

Thanks for the swift reply. I am late enough to ordering the Pyra that I didn't know what was discussed and what were the arguments to each side (assuming this wasn't single-handedly outvoted)

Capacitive digitizers simply cannot be as accurate as resistive with a passive stylus. Ever.

Fingers are far too blunt to be effective on a real/desktop OS/DE.

The Galaxy Note series uses an active stylus on a capacitive matrix. It is the, maybe pattented, exception.

Just because Apple choses a particular technology for their devices does not mean that the given technology is 'best' for other product applications.

Your implication of malfeasance in the decision process... that is truly unfortunate. Have you considered the possibility that you assumptions of 'best' may be in error?

 

[Failbert]

Capacitive digitizers simply cannot be as accurate as resistive with a passive stylus. Ever.

Fingers are far too blunt to be effective on a real/desktop OS/DE.

The Galaxy Note series uses an active stylus on a capacitive matrix. It is the, maybe pattented, exception.

Just because Apple choses a particular technology for their devices does not mean that the given technology is 'best' for other product applications.

Your implication of malfeasance in the decision process... that is truly unfortunate. Have you considered the possibility that you assumptions of 'best' may be in error?

I know absolutely nothing about touchscreens- I never owned a smartphone, and as so have no hands-on experience with regular use of touchscreens (let alone knowing the difference between one type or other). So that's why if a Poster suggests "Oh man, bugger we will have this kind of touchscreen and not the other kind", I presume there is some kind of advantage to them, one largely subjective that I wouldn't learn by just reading, say, an article on a difference between them!

So yes, I have considered the possibility and where I lack any know-how, I refer to other's experience. Thanks everyone for the informative posts

e:

Your implication of malfeasance in the decision process (...)

I read my post again and maybe it escapes my English, but I can't find- where? In any case, I didn't mean to, and all that the team and community so far has decided I consider wide choises

 

[Eight Bit]

I love pressure sensitivity

 

[Letalis Sonus]

I know absolutely nothing about touchscreens

To keep things simple: Resistive touchscreens basically have two layers that will connect when you press on them. The position of this point can be determined by measuring the voltage drop between both layers, which varies with the position - both layers act as a variable voltage divider. Modern variants can even measure the pressure sensitivity and may involve some magic to recognize more than one point at the same time. The biggest advantage is that they are very precise and they'll work with everything, they just need some pressure. The required pressure varies among models, you might know some old devices that feel like you'd need a hammer to make them recognize a touch, but modern ones can be very sensitive - my Pandora's screen is so sensitive it is near impossible to touch it without causing the mouse cursor to move, even though there's still a screen protector in between.

Capacitive touchscreens create an electromagnetic field in front of the screen, the position is being determined by detecting certain distortions of this field. They lack precision, they don't have any pressure sensitivity because they don't work with pressure at all and they only work with things that have certain electromagnetic properties - such as your thumbs. The big advantage is that they handle multiple simultaneous inputs very well, which is needed for those smartphone-typical controls that use two fingers at once - and you can add any kind of material that won't disturb the field as a protective layer, such as gorilla glass.

There's a third type: inductive touchscreens. Those are not really touchscreens in the traditional sense, even though they work kind of similar to capacitive touch screens. These are traditionally used in those graphics tablets, they require a special pen that used to require being battery powered, but they somehow managed to make them passive by now. It's a very precise and versatile technology, but it's being dominated by a single monopolist - Wacom owns pretty much every single patent on it.

 

[kuru]

A video about how good resistive screens can be

 

[Silent-Hunter]

I thought capacitive touchscreens were electrostatic, not electromagnetic? I know the inductive ones are electromagnetic.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

I thought capacitive touchscreens were electrostatic, not electromagnetic?

There's no such thing as an electrostatic field.

Electrostatic refers to the effects caused by static (i.e. not changing) electric charges and fields related to it.

Don't pinpoint me on the difference between electromagnetic and a purely electrical field, though - I never managed to understand the exact difference.

 

[OppositeDay]

An electric field that doesn't change with time is an electrostatic field.

 

[Silent-Hunter]

OK, basically, as I understood it, it builds up a small charge in the surface of the screen, and when you touch it it discharges in the spot you touch. And the screen is able to sense where that discharge occurs.

 

[PCXT]

Let's imagine we have are pyras, a couple years pass, capacitative technology reaches new heights, while prices miraculously go lower. Hypothetically, will some willing users be able to replace the "stock" pyra resistive screen/panel with a capacitative one (saving the software-related trouble and calibration, for later)?

If it will still work with stylus and fingers, well, I wouldn't be interested in changing. Even when multi-touch would be supported, there is a keyboard full of modifiers to hack substitutes.

