For example you cant listen to a iTunes U lecture and follow along reading your e-Textbook.
My iPod Touch plays music, including iTunes purchases, while I do other things. You are incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Waiting for a important email? Well you can't listen to music or watch a TV show in the meanwhile.
The iPod Touch - and presumably iPad - notify you of an email while other programs are running. And you can also listen to music while Mail is running. Again, you are incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Want to copy a great passage from a e-book and email it to your friend? oh no can't do that.
1) Copy and Paste isn't driven by multitasking, and 2) you CAN do that, using the clipboard. Yet again, you are incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Sometimes I think Apple has lost it's fscking mind.
I was just thinking the same about you - every one of your arguments apears to be incorrect. Have you even used one of these devices?
As far as multitasking goes I can take it or leave it - it's not generally required and many of the arguments here supporting it probably require a laptop instead of a phone or media pad. But if you are going to argue the case for multitasking, at least try and get one fact right.
You've obviously never wanted to browse the net whilst listening to Spotify or received a text whilst playing geoDefense.
Have you seen how elegantly WebOS handles multitasking?
How many people use Spotify or Pandora to stream music on their iTouch/iPhone? Not many. Most people just sync in music from iTunes.
And I have received texts while playing geoDefense. You get a nice alert that allows you to reply or ignore. If you choose to reply, then you are taken to the SMS app. When you're done you can just launch geoDefense again and continue your game. What's the problem??
When developers read through the new SDK, and the leaks start coming out in a few days, we'll know more. That's why arguing this now is pointless.
They've got it started. Astonishing news is that Apple has not removed taking pictures functionality. All that's got not much to do with explanations on the processor architecture.
No, it does make sense. You know why? Because you can browse web using Safari while listening to music and running Timer in the background. It only makes sense, but it shpuld be implemented properly.
From what you describe, it already is implemented properly. Give a real-world scenario that justifies the added complexity to the user experience (UX)?
I've used an Android phone and think their multitasking UX is horrendous. The iPhone gives you most of the benefits of multi-tasking with very little added complexity. For example, if you get an SMS popup, you can leave the current app to reply and then relaunch the app to continue where you left off. Nice and intuitive, with none of the extra maintenance required to manage background tasks.
Reading a book and using a IM program at the same time.
Please be honest, the very fans are screaming that they don't need multitasking. But as soon as Apple will introduce multitasking in its products the same people will scream that they can't live without it.
How do you read and IM at the same time? What's wrong with the current solution: read and get an alert when an SMS or IM (if you have an app with push notification support) arrives.
Why multi-tasking: because I might want to. It is that simple. I could be working on a document and need to go to the web to look something up. Save the document, close it out, open safari, get my info and somehow copy it to a clip board, close safari, open iwork, open my document..... ahh, what was I doing??
.. and I might want to be listening to music, reading an ibook, and watching a movie all at the same time.
If the capability is there, activate it.
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, honestly. How can you listen to music, read a book, and watch a movie at the same time? It's not humanly possible.
Also, your first scenario of having to "close" your document to look something up in Safari isn't a problem at all. You don't have to "save the document, close it out, open safari, blah, blah"; you just press the Home button, launch Safari, copy info (to the clipboard), press Home button, launch the document editing app, paste. How does adding multi-tasking (i.e., running background apps) support make that any better?
It does do multi-tasking. It always has and always will. There's stuff going on in the OS all the time. Checking for stuff while you are running another program.
The phone keeps running, the mail keeps running.
But Apple has prevented 3rd party applications from running in the background.
Why no background apps?
Apple do not know how much memory and CPU resources will be consumed by 3rd party application when it is in background. Not to mention 4,5 or 50 apps all running at the same time.
It could be that the application in question is a good citizen - or it could be a resource hog.
When you come to use Safari, and that hog is sitting in the background, Safari sucks.
Whose fault is the suckage? Who gets the blame?
Without performing extensive metrics on every application, Apple can not guarantee that background apps would not impact on the foreground task.
This is why Apple apps are allowed to run in the background. 3rd party apps are not.
We can't trust developers to create apps which will be good citizens. We need the system or Apple or something to prevent background apps from destroying the foreground experience.
We could shut down the hogs!
This is the solution offered by Microsoft. Launch task manager. And let the user kill-off the hogs.
Apple does not work like this. In a consumer device it's better to limit the device than have something that behaves unpredictably and requires the user to solve a performance issue.
