Too many people think that the OS doesn't multitask, which it does, and very well.
Or perhaps you should read what I wrote, rather than what you *think* I wrote.
I believe Apple will introduce some new methods, to offer users the benefits of multi-tasking, without opening the platforms to the risks of allowing background execution to all third-party applications.
My guess is that the changes in 4.0 will offer users the ability to multi-task (in popular parlance) - without necessarily offering pre-emptive time slicing of untrusted third party applications.
Or perhaps you should read what I wrote, rather than what you *think* I wrote.
I believe Apple will introduce some new methods, to offer users the benefits of multi-tasking, without opening the platforms to the risks of allowing background execution to all third-party applications.
My guess is that the changes in 4.0 will offer users the ability to multi-task (in popular parlance) - without necessarily offering pre-emptive time slicing of untrusted third party applications.
C.
I read what you wrote that first time, and it was very clear. You got it backwards.
I read what you wrote that first time, and it was very clear. You got it backwards.
Then you changed it so that you were correct.
What I said the first time was...
(and I quote...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Theres multi-tasking and there's multi-tasking.
Ask a member of the public what multi-tasking is, and they mean the ability to deal with multiple activities at once. Anwering the phone while filling the dishwasher.
Ask a computer scientist about multi-tasking and they will describe a method where the single CPU timeshares between multiple computer programs. This avoids waste by making sure the CPU is always doing something productive. In terms of a phone, the foreground app would be running while some other apps are sharing the CPU- executing in the background.
I am inclined to think Apple is going to offer the first kind of multi-tasking. And not so much the second.
And I stick by that original post 100%. It think you just read it funny.
I think that in OS4.0, Apple will offer users offer users the ability to multi-task. By which I mean multi-task in common parlance. Rapid switching of activities. And some new abilities to do two things at the same time. Users will rejoice.
But I don't believe it will not be serving-up un-fettered background execution for third-party apps. Which is the standard geeky interpretation of the term "multi-task". Apple will limit this, not because the OS is incapable of timeslicing...but because third party applications are simply not trusted to play nicely with others.
So I say again...
"I am inclined to think Apple is going to offer the first kind of multi-tasking. And not so much the second."
And I stick by that original post 100%. It think you just read it funny.
I think that in OS4.0, Apple will offer users offer users the ability to multi-task. By which I mean multi-task in common parlance. Rapid switching of activities. And some new abilities to do two things at the same time. Users will rejoice.
But I don't believe it will not be serving-up un-fettered background execution for third-party apps. Which is the standard geeky interpretation of the term "multi-task". Apple will limit this, not because the OS is incapable of timeslicing...but because third party applications are simply not trusted to play nicely with others.
So I say again...
"I am inclined to think Apple is going to offer the first kind of multi-tasking. And not so much the second."
C.
Quote:
Theres multi-tasking and there's multi-tasking.
Ask a member of the public what multi-tasking is, and they mean the ability to deal with multiple activities at once. Anwering the phone while filling the dishwasher.
Ask a computer scientist about multi-tasking and they will describe a method where the single CPU timeshares between multiple computer programs. This avoids waste by making sure the CPU is always doing something productive. In terms of a phone, the foreground app would be running while some other apps are sharing the CPU- executing in the background.
I am inclined to think Apple is going to offer the first kind of multi-tasking. And not so much the second.
C.
THAT was your first post. Not the one you quoted above. I don't see how I read that wrongly.
You then changed it in the later post to what you have just replied to me with. I acknowledged that you changed it to mean that - correctly.
heres a picture i made to show what third party app multitasking might look like on os 4.0
hope you all like it sorry it's quite rushed.
1) I like the Exposé usage for multitask switching but how would you switch apps? The logistics is the real issue here. I like the 4 finger tap and/or the option of making the Home Button double-tap option access the backgrounded apps.
2) Apple doesn't use different shapes, sizes and dimensions for their iPhone icons so I'd expect any Exposé-like design to have icons that are all the same size.
3) There is no reason for such a huge image on this forum, especially one that is mostly white. Please crop it down or just link to the image.
heres a picture i made to show what third party app multitasking might look like on os 4.0
hope you all like it sorry it's quite rushed.
