Say what!?

If I understand correctly, you're implying that those who say the screen density is why they got the N800 are really just in love with the N800 and therefore don't see its faults? Maybe those who are in love with it primarily for other reasons... But if that's why you got into it, I think it's a safe bet that while love might now be blinding you to other faults, you actually indeed like high-density screens...

First, that's a software issue, not a hardware issue; hence completely unrelated to the "screen is small for resolution" issue. You can print webpages on a 600 DPI printer, and they're quite legible; so you could certainly obtain good results by setting the default font size larger (or just zooming in...)

Second, it's a presumptious, and WRT me, at least, wrong, claim. I opened a text file in the web browser (I'm not wasting time looking for an html file/page with no font specifications; I assume the fixed-width font used for text is similar height to the proportional font used for html.), and measured the height. 9 pixels -> 0.04 inch, or 1 mm.

I don't mind text of that size; there's plainly readable text that size on my driver's license, Visa card, and school ID. (And I believe the marginal notes in my pocket Bible, though I haven't got that with me at the moment.) I'll admit that if you ran text that size off of most printers, with default settings, I'd be irritated; they can't usually produce that sharp of text with default settings, but that's a problem with them. I routinely scale text to that size for one-sheet/one-notecard exams. My optomechanical zoom (move paper or tablet closer) works just fine, so while you (and perhaps most other people) wouldn't tolerate it, it doesn't bother me at all.

Short treatment:
Well, most websites are designed on a pixel basis, and for 800x600 or 1024x768 screens. That's the whole point of the 800x480; especially back when the 770 was released, this allowed web pages to display normally without elaborate tricks to make things work on a small (pixel-wise) display, which inevitably break some pages. They don't need to be optimized, as you can still get around on a standard page, with the stylus if needed. And 80% zoom brings most 1024x768 designed pages to just about fit, too.

Long, thorough, semi-rant treatment:
There's two issues with site design: Density dependence, and assumed page-width. Density independence is important to display things well on a high-density (but normal width) screen; but "honest" interpretation of density-independent pages that assume normal width on a high-density, low-width screen will result in excessive scrolling. One solution is to lie, and claim that you have 72 DPI, or some such. (Which essentially tosses the density dependence, to give you the simple situation described below...)

On the other hand, if you have density dependence, and assumed normal width, then you're actually assuming normal pixel count, and a high-density, low-width screen with normal pixel count will display cleanly, but small; this is what the tablets do, and as long as you have zoom (faster and more flexible zoom would be nice, btw), it's about the best you can get out of those pages.

On the third hand, if you actually have density independence, and no (or minimal) width assumption, it can be laid out with literal (or nearly so) density; maybe a factor of 1.5 or 2, to compensate for differences in distance. The lack of width assumption means that content will be flowed sanely into any reasonable width, so it can fit without horizontal scrolling. This, IMHO, is the best design approach for normal web pages. Density dependence could exist (specifying fonts in px, for example), and could readily be accomodated, though the results may not be pleasing.

So I'd like a browser with at least three display modes, readily swappable, and easily configurable. I don't ask it to recognize these categories, but I'd like to be able to switch. (Maybe that means I should learn to write an extension...)