Every app should be able to launch, and work flawlessly because its developer can assume getting 100% of the device - not a meagre 10% share of the device.
But multitasking is useful!
What do you mean by useful?
A) In a multi-tasking system, if you return to an app - it carries on immediately from where it left off.
And it's cool to have something running in background - like a music player.
But both A and B can be achieved without multitasking. Apple can introduce OS mechanisms to permit both behaviors, without ever letting 3rd party apps run in the background.
In the case of A) it can leave suspended applications in memory. Ready for instant resume.
And in the case of Apps can hand over control to tiny resource limited micro-apps which are called by the OS.
Apple's goal is to offer a flawless experience, which is not compromised by background apps consuming an unpredictable share of the resources. I am pretty confident we will see these changes in OS4 - which will offer all the benefits of multi-tasking without the ugly downside.
Anyhow, nobody knows exactly what the iPad will do yet.
But multitasking is very essential and that was my point.
I don't get it. What was your point? You gave an example that you claimed didn't work and, thus, argued that multi-tasking was required to support that scenario. However, your scenario works fine on the iPhone... so what was your point??
There are about a 100 thousand sites that prove you wrong as of the maxi pad magical movement). Sorry, I meant moment.
I have original iPhone and 3G with current OS.
You are not telling the truth. Multi-Tasking only works for Apple Approved Apps. Otherwise you get a a BIG ASS notice saying you have a new email, new text message, I could go on but won't.
You don't even know the difference between a notification and true mulit-tasking.
You are trained well young Jedi Apple Zombie.
The original scenario was 'listen to music while checking mail'. That works fine on the iPhone. You can listen to music and use other apps at the same time.
You sound like a wing-nut. You've been added to my ignore list.
Multitasking is absolutely vital condition for pretty much any malware coming to platform. This is actually why Apple is still reluctant to grant that to 3rd parties and why 3rd parties' bellyaching can't cease yet.
Multitasking is absolutely vital condition for pretty much any malware coming to platform. This is actually why Apple is still reluctant to grant that to 3rd parties and why 3rd parties' bellyaching can't cease yet.
From what you describe, it already is implemented properly. Give a real-world scenario that justifies the added complexity to the user experience (UX)?
I've used an Android phone and think their multitasking UX is horrendous. The iPhone gives you most of the benefits of multi-tasking with very little added complexity. For example, if you get an SMS popup, you can leave the current app to reply and then relaunch the app to continue where you left off. Nice and intuitive, with none of the extra maintenance required to manage background tasks.
Let's say I'm using Skype and I need to look at some documents or emails. Now it's impossible without closing Skype. I agree that most of the time it's not needed, but you have to agree that there are apps or types of apps that would only benefit from multitasking. Apple should address this issue.
It does do multi-tasking. It always has and always will. There's stuff going on in the OS all the time. Checking for stuff while you are running another program.
The phone keeps running, the mail keeps running.
But Apple has prevented 3rd party applications from running in the background.
Why no background apps?
Apple do not know how much memory and CPU resources will be consumed by 3rd party application when it is in background. Not to mention 4,5 or 50 apps all running at the same time.
It could be that the application in question is a good citizen - or it could be a resource hog.
When you come to use Safari, and that hog is sitting in the background, Safari sucks.
Whose fault is the suckage? Who gets the blame?
Without performing extensive metrics on every application, Apple can not guarantee that background apps would not impact on the foreground task.
This is why Apple apps are allowed to run in the background. 3rd party apps are not.
We can't trust developers to create apps which will be good citizens. We need the system or Apple or something to prevent background apps from destroying the foreground experience.
We could shut down the hogs!
This is the solution offered by Microsoft. Launch task manager. And let the user kill-off the hogs.
Apple does not work like this. In a consumer device it's better to limit the device than have something that behaves unpredictably and requires the user to solve a performance issue.
Every app should be able to launch, and work flawlessly because its developer can assume getting 100% of the device - not a meagre 10% share of the device.
But multitasking is useful!
What do you mean by useful?
A) In a multi-tasking system, if you return to an app - it carries on immediately from where it left off.
And it's cool to have something running in background - like a music player.
But both A and B can be achieved without multitasking. Apple can introduce OS mechanisms to permit both behaviors, without ever letting 3rd party apps run in the background.
