So just to clarify if you are running the 4.2.1 GM it should still update right?
I have the first GM that contains the wifi bugs and it's telling me on both the iPhone 4 and iPad that I have the most current version of software (4.2). It doesn't go into details about build or anything...
With iOS 4 apps don't actually run in the background but certain processes do. The reason it shows recent apps is because all apps compiled using iOS SDK 4.x should be able to take advantage of at least one form of multitasking. The simplest one is "Saved State" feature, which requires no coding by the developer whatsoever. Beside, the recent app dock main function is to make it faster to move between apps without the need to go back to the Home screen.
Thanks for the clarification and of course you are correct, but that doesn't really change my opinion.
There are often 20 or 30 apps in that list on the switcher, but very very few of them are capable of being switched to without basically restarting the app. I'm not talking about obscure stuff either. I have a couple of expensive EA games that don't even save their state, and with the memory constraints, anything but the last two apps you were using have almost always been switched out of memory by the time you select them also.
I'm not trying to overly criticise the setup they have, it's a good way to get effective multi-tasking. I just don't like the fact that this long, long, list get's populated and that it's essentially a meaningless list.
Meaningless stuff bothers me, and stuff not under my control bothers me. This list of apps is a double-whammy in that respect. None of those apps (past the first one or two) are really available to switch to. There is no reason in my mind why they should be there, since they perform no function other than showing that yes, you ran that program last week or whatever. In that respect the only concrete effect of them being there is to provide a (small, minor) security hole in the UI as any "recently used" list does.
Thanks for the clarification and of course you are correct, but that doesn't really change my opinion.
There are often 20 or 30 apps in that list on the switcher, but very very few of them are capable of being switched to without basically restarting the app. I'm not talking about obscure stuff either. I have a couple of expensive EA games that don't even save their state, and with the memory constraints, anything but the last two apps you were using have almost always been switched out of memory by the time you select them also.
I'm not trying to overly criticise the setup they have, it's a good way to get effective multi-tasking. I just don't like the fact that this long, long, list get's populated and that it's essentially a meaningless list.
Meaningless stuff bothers me, and stuff not under my control bothers me. This list of apps is a double-whammy in that respect. None of those apps (past the first one or two) are really available to switch to. There is no reason in my mind why they should be there, since they perform no function other than showing that yes, you ran that program last week or whatever. In that respect the only concrete effect of them being there is to provide a (small, minor) security hole in the UI as any "recently used" list does.
It's sorted in the order of most recently used first, so, unless you use very few apps, an app used last week is going to be a ways down the list, so it's not like it's in your face. It presents apps enabled for fast app switching the same as those that aren't, and to do otherwise, would just be confusing.
Consider what it would be like if only FAS apps showed up. Some apps would, some wouldn't, the average user would have no idea why, and it would make no sense. If an app was updated to support FAS, it would suddenly start showing up. The most sensible thing is the approach Apple chose: Apps show up in the order they were last used. Selecting one results in switching to that app, with state restored is it supports that, or launching it fresh if it doesn't. No need for the user to keep track of which is which, or which ones use multitasking features or not. It's predictable, and apps that you've used are always there to switch to.
Actually, a tiger is probably much more powerful than a lion, and certainly more so than a leopard, so there really isn't any relationship between the specific cat and where the OS is going. Also, Apple isn't locked into cat names for Mac OS releases, so even if there were no more cats, they can just switch the code name to something else.
(Re-)Unification of Mac OS and iOS is not imminent.
The choice of the term Lion is very symbolic. I felt that 10.7 would be the last iteration of OSX before they announced it, the name simply feels like confirmation to me.
There are plenty of reasons to expect Lion to be the last version of OSX:
1) iOS is going to gain more and more features over the next few years, bringing it closer and closer to the capabilities of OSX.
2) Mobile hardware will become much more capable over the next few years, allowing the hardware to run a full desktop OS.
3) The OSX UI is getting more and more features and not all work that well together. It feels unfocused and inconsistent and will continue to feel that way until they start with a clean slate and drop some of the older UI elements. Lion appears to be the testing ground for some iPad friendly elements that may eventually for the primary means of navigation on the mac.
4) Windows 8 is supposed to be Microsoft's first OS really designed around touch. it should be out around the same time as Apple's next release after Lion.
5) Macs and iPhones running the same OS would instantly destroy Microsofts desktop OS near monopoly. Add a desktop version of Android (not Chrome) into the mix and things get really interesting.
Now I don't think the reunification of iOS and Mac OS is a sure thing, but I do expect a major shakeup of Mac OS because of iOS, and that may include unifying the two platforms. As of today, the iPhone and iPad run the same version of iOS. Apple TV also runs iOS, and I'm sure Apple is working on having it catch up with the iPhone and iPad, despite having a different UI. Is it really that hard to believe that macs may also be running a unified OS 3 or 4 years from now?
Comments
Not available in Canada yet...
Keep trying update. It's DL for me.
624.3 MB It went from 8 to 33 min. ;-)
608.7 for Touch 4.
It's now available to download
So what's is the update for the iPhone 4? 4.2 or 4.2.1?
624.3 MB It went from 8 to 33 min. ;-)
346MB Ipod touch 8gb 2nd gen
So just to clarify if you are running the 4.2.1 GM it should still update right?