I remember also one more touchscreen technology but I think it's historical: Plain glass, thick, heavy and rigid, with some kind of devices in PCB located in line around, I've seen it in PoS systems in late 1990s. Very strange one - works with finger, stylus, gloves... I tried many things and it worked with everything except glass. However, in each of these cases when moving a line it caused a little different movement of cursor. Generally the harder material, the worse sensitivity, except when it was dirty with grease-like substances - then sensitivity drastically increased. I've never seen this technology before and after.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

OK, basically, as I understood it, it builds up a small charge in the surface of the screen, and when you touch it it discharges in the spot you touch.

Said field is generated using AC, the field is constantly being charged and discharged. The finger that disturbs this system acts as some sort of capacitor, it can hold more energy that the touchscreen itself, which creates a measurable discharge current - so it's basically the other way round, your finger is being charged.

 

[oskda]

It is not even a part of the screen but a separate layer glued on top of it.

It is separated in Pyra and in old technology devices (Pyra in fact uses old-low tech, from CPU to display).

There are screens where capacitive panel is totally integrated on screen, as backlight is for example [1]. The time where touch panel was an element and screen other is near gone in modern high smartphone devices. And that can be the normal situation in a time for near all theses devices.

It seems you are a bit outdated about this technology on screens for these small smart devices.

[1]: For example there was a time where artificial light source (backlight or sidelit) was not present in LCD displays, another where it was separated, and other where it is integrated. Of course, you can even today buy LCD panels without backlight, but for sure they are no high-end displays but low resolution displays for simple devices/controls.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

There are screens where capacitive panel is totally integrated on screen, as backlight is for example [1]. The time where touch panel was an element and screen other is near gone in modern high smartphone devices. And that can be the normal situation in a time for near all theses devices.

Modern multi-touch capacitive touchscreens decoupled their driver and sensor layers, I'm well aware of that. Putting the driver layer behind the screen is not a technological requirement, though, more like an exploited possibility.

Remember, the Pyra's screen is just a smartphone display as well.

 

[oskda]

The very reason for the resistive touchscreen is that a majority would not consider a capacitive screen an upgrade, it did not get a capacitive screen because people didn't want it.

The reason I remember was resistive had better touch precision (it can determine exactly where you pushed it, and it was requiered for example for GUI when using directly on screen). But today there are a lot of devices with capacitive screens and very high precision touch pen. And of course they deliver better image as tehere isn't plastic resistive layers above screen, but true crystal.

I think today capacitive technology is much better for better image, but I understand when Pyra was 1st designed (a lot time ago...) situation may be different.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

But today there are a lot of devices with capacitive screens and very high precision touch pen.

Aren't you mixing this up with inductive technology?

Inductive touchscreens in smartphones are already a thing, combined with conventional capactive ones.

 

[TeDaDeS]

It is separated in Pyra and in old technology devices (Pyra in fact uses old-low tech, from CPU to display).

Resistive touch screen are always on top of the screen if I remember correctly.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

Resistive touch screen are always on top of the screen if I remember correctly.

The point he was getting at is that having two layers with something isolating in between tends to not be very capable of letting light pass through undisturbed. There are little points in between them that keep the distance, they can be seen on some screens when looking closely at them.

A projected capacitive screen still has its sensor layer between the glass and the display, but it's just a single layer.

 

[PowerGod]

today there are a lot of devices with capacitive screens and very high precision touch pen.

no

 

[oskda]

Capacitive digitizers simply cannot be as accurate as resistive with a passive stylus. Ever.

Fingers are far too blunt to be effective on a real/desktop OS/DE.

The Galaxy Note series uses an active stylus on a capacitive matrix. It is the, maybe pattented, exception.

Of course when I speak about pen for capacitive displays I refer to active pens, as those pencils or sticks with a "rubber on top" are like fingers, not like pens: they don't have a small point end (like pens) but a big rubber dome acting like small fingers.

That pens are not only on Galaxy Note or some Apple products, but in more products: for example there are a lot of modern notebook computers with touch displays and pens (active pens): for example models from Microsoft, Lenovo and others.
[doublepost=1503872117,1503871502][/doublepost]

I love pressure sensitivity

I think so.

Some people didn't like capacitive displays because they had lower precision, but that is past, and now they have excellent precision (with active pen) and other possibilities like pressure sensitivity.

But for me the more important point about capacitive vs resistive (now that capacitive has excellent precision) is that image is much better: in capacitive displays you have glass on top without air, but un resistive displays you have on top 2 plastic sheets lowering light transmission, and with worse refections than crystal.

I have own resistive smartphones and PDAs (Nokia N97 mini; And even 2 Sharp Zarurus) and capacitive display smartphones, and I have no doubt whose is better for image/reflections. And in recent ED Pyra video I can see typical reflections of resistive displays.

That resistive panel lowers image quality from Pyra LCD: i.e. without that resistive panel (or with a capacitive panel instead, or IR sensor), display image would be better.