In the case of A) it can leave suspended applications in memory. Ready for instant resume.
And in the case of Apps can hand over control to tiny resource limited micro-apps which are called by the OS.
Apple's goal is to offer a flawless experience, which is not compromised by background apps consuming an unpredictable share of the resources. I am pretty confident we will see these changes in OS4 - which will offer all the benefits of multi-tasking without the ugly downside.
C.
There is one fact: multitasking is not needed for most of the apps.
There is one more fact: there are apps that need it. Radio apps for one. Now you can't listen to radio and do something else. People usually do something while listening to music don't you agree? As it stands now I won't be able to work with Keynote and listen to radio. Does it make sense to you?
There is one fact: multitasking is not needed for most of the apps.
There is one more fact: there are apps that need it. Radio apps for one. Now you can't listen to radio and do something else. People usually do something while listening to music don't you agree? As it stands now I won't be able to work with Keynote and listen to radio. Does it make sense to you?
I agree, this is one thing you can't do. But you don't need full-general purpose multi-tasking to achieve this function. I would like to see the micro-app model introduced
(See Feature B in my post)
The radio App would launch and you'd select your audio stream and listen.
When you leave the app - the audio playing task is handed over to a helper micro-app which remains running in background.
Such micro apps could be forced to run in a small memory footprint, and consume a tiny amount of CPU resources.
I agree, this is one thing you can't do. But you don't need full-general purpose multi-tasking to achieve this function. I would like to see the micro-app model introduced
(See Feature B in my post)
The radio App would launch and you'd select your audio stream and listen.
When you leave the app - the audio playing task is handed over to a helper micro-app which remains running in background.
Such micro apps could be forced to run in a small memory footprint, and consume a tiny amount of CPU resources.
C.
I haven't tried it, so I don't know if it's already possible but why not enable radio streams through the iPod app? There are only so many codecs for streaming audio, why not incorporate those into the iPod app.
Comments
Multitasking is necessary.
Multitasking is useful, but not a necessity.
For example you cant listen to a iTunes U lecture and follow along reading your e-Textbook.
My iPod Touch plays music, including iTunes purchases, while I do other things. You are incorrect.
Waiting for a important email? Well you can't listen to music or watch a TV show in the meanwhile.
The iPod Touch - and presumably iPad - notify you of an email while other programs are running. And you can also listen to music while Mail is running. Again, you are incorrect.
Want to copy a great passage from a e-book and email it to your friend? oh no can't do that.
Sometimes I think Apple has lost it's fscking mind.
I was just thinking the same about you - every one of your arguments apears to be incorrect. Have you even used one of these devices?
As far as multitasking goes I can take it or leave it - it's not generally required and many of the arguments here supporting it probably require a laptop instead of a phone or media pad. But if you are going to argue the case for multitasking, at least try and get one fact right.
Nothing suggests Apple applications, including iWork suite, will by no means multitask. Come see in 58 days...
Well, there's nothing in the article which we've not read before. There's nothing either, which would be interesting to know.
Nothing suggests Apple applications, including iWork suite, will by no means multitask. Come see in 58 days...
When developers read through the new SDK, and the leaks start coming out in a few days, we'll know more. That's why arguing this now is pointless.
You've obviously never wanted to browse the net whilst listening to Spotify or received a text whilst playing geoDefense.
Have you seen how elegantly WebOS handles multitasking?
How many people use Spotify or Pandora to stream music on their iTouch/iPhone? Not many. Most people just sync in music from iTunes.
And I have received texts while playing geoDefense. You get a nice alert that allows you to reply or ignore. If you choose to reply, then you are taken to the SMS app. When you're done you can just launch geoDefense again and continue your game. What's the problem??
When developers read through the new SDK, and the leaks start coming out in a few days, we'll know more. That's why arguing this now is pointless.
They've got it started. Astonishing news is that Apple has not removed taking pictures functionality.
But I can also see how you could be right.
No, it does make sense. You know why? Because you can browse web using Safari while listening to music and running Timer in the background. It only makes sense, but it shpuld be implemented properly.
From what you describe, it already is implemented properly. Give a real-world scenario that justifies the added complexity to the user experience (UX)?
I've used an Android phone and think their multitasking UX is horrendous. The iPhone gives you most of the benefits of multi-tasking with very little added complexity. For example, if you get an SMS popup, you can leave the current app to reply and then relaunch the app to continue where you left off. Nice and intuitive, with none of the extra maintenance required to manage background tasks.