I have the first GM that contains the wifi bugs and it's telling me on both the iPhone 4 and iPad that I have the most current version of software (4.2). It doesn't go into details about build or anything...
what kind of connection do you have? mine downloaded in 3 minutes....
15Mpbs
1 - Is battery life affected by this update?
With iOS 4 apps don't actually run in the background but certain processes do. The reason it shows recent apps is because all apps compiled using iOS SDK 4.x should be able to take advantage of at least one form of multitasking. The simplest one is "Saved State" feature, which requires no coding by the developer whatsoever. Beside, the recent app dock main function is to make it faster to move between apps without the need to go back to the Home screen.
Thanks for the clarification and of course you are correct, but that doesn't really change my opinion.
There are often 20 or 30 apps in that list on the switcher, but very very few of them are capable of being switched to without basically restarting the app. I'm not talking about obscure stuff either. I have a couple of expensive EA games that don't even save their state, and with the memory constraints, anything but the last two apps you were using have almost always been switched out of memory by the time you select them also.
I'm not trying to overly criticise the setup they have, it's a good way to get effective multi-tasking. I just don't like the fact that this long, long, list get's populated and that it's essentially a meaningless list.
Meaningless stuff bothers me, and stuff not under my control bothers me. This list of apps is a double-whammy in that respect. None of those apps (past the first one or two) are really available to switch to. There is no reason in my mind why they should be there, since they perform no function other than showing that yes, you ran that program last week or whatever. In that respect the only concrete effect of them being there is to provide a (small, minor) security hole in the UI as any "recently used" list does.
Trying to update my ipad in HK right now but itunes still says 3.2.2 is the latest version
http://www.apple.com/ios/ 4.2
No, you have to check update on iTunes and 4.2 will miraculously appear.
608.7 for Touch 4.
And 389.3 for Touch 3. Strange. Should have feature parity. Why so much smaller?
Thanks for the clarification and of course you are correct, but that doesn't really change my opinion.
There are often 20 or 30 apps in that list on the switcher, but very very few of them are capable of being switched to without basically restarting the app. I'm not talking about obscure stuff either. I have a couple of expensive EA games that don't even save their state, and with the memory constraints, anything but the last two apps you were using have almost always been switched out of memory by the time you select them also.
I'm not trying to overly criticise the setup they have, it's a good way to get effective multi-tasking. I just don't like the fact that this long, long, list get's populated and that it's essentially a meaningless list.
Meaningless stuff bothers me, and stuff not under my control bothers me. This list of apps is a double-whammy in that respect. None of those apps (past the first one or two) are really available to switch to. There is no reason in my mind why they should be there, since they perform no function other than showing that yes, you ran that program last week or whatever. In that respect the only concrete effect of them being there is to provide a (small, minor) security hole in the UI as any "recently used" list does.
It's sorted in the order of most recently used first, so, unless you use very few apps, an app used last week is going to be a ways down the list, so it's not like it's in your face. It presents apps enabled for fast app switching the same as those that aren't, and to do otherwise, would just be confusing.
Consider what it would be like if only FAS apps showed up. Some apps would, some wouldn't, the average user would have no idea why, and it would make no sense. If an app was updated to support FAS, it would suddenly start showing up. The most sensible thing is the approach Apple chose: Apps show up in the order they were last used. Selecting one results in switching to that app, with state restored is it supports that, or launching it fresh if it doesn't. No need for the user to keep track of which is which, or which ones use multitasking features or not. It's predictable, and apps that you've used are always there to switch to.
Actually, a tiger is probably much more powerful than a lion, and certainly more so than a leopard, so there really isn't any relationship between the specific cat and where the OS is going. Also, Apple isn't locked into cat names for Mac OS releases, so even if there were no more cats, they can just switch the code name to something else.
(Re-)Unification of Mac OS and iOS is not imminent.
The choice of the term Lion is very symbolic. I felt that 10.7 would be the last iteration of OSX before they announced it, the name simply feels like confirmation to me.
There are plenty of reasons to expect Lion to be the last version of OSX:
1) iOS is going to gain more and more features over the next few years, bringing it closer and closer to the capabilities of OSX.
2) Mobile hardware will become much more capable over the next few years, allowing the hardware to run a full desktop OS.
3) The OSX UI is getting more and more features and not all work that well together. It feels unfocused and inconsistent and will continue to feel that way until they start with a clean slate and drop some of the older UI elements. Lion appears to be the testing ground for some iPad friendly elements that may eventually for the primary means of navigation on the mac.
4) Windows 8 is supposed to be Microsoft's first OS really designed around touch. it should be out around the same time as Apple's next release after Lion.
5) Macs and iPhones running the same OS would instantly destroy Microsofts desktop OS near monopoly. Add a desktop version of Android (not Chrome) into the mix and things get really interesting.
Now I don't think the reunification of iOS and Mac OS is a sure thing, but I do expect a major shakeup of Mac OS because of iOS, and that may include unifying the two platforms. As of today, the iPhone and iPad run the same version of iOS. Apple TV also runs iOS, and I'm sure Apple is working on having it catch up with the iPhone and iPad, despite having a different UI. Is it really that hard to believe that macs may also be running a unified OS 3 or 4 years from now?