But with other phones, multitasking follows the more common definition.
Which is? Hint: they don't.
Quote:
When iOS gets true multitasking, I suspect few will complain. Best would be an option to use both methods, so you can choose when you want to trade off battery life for increased capabilities.
"True multitasking" is one of those mindless little caveats that get tossed around like "open." Desktop style multitasking on a device that displays one window at a time makes no sense and is a complete waste of power/cpu cycles. No doubt if Apple changes the scope of iOS multitasking "few will complain", because few could give a shit about "multitasking" in the first place. They care is their device is responsive and has great battery life.
Multitasking? Like running more then one app at a time on an iphone...maybe more then two? Lets be honest here...you know it doesn't do that..
No multitasking as in doing any two or more things at a time whether they are related to computers or not. My example was talking on the phone and surfing the internet, but you could be checking email or texting, whatever, that would still be multitasking. Point is you are using (2) as count them, (two) apps at the same time. The phone app and the web app. Can't be done on Verizon, thus you would only be solo-tasking.
"True multitasking" is one of those mindless little caveats that get tossed around like "open." Desktop style multitasking on a device that displays one window at a time makes no sense and is a complete waste of power/cpu cycles.
I can count on one hand the number of times I?ve wanted to run a High-Profile 1080p video to run in the background on a 1024x600 display.
The argument that unintelligent multitasking running each and every app I?ve ever opened is innately better than intelligent multitasking API is grasping at straws. This didn?t work for WebOS and it won?t work for the PlayBook. In fact, RiM seems to be walking Palm?s exact footsteps with the PlayBook. The only notable difference is they won?t have a model ready for shipping until months after the iPad 2 ships, whereas the Palm Pre thought it was good to ship a couple weeks before the iPhone was released.
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve wanted to run a High-Profile 1080p video to run in the background on a 1024x600 display.
The argument that unintelligent multitasking running each and every app I’ve ever opened is innately better than intelligent multitasking API is grasping at straws. This didn’t work for WebOS and it won’t work for the PlayBook. In fact, RiM seems to be walking Palm’s exact footsteps with the PlayBook. The only notable difference is they won’t have a model ready for shipping until months after the iPad 2 ships, whereas the Palm Pre thought it was good to ship a couple weeks before the iPhone was released.
It may be grasping at straws, but I'm afraid we're doomed to be lectured about "real multitasking", which takes its place as the new "no multitasking." I remember wondering aloud what the next point of complaint would be, once Apple included multitasking (which, as you may recall, had taken pride of place from "cut and paste" once that was addressed).
Really, for a certain segment, it doesn't matter, at all, what Apple does or does not do. There will always be a way to frame it so that they appear behind the curve, and that frame will be loudly proclaimed, over and over again.
Give one good reason why a phone needs to run all of the elements of any two or three apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
When iOS gets true multitasking, I suspect few will complain. Best would be an option to use both methods, so you can choose when you want to trade off battery life for increased capabilities.
The specs are out there. You can choose to read them or not, whichever you prefer.
I prefer to read them, as you apparently haven't, so I know that mobile multitasking, on the iPhone as well as other mobile platforms, differs significantly from desktop multitasking, which I assume is what we mean when we talk about "what most people think of as multitasking." The info isn't hard to come by-- for instance, here.
Quote:
Here's some fun: Google "smartphone true muiltitasking"
6,710,000 deluded Google-suckup apologists.
Oh dear. You're one of those people who think number of hits equals truth of search terms? We may have a problem.
Quote:
See also:
10 things other people learned about smart phones in 2010
Yes. The iPhone's multitasking differs significantly from desktop multitasking, as does the implementation on every other mobile platform. On account of the power constraints. And which wasn't the point of contention.
Quote:
Perhaps. When it comes to iOS Jobs will probably call it "enhanced multitasking".
I look forward to reading your arguments against it when Apple rolls it out.
Honestly I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't made a case against any particular multitasking scheme, I've just pointed out that what the iPhone does is no more or less "multitasking" than any other mobile platform, and appropriate to a power constrained environment. If mobile devices get better batteries, or more efficient processes, and Apple can implement some version of multitasking which more closely resembles desktop solutions, with clear benefits to the user and no undue hit on battery life, that would be fine with me.
"Need"? You got me there. None of us need to even buy any smartphone at all.
Doesn't the iPad use iOS? And isn't the iPad a computer?
I suppose you never run more than one app at a time on your Mac.
This hash of what I reckon you consider provocative non sequiturs makes me think maybe you're not that interested in actually discussing actual things. Oh, and , I guess.
