That last bit is interesting, I hadn't really paid attention to that, not that I use the FAS all that often to access apps. (I usually just get to them the old-fashioned way.)
But, even if enabled apps aren't running, their state information is archived (which is what allows them to resume where they were) and, obviously, takes up space somewhere: RAM, Flash memory, I'm not sure where. However, the point I was making is that sometimes you do want to quit and relaunch an app to get it to completely reinitialize itself. That's really an issue with the app, but there are cases like the NPR app example I gave where it can be desirable to do this.
RAM isn?t Flash. With Mac OS X 10.7 I think this means Apple is planning to move all their systems to store the OS and apps on Flash which is how this would really be most useful as a HDD would slow down this process somewhat. I hope that means they use a dual drive system with an SSD for the OS and a HDD for the user folder and files. I see no difference between a video file being on HDD and the QucikTime X app residing on my SSD than I do when both are on the SSD.
Currently, when you move the Ringer Off switch, the only visual indication you get on the screen is a crossed-out ringer icon that appears, then disappears. I would like to see a "ringer off" icon that appears in the status bar and stays there as long as the ringer switch is in the Off position.
That last bit is interesting, I hadn't really paid attention to that, not that I use the FAS all that often to access apps. (I usually just get to them the old-fashioned way.)
But, even if enabled apps aren't running, their state information is archived (which is what allows them to resume where they were) and, obviously, takes up space somewhere: RAM, Flash memory, I'm not sure where. However, the point I was making is that sometimes you do want to quit and relaunch an app to get it to completely reinitialize itself. That's really an issue with the app, but there are cases like the NPR app example I gave where it can be desirable to do this.
The OS is careful to manage the list of "background" apps so that they don't consume too many resources... it throws away the state of the oldest if there are too many. You really just need to let go and not worry about it.
That game drives me nuts. I tell myself this is the last round but if I don?t get all the pigs they laugh and smile in this smug way that makes me have to play again. The only good pig is a dead pig.
That would be the Halloween version. The worst part is when you get hung up on a level where one more bird would really solve all your problems. You sit there wondering what the secrete stradegy is (if their is one).
By this I mean they put a lot of energy into this multitasking system, to run apps on low memory systems. I'm not sure this was a good thing because it looks like the OS was designed for yesterdays hardware instead of the hardware of the very near future. Plus it is very obvious that people have an expectation here that doesn't jive with Apples offerings.
There certainly seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread which is obviously a bad sign for Apple. If Apple can not convey what the OS actually does with fast app switching and the extremely limited multi tasking they will end up with a lot of frustrated users. Really you would expect a bit of clarity in this thread considering people are using golden masters, what sort of mess will they have when this system goes public. I can see the false advertising law suits already.
In the end I really think it was a mistake to limit and complicate multitasking the way they did. It is a cumbersome solution to a problem that will soon go away with the next round of hardware upgrades. In my estimation they should have simply provided X number of slots to run apps in and let the user determine which are viable and are most valuable to them in a multitasking situation. The RAM situation will soon go away ( it better) and the issue of processor usage should be up to the user. The thought that the iPad will stick with 256megs of RAM turns my stomach.
In any event it will be interesting to see if this new multitasking model is well accepted over time or leads to a revolt. I just see a lot of people flinging their iPads Frisbee stile up against a wall due frustrations with un meet expectations.
There certainly seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread which is obviously a bad sign for Apple.
The only confusion is from people who are tinkerers. The vast majority of users just want the app to appear as quickly as possible when they tap it, and in the exact state they left it.
Fortunately, the majority is also not obsessed with "clearing out" memory, as that is exactly the wrong thing to do. Memory is meant to be used, not to stand empty. More "free" memory is a bad thing, not a good thing as tinkerers wrongly think.
Apps that are suspended in the background are not executing - not at all, not even one machine instruction. If memory is needed, a background app will be unceremoniously removed; the app had a chance to save whatever it wanted to save when it was sent to the background - there are delegate calls for this. This is the correct way to manage memory - keep it relatively full. Free memory is wasted memory, paid for and not being used.
The worst "solution" would be to add some sort of process manager - people don't want to have to futz with these things, and they are not necessary anyway. They just make tinkerers believe that they are somehow doing something.
The only confusion is from people who are tinkerers. The vast majority of users just want the app to appear as quickly as possible when they tap it, and in the exact state they left it.
Fast is good.
However returning to the state you left an app is not always good. In some cases it is the opposite of what you want. It really depends upon the app.
Quote:
Fortunately, the majority is also not obsessed with "clearing out" memory, as that is exactly the wrong thing to do. Memory is meant to be used, not to stand empty. More "free" memory is a bad thing, not a good thing as tinkerers wrongly think.
Again it depends on the app and how it is being used. In any event you are wrong in one very important sense, iOS devices don't page data so you always want to have a little free RAM. Running with zero free RAM is a big mistake.
Quote:
Apps that are suspended in the background are not executing - not at all, not even one machine instruction. If memory is needed, a background app will be unceremoniously removed; the app had a chance to save whatever it wanted to save when it was sent to the background - there are delegate calls for this. This is the correct way to manage memory - keep it relatively full. Free memory is wasted memory, paid for and not being used.
