After listening to you guys and doing some research, here's a chart comparing resistive versus capacitive and some links for further reading:

______________________Resistive___________Capacitive
Cost:_________________Lower_________________Higher
Multitouch:___________Yes___________________Yes
Clarity:_______________75%___________________90%
Works w/stylus:______Yes____________________Yes (1)
Durability:____________Lower_________________Highe r
Affected by outside
elements:_____________No____________________No
Works w/gloved
finger:________________Yes____________________Yes (2)
Drifts:________________Yes____________________Yes

1. Requires a specialized stylus, but may be usable with a simple metal stylus if the sensitivity is increased.
2. Surface capacitive touch screens require special gloves, but projected capacitance touch screens can work through normal gloves.

The links, if anyone really wants to read through them:
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question716.htm
http://www.embedsystems.com/devices/touch-screen
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/whi...een_technology
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007..._076_21_07.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen
http://www.amsimpex.com/products/cap...uchscreen.html
http://www.pentagramtechnologies.com...apacitive.html

And if anyone is still reading this, here's a few things from my own experience.

I own and have used for long periods of time, 3 Palm PDA's (all resistive touch screens), an N810 (resistive, of course), and an iPod Touch (projected capacitance).
I have also briefly used an LG Dare and an LG Voyager (both resistive) which had the s**tiest touch screens conceivable and should be used as the one call/punishment for serial killers and child rapists. So there's what I've used.

Stuff I've noticed while using these devices (disclaimer: I enjoy using the N810 and the iPod Touch. This is not a comparison between their capabilities, but rather the touch technologies they use):
1. The first time I used an iPhone for about 5 minutes in an AT&T store, I hated the keyboard because it seemed too inaccurate. However, now that I have an iPod touch, I've learned that you simply have to trust the keyboard. I can type much faster (and prefer) using the iPod compared to the N810 soft keyboard. (The hard keyboard I do prefer over the iPod's)
2. Every resistive based device I have used for long periods of time, including the N810, has suffered drifting. This made the Palms unusable because the calibrator didn't do anything. Fortunately, the calibrator on the N810 does work, so drift there is just a minor annoyance. I haven't noticed any drift on the iPod Touch.
3. Sensitivity: the iPod blows the rest out of the water.
4. Stylus-friendliness: iPod loses here.
5. Finger-friendliness: iPod wins. I find it far easier with the iPod touch to select a small link (such as a page number on this forum) that on the N810. And that's with minimal zooming. I almost always have to break out the stylus on the N810. This could have something to do with software though.
6. Personally, I prefer to be able to have my finger glide across the screen instead of having to fight the friction caused by pushing down. Resistive can get close, but never quit as frictionless as capacitive can be.

Some final thoughts:
As the interface on the IT's stands today, they need a touch screen that supports a stylus. I think that Fremantle could be a great opportunity to eliminate the need for a stylus, however it would still be nice to be able to use one if wanted (drawing kinda sucks w/o a stylus). I think it would be great if Nokia would look into infrared and/or imaging based touch screens, which, I believe, would be superior to both resistive and capacitive in every way, except maybe cost.