why do people here prefer a resistive touchscreen?

If you expect any useful answer, you should specify your (intended) use/requirements.
Otherwise all sorts of people will tell you why they think a particular device is great or is not, but whether those reasons apply to you as well is a totally different question.

Compared to what?
Compared to a capacitive touchscreen I prefer a resistive one because of the accuracy. With the stylus I can control my N900 at 1 pixel accuracy. Afaik, that doesn't work with capacitive screens, although I might not be up to date.
Compared to IR screens maybe the preasure sensitivity is an advantage. There is a pretty impressive video on youtube of someone drawing images on his N900. I'm pretty sure this is a niche use, but then again, this whole topic is about a niche.

Probably because the N900 had a fabulous resistive touchscreen, accurate and able to detect the amount of force being pressed against the screen. The accuracy allowed users to target extremely small regions of the screen, so with a stylus you could actually use desktop software (on a capacitive screen, it is extremely difficult to target buttons or move scrollbars unless they are sized-up enormously on the screen). The force detection allowed for painting programs like MyPaint, which only recently have become available on some capacitive screens.

So there are advantages to resistive screens...

Isn't the accuracy mainly due to the low pixel density of the display?

You're right, but I actually wanted to leave it open because my use is still flexible. Depending on what advantages people see in these devices, I could add it to my list of uses. I am just a hobbyist and not really a Linux expert, so this device will anyway be a christmas present to myself rather than a need.

I reckon that the form factor will also influence my use, as a Neo900 could become my everyday carry computer and my main phone, whereas a GPD Win or Pyra would probably be a computer I carry only when I'm not carrying my laptop and when a Jolla is not enough. The usage seems much more limited in the latter case, but reading reasons why some others potential buyers of a Pyra would prefer it over a Neo900 (except for the price maybe) or a regular laptop may change my view.

Nope, the N900 had 800x480 resolution in a 3.5 inch display (267 ppi), very good for its day, and with a stylus you could select a spot within just a few pixels without trouble. The key is that a capacitive screen has to try to detect a weak electrical signal affecting a general region of the screen, whereas a resistive display can detect the exact spot which is being pressed.

fair enough, but you're all mentioning stylus accuracy, what about finger, wouldn't you have to press into the screen on a resistive one, while you just touch the screen for capacitive.

That's one reason, yes.
But regardless, so far I haven't been able to control capacitive screens at an accuracy of less than 3 or 4 millimeters, even with a stylus.
Plus, I can control a resistive screen with the tip of my fingernail. It isn't as accurate as a stylus, but still a lot more than my fingertip.

That's true, but it's just a matter of habit, not a real problem. I for one am sometimes slightly irritated when using a capacitive screen (mostly when trying to use my fingernail). Think of it as the difference between using a (good) fountain pen and a (good) ballpoint pen! It's noticeable, but not a problem if you're used to it.
I've often heard questions like yours from people who only know bad resistive screens, like you'll often find in public terminals (need a lot of pressure, usually poorly calibrated, often scratched). I too prefer a capacitive screen over those any time. But a good resistive screen is a totally different story.


@Kabouik:
My requirements are as follows (roughly sorted by priority):
1. fits in my pocket
2. has a hardware keyboard
3. runs a FLOSS operating system/doesn't come with a proprietary license
4. can make and receive phone calls and SMS
5. allows basic web browsing

The N900 does 1 and 4 very well. 2 is acceptable. 3 and 5 become increasingly difficult due to the age.
The Neo900 would improve in 3 and 5, although not by much I guess. All the other points are pretty much unchanged.
The Pyra would certainly be an improvement in 5, probably in 2 and 3. 1 and 4 would suffer, but I hope to an acceptable amount.
The GPD Win would clearly improve 5 the most, probably improve 2, but fail miserably in all other points.

Well, yes, a fingertip on a resistive screen is just as inaccurate as a fingertip on a capacitive screen. Not much you can do about that.

It is true that you need to actually press down on a resistive screen. I kind of prefer that, though; with a capacitive screen, I'm never entirely certain how close I need to be to the screen. My HTC M8, in fact, will trigger just by getting your finger a millimeter or two from the screen -- you don't have to touch it at all. Other screens require me to get a certain amount of skin onto the screen to actually activate. So I end up hesitating when using a capacitive screen, worrying about accidentally triggering something if my fingers (or any other skin) ends up getting close to the device. I feel more confident about my control over resistive-screen-based devices.

This part concerned me the most because the N900 screen scratched so easily.