I do like it. So...iPhone would have Expose! That would be sweet. And Spaces! I think they'd both work perfectly, just as they are, they're both concepts to deal with a finite amount of screen space.
It's just too big. It screws up the formatting so that one must scroll the page, or widen the window just for that. Without the whitespace, that wouldn't happen. It's really not needed either.
It's just too big. It screws up the formatting so that one must scroll the page, or widen the window just for that. Without the whitespace, that wouldn't happen. It's really not needed either.
It's just too big. It screws up the formatting so that one must scroll the page, or widen the window just for that. Without the whitespace, that wouldn't happen. It's really not needed either.
I agree, the excessive white space, it would be formatted better. As it is, it is a bit much for a 24" display, and still looks a bit big on a 30" in my opinion.
Swipe up on the home screen and the screen swipes up to show running apps. Each app has a close button in the upper right corner to quit the app from there or you can click the app to resume it.
The swipe up badge does not show up, it's only there for demonstration.
I think Dave's got the right idea. A smart implementation would be to only let apps run in the background that actually benefit the user by doing so. Specifically these are things that require no active user input while running, like internet radio. I don't think there's actually very many apps like this. Everything else seems better to be closed with a last used state, freeing the RAM up for whatever is actively being worked on. If developers considered their app to be an app that would be enhanced by the ability to run in the background they could apply to Apple for this upon app submission and let them decide. That would reduce the number right of potential concurrently running apps on any iPhone right away. Then put a user control like a task manager on the iPhone as a final way to monitor and force quit any background processes that get stuck in a loop / lock up. But in the meantime very few will get to that stage...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Focus on apps that will benefit the user from multitasking instead of Monopoly. It is rather sad that arguements against multi tasking are always made on such weak platforms. Beyound the fact that there are very useful apps that could benefit from multi tasking you have to also realize that such facilities gave zero impact if not being used.
that is your opinion but push notifications have been seen as a flop by many. Further push doesn't imply less power usage than polling. In any event concentrate on those apps that make sense for use with user multitasking. We already know about the things that don't make sense.
Dave
wtf do you get this from? Push Notifications are great. They work fine. They have a specific purpose that they serve well. Why do you need to make crap up when your argument starts to fade?
No one should be running an IM app in the background. It is wasteful, and purposeless. Better alternatives have been developed.
Honestly, I think the current Jailbroken solution Backgrounder is really the most efficient. Why? Here's why.
1. It requires user knowledge and input. The iPhone is a simple device, with poor memory management. If one does know how to manage the memory on the iPhone, your experience will suffer. Fact. My mother could never even begin to grasp that the iPod app is still open using 20 mb of memory from the song she listened to last week. But she loves her iPhone.
2. It's as needed. It doesn't come into use unless specifically called up by the user, making it a conscious decision. Backgrounding on the iPhone CANNOT be unintentionally activated, for anything more complicated than the current built in apps (which is already flawed).
3. It's subtle and doesn't require and advanced App switcher or 4 finger Expose gesture. Sure, you can have that with another Cydia app called "Activator". Some of you might think that this is fancy and necessary, but its not, at all. The solution is already there, and it's called, "The Home Button."
iDo hope Apple implements this in 4.0 just to shut people up, but I hope their R&D studies come to the same conclusions that I and many others have...there are many ways to do it, but only one that makes the most sense.
The feature that interests me the most, is CardDAV support. This is a major leap forward embracing open-protocols for contacts, and the iPhone is shaping up to be a major competitor for Activesync/Windows mobile devices for business ( With push contacts, calendars, mail, using OPEN protocols! )
As an email server vendor for Atmail we welcome the new iPhone update with CardDAV support. Thanks Apple!
This is a tricky one. If they don't do it right there'll be a lot of confused iPhone users. They'll need to do it in a way that means people can't accidentally activate it.
From the presentation elements it looks like they nailed it. The only thing I was surprised about was not having aan option in Settings, like Push Notifications and Location Services, to completely turn backgrounding off and to to cherry lick the apps you wish to utilize the background services. Perhaps that is a testament to the efficiency of these services. We'll have to wait and see.
Comments
Ok, then you should have stated it properly.