The iPhone has always multitasked. Why were you able to receive a call when the phone app was closed, received an email when the email app was closed, listen to music when the iPod app was closed.
What does the author mean multitask in the true sense of the word? As all of the phone multitask in different ways. None of them do literally the same way a computer does.
Quote:
8. The iPhone Can Finally Multitask
The iPhone finally got multitasking, a feature that had been available for quite some time on other devices.
...
Whilst its not full multi-tasking in the true sense of the word, the feature does help many iPhone users that were frustrated with losing progress in a game or having to exit an app to find some extra information.
The entire app does not run in the background, only the parts of the app that need to run to accomplish the task.
Yes for iOS you can write a VOiP app that will take a call in the background. Music app that will play music in the background. GPS app will continue tracking location in the background. Alarms can ring in the background. Messaging apps can receive messages in the background. Apps can upload and download files in the background.
Again, what would be the advantage of the entire app running in the background slowing down the entire phone and wasting battery life when only one app can be viewed at a time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
But the bottom-line question is: Can you write an app that runs in the background?
On iOS, it's merely suspended; your app doesn't run at all in the background
The entire app does not run in the background, only the parts of the app that need to run to accomplish the task.
Yes for iOS you can write a VOiP app that will take a call in the background. Music app that will play music in the background. GPS app will continue tracking location in the background. Alarms can ring in the background. Messaging apps can receive messages in the background. Apps can upload and download files in the background.
Again, what would be the advantage of the entire app running in the background slowing down the entire phone and wasting battery life when only one app can be viewed at a time?
He either can?t understand how the backgrounding APIs work or is just trolling. Either way, I think you?ve done more than enough to try to educate him.
AT&T should have done whatever was necessary, and I mean whatever was necessary, to insure to notch service in New York and SF.
Instead, and bizarrely, those are two of their worst service areas. One, the media capital of the nation, the other, the tech capital of the nation. The biggest news outlets and the biggest tech pundits all hate AT&Ts guts and say so all the time.
Hence the cognitive dissonance of many, if not most of AT&T's customers having perfectly fine to excellent service while being told, over and over again, that it's absolutely wretched.
If it had been the other way around-- if Manhattan and SF had been great, and great swaths of the midwest had been so-so to lousy-- do you think AT&T would be a punch line?
Really, what were they thinking? They could have invested heavily in a few square mile of coverage and improved their public image a thousand fold.
Here's the thing...I do live in the midwest, the service is so-so to lousy...The only way I can even get 3G is drive an hour away to a main city...I live in a town with a population of about 50,000 and can't get 3G.
I have been with AT&T for 7 years but switching now just became more appealing to me because Verizon offers 3G in my area. AT&T has told us 3G will be done by ( insert date here). Then when it's not done they say, "oh it will be done (insert year later date here)" and so on...
I'm tired of being lied to about it. Just get it done
Comments
You're joking right? About the daily show and never seeing or hearing of it....
USA has landed on the Moon, FOX news has become the real comedy show, and the Bible is just a mythological book...
What else do you need to know?
Good, I thought I might have been a little too abstract.
1. I haven't watched the show... for more than a few seconds as I clicked to a new channel.
2. Do people really find that humorous?
But with other phones, multitasking follows the more common definition.
Which is? Hint: they don't.
When iOS gets true multitasking, I suspect few will complain. Best would be an option to use both methods, so you can choose when you want to trade off battery life for increased capabilities.
"True multitasking" is one of those mindless little caveats that get tossed around like "open." Desktop style multitasking on a device that displays one window at a time makes no sense and is a complete waste of power/cpu cycles. No doubt if Apple changes the scope of iOS multitasking "few will complain", because few could give a shit about "multitasking" in the first place. They care is their device is responsive and has great battery life.
They better answered a mere 3 questions 2 years ago. The statistical signifigance of that would be exactly 0.
As opposed to your personal likes and dislikes, which apparently have real weight. Check.
Multitasking? Like running more then one app at a time on an iphone...maybe more then two? Lets be honest here...you know it doesn't do that..
No multitasking as in doing any two or more things at a time whether they are related to computers or not. My example was talking on the phone and surfing the internet, but you could be checking email or texting, whatever, that would still be multitasking. Point is you are using (2) as count them, (two) apps at the same time. The phone app and the web app. Can't be done on Verizon, thus you would only be solo-tasking.
