To all those who are still debating capacitive versus resistive screens - you're wrong.

The ideal screen uses an active digitizer. It is more accurate than a resistive screen ever will be. It does not register false positive touches from your hand. It is ideal for handwriting and annotation (with or without handwriting recognition). The major argument for a hard touch resistive screen is that it is a poor man's active digitizer.

However, the ideal screen will also recognize touch, especially in an always on device like a phone. Either a capacitive screen or a light touch resistive screen can provide this. The capacitive screen is better in that it will only recognize fingers. The resistive screen is better in that it does not only recognize fingers. I'd give it to capacitive by an edge based on the fact that the screen itself can be made more scratch resistant.

Therefore what is needed is a combination of active digitizer and touch which shuts down the touch function when the stylus nears the screen.

For one of the best dual option screens, see Fujitsu's 4410. Now just shrink that down to the size of the N900's screenette and you all can end the argument. Realistically, I wouldn't be surprised to see it on the N910 as the last experiment before the last step N1000.