Too many people think that the OS doesn't multitask, which it does, and very well.
Or perhaps you should read what I wrote, rather than what you *think* I wrote.
I believe Apple will introduce some new methods, to offer users the benefits of multi-tasking, without opening the platforms to the risks of allowing background execution to all third-party applications.
My guess is that the changes in 4.0 will offer users the ability to multi-task (in popular parlance) - without necessarily offering pre-emptive time slicing of untrusted third party applications.
C.
Or perhaps you should read what I wrote, rather than what you *think* I wrote.
I believe Apple will introduce some new methods, to offer users the benefits of multi-tasking, without opening the platforms to the risks of allowing background execution to all third-party applications.
My guess is that the changes in 4.0 will offer users the ability to multi-task (in popular parlance) - without necessarily offering pre-emptive time slicing of untrusted third party applications.
C.
I read what you wrote that first time, and it was very clear. You got it backwards.
Then you changed it so that you were correct.
I read what you wrote that first time, and it was very clear. You got it backwards.
Then you changed it so that you were correct.
What I said the first time was...
(and I quote...)
Theres multi-tasking and there's multi-tasking.
Ask a member of the public what multi-tasking is, and they mean the ability to deal with multiple activities at once. Anwering the phone while filling the dishwasher.
Ask a computer scientist about multi-tasking and they will describe a method where the single CPU timeshares between multiple computer programs. This avoids waste by making sure the CPU is always doing something productive. In terms of a phone, the foreground app would be running while some other apps are sharing the CPU- executing in the background.
I am inclined to think Apple is going to offer the first kind of multi-tasking. And not so much the second.
And I stick by that original post 100%. It think you just read it funny.
I think that in OS4.0, Apple will offer users offer users the ability to multi-task. By which I mean multi-task in common parlance. Rapid switching of activities. And some new abilities to do two things at the same time. Users will rejoice.
But I don't believe it will not be serving-up un-fettered background execution for third-party apps. Which is the standard geeky interpretation of the term "multi-task". Apple will limit this, not because the OS is incapable of timeslicing...but because third party applications are simply not trusted to play nicely with others.
So I say again...
"I am inclined to think Apple is going to offer the first kind of multi-tasking. And not so much the second."
C.
What I said the first time was...
(and I quote...)
And I stick by that original post 100%. It think you just read it funny.
I think that in OS4.0, Apple will offer users offer users the ability to multi-task. By which I mean multi-task in common parlance. Rapid switching of activities. And some new abilities to do two things at the same time. Users will rejoice.
But I don't believe it will not be serving-up un-fettered background execution for third-party apps. Which is the standard geeky interpretation of the term "multi-task". Apple will limit this, not because the OS is incapable of timeslicing...but because third party applications are simply not trusted to play nicely with others.
So I say again...
"I am inclined to think Apple is going to offer the first kind of multi-tasking. And not so much the second."
C.
Theres multi-tasking and there's multi-tasking.
Ask a member of the public what multi-tasking is, and they mean the ability to deal with multiple activities at once. Anwering the phone while filling the dishwasher.
Ask a computer scientist about multi-tasking and they will describe a method where the single CPU timeshares between multiple computer programs. This avoids waste by making sure the CPU is always doing something productive. In terms of a phone, the foreground app would be running while some other apps are sharing the CPU- executing in the background.
I am inclined to think Apple is going to offer the first kind of multi-tasking. And not so much the second.
C.
THAT was your first post. Not the one you quoted above. I don't see how I read that wrongly.
You then changed it in the later post to what you have just replied to me with. I acknowledged that you changed it to mean that - correctly.
It's pretty clear what you wrote.
heres a picture i made to show what third party app multitasking might look like on os 4.0
hope you all like it
EDIT: sorry is this size any better?
image: http://i44.tinypic.com/t978y9.jpg
heres a picture i made to show what third party app multitasking might look like on os 4.0
hope you all like it
1) I like the Exposé usage for multitask switching but how would you switch apps? The logistics is the real issue here. I like the 4 finger tap and/or the option of making the Home Button double-tap option access the backgrounded apps.
2) Apple doesn't use different shapes, sizes and dimensions for their iPhone icons so I'd expect any Exposé-like design to have icons that are all the same size.