Reading a book and using a IM program at the same time.
Please be honest, the very fans are screaming that they don't need multitasking. But as soon as Apple will introduce multitasking in its products the same people will scream that they can't live without it.
How do you read and IM at the same time? What's wrong with the current solution: read and get an alert when an SMS or IM (if you have an app with push notification support) arrives.
I don't think you know what you're talking about here.
More companies are abandoning Flash every day for HTML 5 and H.264.
While Flash is also used for site animations, Ads etc, it can be done with Java in most cases, and that's what we're seeing happen.
Which would be useless for iPhone given there's no jvm - I'm sure you mean JavaScript.
Why multi-tasking: because I might want to. It is that simple. I could be working on a document and need to go to the web to look something up. Save the document, close it out, open safari, get my info and somehow copy it to a clip board, close safari, open iwork, open my document..... ahh, what was I doing??
.. and I might want to be listening to music, reading an ibook, and watching a movie all at the same time.
If the capability is there, activate it.
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, honestly. How can you listen to music, read a book, and watch a movie at the same time? It's not humanly possible.
Also, your first scenario of having to "close" your document to look something up in Safari isn't a problem at all. You don't have to "save the document, close it out, open safari, blah, blah"; you just press the Home button, launch Safari, copy info (to the clipboard), press Home button, launch the document editing app, paste. How does adding multi-tasking (i.e., running background apps) support make that any better?
It does do multi-tasking. It always has and always will. There's stuff going on in the OS all the time. Checking for stuff while you are running another program.
The phone keeps running, the mail keeps running.
But Apple has prevented 3rd party applications from running in the background.
Why no background apps?
Apple do not know how much memory and CPU resources will be consumed by 3rd party application when it is in background. Not to mention 4,5 or 50 apps all running at the same time.
It could be that the application in question is a good citizen - or it could be a resource hog.
When you come to use Safari, and that hog is sitting in the background, Safari sucks.
Whose fault is the suckage? Who gets the blame?
Without performing extensive metrics on every application, Apple can not guarantee that background apps would not impact on the foreground task.
This is why Apple apps are allowed to run in the background. 3rd party apps are not.
We can't trust developers to create apps which will be good citizens. We need the system or Apple or something to prevent background apps from destroying the foreground experience.
We could shut down the hogs!
This is the solution offered by Microsoft. Launch task manager. And let the user kill-off the hogs.
Apple does not work like this. In a consumer device it's better to limit the device than have something that behaves unpredictably and requires the user to solve a performance issue.
Every app should be able to launch, and work flawlessly because its developer can assume getting 100% of the device - not a meagre 10% share of the device.
But multitasking is useful!
What do you mean by useful?
A) In a multi-tasking system, if you return to an app - it carries on immediately from where it left off.
But both A and B can be achieved without multitasking. Apple can introduce OS mechanisms to permit both behaviors, without ever letting 3rd party apps run in the background.
In the case of A) it can leave suspended applications in memory. Ready for instant resume.
And in the case of
Apple's goal is to offer a flawless experience, which is not compromised by background apps consuming an unpredictable share of the resources. I am pretty confident we will see these changes in OS4 - which will offer all the benefits of multi-tasking without the ugly downside.
C.
Should have said "follow along with the video"
Anyhow, nobody knows exactly what the iPad will do yet.
But multitasking is very essential and that was my point.
I don't get it. What was your point? You gave an example that you claimed didn't work and, thus, argued that multi-tasking was required to support that scenario. However, your scenario works fine on the iPhone... so what was your point??
I am not your Dude.
There are about a 100 thousand sites that prove you wrong as of the maxi pad magical movement). Sorry, I meant moment.
I have original iPhone and 3G with current OS.
You are not telling the truth. Multi-Tasking only works for Apple Approved Apps. Otherwise you get a a BIG ASS notice saying you have a new email, new text message, I could go on but won't.
You don't even know the difference between a notification and true mulit-tasking.
You are trained well young Jedi Apple Zombie.
The original scenario was 'listen to music while checking mail'. That works fine on the iPhone. You can listen to music and use other apps at the same time.
You sound like a wing-nut. You've been added to my ignore list.
Multitasking is absolutely vital condition for pretty much any malware coming to platform. This is actually why Apple is still reluctant to grant that to 3rd parties and why 3rd parties' bellyaching can't cease yet.