The worst "solution" would be to add some sort of process manager - people don't want to have to futz with these things, and they are not necessary anyway. They just make tinkerers believe that they are somehow doing something.
Yet bugs in iOS prove again and again that something like a process manager might actually be helpful.
Comments
That last bit is interesting, I hadn't really paid attention to that, not that I use the FAS all that often to access apps. (I usually just get to them the old-fashioned way.)
But, even if enabled apps aren't running, their state information is archived (which is what allows them to resume where they were) and, obviously, takes up space somewhere: RAM, Flash memory, I'm not sure where. However, the point I was making is that sometimes you do want to quit and relaunch an app to get it to completely reinitialize itself. That's really an issue with the app, but there are cases like the NPR app example I gave where it can be desirable to do this.
RAM isn?t Flash. With Mac OS X 10.7 I think this means Apple is planning to move all their systems to store the OS and apps on Flash which is how this would really be most useful as a HDD would slow down this process somewhat. I hope that means they use a dual drive system with an SSD for the OS and a HDD for the user folder and files. I see no difference between a video file being on HDD and the QucikTime X app residing on my SSD than I do when both are on the SSD.
That last bit is interesting, I hadn't really paid attention to that, not that I use the FAS all that often to access apps. (I usually just get to them the old-fashioned way.)
But, even if enabled apps aren't running, their state information is archived (which is what allows them to resume where they were) and, obviously, takes up space somewhere: RAM, Flash memory, I'm not sure where. However, the point I was making is that sometimes you do want to quit and relaunch an app to get it to completely reinitialize itself. That's really an issue with the app, but there are cases like the NPR app example I gave where it can be desirable to do this.
The OS is careful to manage the list of "background" apps so that they don't consume too many resources... it throws away the state of the oldest if there are too many. You really just need to let go and not worry about it.
That game drives me nuts. I tell myself this is the last round but if I don?t get all the pigs they laugh and smile in this smug way that makes me have to play again. The only good pig is a dead pig.
That would be the Halloween version. The worst part is when you get hung up on a level where one more bird would really solve all your problems. You sit there wondering what the secrete stradegy is (if their is one).
Angry Birds is money well spent.
There certainly seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread which is obviously a bad sign for Apple. If Apple can not convey what the OS actually does with fast app switching and the extremely limited multi tasking they will end up with a lot of frustrated users. Really you would expect a bit of clarity in this thread considering people are using golden masters, what sort of mess will they have when this system goes public. I can see the false advertising law suits already.
In the end I really think it was a mistake to limit and complicate multitasking the way they did. It is a cumbersome solution to a problem that will soon go away with the next round of hardware upgrades. In my estimation they should have simply provided X number of slots to run apps in and let the user determine which are viable and are most valuable to them in a multitasking situation. The RAM situation will soon go away ( it better) and the issue of processor usage should be up to the user. The thought that the iPad will stick with 256megs of RAM turns my stomach.
In any event it will be interesting to see if this new multitasking model is well accepted over time or leads to a revolt. I just see a lot of people flinging their iPads Frisbee stile up against a wall due frustrations with un meet expectations.
B
There certainly seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread which is obviously a bad sign for Apple.
The only confusion is from people who are tinkerers. The vast majority of users just want the app to appear as quickly as possible when they tap it, and in the exact state they left it.
Fortunately, the majority is also not obsessed with "clearing out" memory, as that is exactly the wrong thing to do. Memory is meant to be used, not to stand empty. More "free" memory is a bad thing, not a good thing as tinkerers wrongly think.
Apps that are suspended in the background are not executing - not at all, not even one machine instruction. If memory is needed, a background app will be unceremoniously removed; the app had a chance to save whatever it wanted to save when it was sent to the background - there are delegate calls for this. This is the correct way to manage memory - keep it relatively full. Free memory is wasted memory, paid for and not being used.
The worst "solution" would be to add some sort of process manager - people don't want to have to futz with these things, and they are not necessary anyway. They just make tinkerers believe that they are somehow doing something.
The only confusion is from people who are tinkerers. The vast majority of users just want the app to appear as quickly as possible when they tap it, and in the exact state they left it.
Fast is good.
However returning to the state you left an app is not always good. In some cases it is the opposite of what you want. It really depends upon the app.
Fortunately, the majority is also not obsessed with "clearing out" memory, as that is exactly the wrong thing to do. Memory is meant to be used, not to stand empty. More "free" memory is a bad thing, not a good thing as tinkerers wrongly think.
Again it depends on the app and how it is being used. In any event you are wrong in one very important sense, iOS devices don't page data so you always want to have a little free RAM. Running with zero free RAM is a big mistake.
Apps that are suspended in the background are not executing - not at all, not even one machine instruction. If memory is needed, a background app will be unceremoniously removed; the app had a chance to save whatever it wanted to save when it was sent to the background - there are delegate calls for this. This is the correct way to manage memory - keep it relatively full. Free memory is wasted memory, paid for and not being used.
The worst "solution" would be to add some sort of process manager - people don't want to have to futz with these things, and they are not necessary anyway. They just make tinkerers believe that they are somehow doing something.
Yet bugs in iOS prove again and again that something like a process manager might actually be helpful.