3) There is no reason for such a huge image on this forum, especially one that is mostly white. Please crop it down or just link to the image.
heres a picture i made to show what third party app multitasking might look like on os 4.0
hope you all like it
I do like it. So...iPhone would have Expose! That would be sweet. And Spaces! I think they'd both work perfectly, just as they are, they're both concepts to deal with a finite amount of screen space.
It's pretty clear what you wrote.
It is.
As for any changing meaning. I'll leave that to external observers.
C.
heres a picture i made to show what third party app multitasking might look like on os 4.0
hope you all like it
Joe, while we appreciate the work you've done, please try to not post such large images, and cut down the white space. Thanks.
Joe, while we appreciate the work you've done, please try to not post such large images, and cut down the white space. Thanks.
Why & what is the prob with whitespace?
*
Why & what is the prob with whitespace?
*
It's just too big. It screws up the formatting so that one must scroll the page, or widen the window just for that. Without the whitespace, that wouldn't happen. It's really not needed either.
It's just too big. It screws up the formatting so that one must scroll the page, or widen the window just for that. Without the whitespace, that wouldn't happen. It's really not needed either.
yikes, it's the forum po-lice!
It's just too big. It screws up the formatting so that one must scroll the page, or widen the window just for that. Without the whitespace, that wouldn't happen. It's really not needed either.
I agree, the excessive white space, it would be formatted better. As it is, it is a bit much for a 24" display, and still looks a bit big on a 30" in my opinion.
yikes, it's the forum po-lice!
It's just a matter of practicality. Don't get so upset.
Swipe up on the home screen and the screen swipes up to show running apps. Each app has a close button in the upper right corner to quit the app from there or you can click the app to resume it.
The swipe up badge does not show up, it's only there for demonstration.
Focus on apps that will benefit the user from multitasking instead of Monopoly. It is rather sad that arguements against multi tasking are always made on such weak platforms. Beyound the fact that there are very useful apps that could benefit from multi tasking you have to also realize that such facilities gave zero impact if not being used.
Dave
that is your opinion but push notifications have been seen as a flop by many. Further push doesn't imply less power usage than polling. In any event concentrate on those apps that make sense for use with user multitasking. We already know about the things that don't make sense.
Dave
wtf do you get this from? Push Notifications are great. They work fine. They have a specific purpose that they serve well. Why do you need to make crap up when your argument starts to fade?
No one should be running an IM app in the background. It is wasteful, and purposeless. Better alternatives have been developed.
1. It requires user knowledge and input. The iPhone is a simple device, with poor memory management. If one does know how to manage the memory on the iPhone, your experience will suffer. Fact. My mother could never even begin to grasp that the iPod app is still open using 20 mb of memory from the song she listened to last week. But she loves her iPhone.
2. It's as needed. It doesn't come into use unless specifically called up by the user, making it a conscious decision. Backgrounding on the iPhone CANNOT be unintentionally activated, for anything more complicated than the current built in apps (which is already flawed).
3. It's subtle and doesn't require and advanced App switcher or 4 finger Expose gesture. Sure, you can have that with another Cydia app called "Activator". Some of you might think that this is fancy and necessary, but its not, at all. The solution is already there, and it's called, "The Home Button."
iDo hope Apple implements this in 4.0 just to shut people up, but I hope their R&D studies come to the same conclusions that I and many others have...there are many ways to do it, but only one that makes the most sense.
The feature that interests me the most, is CardDAV support. This is a major leap forward embracing open-protocols for contacts, and the iPhone is shaping up to be a major competitor for Activesync/Windows mobile devices for business ( With push contacts, calendars, mail, using OPEN protocols! )
As an email server vendor for Atmail we welcome the new iPhone update with CardDAV support. Thanks Apple!
This is a tricky one. If they don't do it right there'll be a lot of confused iPhone users. They'll need to do it in a way that means people can't accidentally activate it.
From the presentation elements it looks like they nailed it. The only thing I was surprised about was not having aan option in Settings, like Push Notifications and Location Services, to completely turn backgrounding off and to to cherry lick the apps you wish to utilize the background services. Perhaps that is a testament to the efficiency of these services. We'll have to wait and see.