Do you actually read the rubbish you type?
From what you describe, it already is implemented properly. Give a real-world scenario that justifies the added complexity to the user experience (UX)?
I've used an Android phone and think their multitasking UX is horrendous. The iPhone gives you most of the benefits of multi-tasking with very little added complexity. For example, if you get an SMS popup, you can leave the current app to reply and then relaunch the app to continue where you left off. Nice and intuitive, with none of the extra maintenance required to manage background tasks.
Let's say I'm using Skype and I need to look at some documents or emails. Now it's impossible without closing Skype. I agree that most of the time it's not needed, but you have to agree that there are apps or types of apps that would only benefit from multitasking. Apple should address this issue.
Do you actually read the rubbish you type?
I can only repeat, djsherly, that it's your workplace where you're supposed to mind rubbish.
The iPhone OS is Unix.
It does do multi-tasking. It always has and always will. There's stuff going on in the OS all the time. Checking for stuff while you are running another program.
The phone keeps running, the mail keeps running.
But Apple has prevented 3rd party applications from running in the background.
Why no background apps?
Apple do not know how much memory and CPU resources will be consumed by 3rd party application when it is in background. Not to mention 4,5 or 50 apps all running at the same time.
It could be that the application in question is a good citizen - or it could be a resource hog.
When you come to use Safari, and that hog is sitting in the background, Safari sucks.
Whose fault is the suckage? Who gets the blame?
Without performing extensive metrics on every application, Apple can not guarantee that background apps would not impact on the foreground task.
This is why Apple apps are allowed to run in the background. 3rd party apps are not.
We can't trust developers to create apps which will be good citizens. We need the system or Apple or something to prevent background apps from destroying the foreground experience.
We could shut down the hogs!
This is the solution offered by Microsoft. Launch task manager. And let the user kill-off the hogs.
Apple does not work like this. In a consumer device it's better to limit the device than have something that behaves unpredictably and requires the user to solve a performance issue.
Every app should be able to launch, and work flawlessly because its developer can assume getting 100% of the device - not a meagre 10% share of the device.
But multitasking is useful!
What do you mean by useful?
A) In a multi-tasking system, if you return to an app - it carries on immediately from where it left off.
But both A and B can be achieved without multitasking. Apple can introduce OS mechanisms to permit both behaviors, without ever letting 3rd party apps run in the background.
In the case of A) it can leave suspended applications in memory. Ready for instant resume.
And in the case of
Apple's goal is to offer a flawless experience, which is not compromised by background apps consuming an unpredictable share of the resources. I am pretty confident we will see these changes in OS4 - which will offer all the benefits of multi-tasking without the ugly downside.
C.
There is one fact: multitasking is not needed for most of the apps.
There is one more fact: there are apps that need it. Radio apps for one. Now you can't listen to radio and do something else. People usually do something while listening to music don't you agree? As it stands now I won't be able to work with Keynote and listen to radio. Does it make sense to you?
I can only repeat, djsherly, that it's your workplace where you're supposed to mind rubbish.
There you go again.
There is one fact: multitasking is not needed for most of the apps.
There is one more fact: there are apps that need it. Radio apps for one. Now you can't listen to radio and do something else. People usually do something while listening to music don't you agree? As it stands now I won't be able to work with Keynote and listen to radio. Does it make sense to you?
I agree, this is one thing you can't do. But you don't need full-general purpose multi-tasking to achieve this function. I would like to see the micro-app model introduced
(See Feature B in my post)
The radio App would launch and you'd select your audio stream and listen.
When you leave the app - the audio playing task is handed over to a helper micro-app which remains running in background.
Such micro apps could be forced to run in a small memory footprint, and consume a tiny amount of CPU resources.
C.
I agree, this is one thing you can't do. But you don't need full-general purpose multi-tasking to achieve this function. I would like to see the micro-app model introduced
(See Feature B in my post)
The radio App would launch and you'd select your audio stream and listen.
When you leave the app - the audio playing task is handed over to a helper micro-app which remains running in background.
Such micro apps could be forced to run in a small memory footprint, and consume a tiny amount of CPU resources.
C.
I haven't tried it, so I don't know if it's already possible but why not enable radio streams through the iPod app? There are only so many codecs for streaming audio, why not incorporate those into the iPod app.