People often talk about bad resistive screens. I've had used eight different devices with a resistive screen and only one of them is what I would count as bad.

Here is the list with my subjective "points out of 10" marking:

• 10/10 - Palm Treo 180. No problems at all.
• 9/10 - Palm Treo 600. No problems at all until the digitizer died after 5 years of use and had to be replaced.
• 10/10 - Nokia 5800 WpressMusic. No problems at all.
• 1/10 - Samsung S8000 Jet. The worst ever. The pressure it required to register a touch was enough to hurt my finger.
• 6/10 - Some el-cheapo 7" Chinese Android tablet. In all fairness it was not that bad. Possibly deserving 7 points. I am giving it 6 only because the sensitivity was a bit lower than I would expect of a screen of that size and because it came without a stylus.
• 9/10 - TomTom One. No problems at all. I would hate to think how to use a capacitive touch screen on a portable car navigation system like that.
• 9/10 - Nokia N900. My only objection is that the pixel density is way too high, meaning some text is too small and difficult to read. No problems with the touch aspect of it.
• 9/10 - Some el-cheapo Chinese car entertainment system with a 7" screen. Sometimes I forget that it is resistive and I have to actually touch it rather than wave vaguely in front of it and hope. Other than that, no problems at all.

I think Copernicus has hit the nail on the head. Most people asking these questions ask them because they use touch screens on crippled systems that are designed to be operated with fat fingers. Android, iOS and Sailfish cannot really take full advantage of the increased accuracy a good resistive screen with a stylus can provide so you end up with users asking, "what's the point?"

There is no point of a 6th gear in a Ford Fiesta either. People who have never driven anything else may also wonder why so many people with sports cars like 6 gears. (Bad analogy but I could not come up with anything better in a hurry )