"True multitasking" is one of those mindless little caveats that get tossed around like "open." Desktop style multitasking on a device that displays one window at a time makes no sense and is a complete waste of power/cpu cycles.
I can count on one hand the number of times I?ve wanted to run a High-Profile 1080p video to run in the background on a 1024x600 display.
The argument that unintelligent multitasking running each and every app I?ve ever opened is innately better than intelligent multitasking API is grasping at straws. This didn?t work for WebOS and it won?t work for the PlayBook. In fact, RiM seems to be walking Palm?s exact footsteps with the PlayBook. The only notable difference is they won?t have a model ready for shipping until months after the iPad 2 ships, whereas the Palm Pre thought it was good to ship a couple weeks before the iPhone was released.
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve wanted to run a High-Profile 1080p video to run in the background on a 1024x600 display.
The argument that unintelligent multitasking running each and every app I’ve ever opened is innately better than intelligent multitasking API is grasping at straws. This didn’t work for WebOS and it won’t work for the PlayBook. In fact, RiM seems to be walking Palm’s exact footsteps with the PlayBook. The only notable difference is they won’t have a model ready for shipping until months after the iPad 2 ships, whereas the Palm Pre thought it was good to ship a couple weeks before the iPhone was released.
It may be grasping at straws, but I'm afraid we're doomed to be lectured about "real multitasking", which takes its place as the new "no multitasking." I remember wondering aloud what the next point of complaint would be, once Apple included multitasking (which, as you may recall, had taken pride of place from "cut and paste" once that was addressed).
Really, for a certain segment, it doesn't matter, at all, what Apple does or does not do. There will always be a way to frame it so that they appear behind the curve, and that frame will be loudly proclaimed, over and over again.
When iOS gets true multitasking, I suspect few will complain. Best would be an option to use both methods, so you can choose when you want to trade off battery life for increased capabilities.
The specs are out there. You can choose to read them or not, whichever you prefer.
I prefer to read them, as you apparently haven't, so I know that mobile multitasking, on the iPhone as well as other mobile platforms, differs significantly from desktop multitasking, which I assume is what we mean when we talk about "what most people think of as multitasking." The info isn't hard to come by-- for instance, here.
Here's some fun: Google "smartphone true muiltitasking"
6,710,000 deluded Google-suckup apologists.
Oh dear. You're one of those people who think number of hits equals truth of search terms? We may have a problem.
See also:
10 things other people learned about smart phones in 2010
http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2010/12...hones-in-2010/
...where you'll find:
No doubt the author is part of some conspiracy.
Yes. The iPhone's multitasking differs significantly from desktop multitasking, as does the implementation on every other mobile platform. On account of the power constraints. And which wasn't the point of contention.
Perhaps. When it comes to iOS Jobs will probably call it "enhanced multitasking".
I look forward to reading your arguments against it when Apple rolls it out.
Honestly I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't made a case against any particular multitasking scheme, I've just pointed out that what the iPhone does is no more or less "multitasking" than any other mobile platform, and appropriate to a power constrained environment. If mobile devices get better batteries, or more efficient processes, and Apple can implement some version of multitasking which more closely resembles desktop solutions, with clear benefits to the user and no undue hit on battery life, that would be fine with me.
"Need"? You got me there. None of us need to even buy any smartphone at all.
Doesn't the iPad use iOS? And isn't the iPad a computer?
I suppose you never run more than one app at a time on your Mac.
This hash of what I reckon you consider provocative non sequiturs makes me think maybe you're not that interested in actually discussing actual things. Oh, and
What does the author mean multitask in the true sense of the word? As all of the phone multitask in different ways. None of them do literally the same way a computer does.
8. The iPhone Can Finally Multitask
The iPhone finally got multitasking, a feature that had been available for quite some time on other devices.
...
Whilst its not full multi-tasking in the true sense of the word, the feature does help many iPhone users that were frustrated with losing progress in a game or having to exit an app to find some extra information.
"Need"? You got me there. None of us need to even buy any smartphone at all.
Doesn't the iPad use iOS? And isn't the iPad a computer?
I suppose you never run more than one app at a time on your Mac.
But the bottom-line question is: Can you write an app that runs in the background?
Pandora did.
Yes for iOS you can write a VOiP app that will take a call in the background. Music app that will play music in the background. GPS app will continue tracking location in the background. Alarms can ring in the background. Messaging apps can receive messages in the background. Apps can upload and download files in the background.
Again, what would be the advantage of the entire app running in the background slowing down the entire phone and wasting battery life when only one app can be viewed at a time?
But the bottom-line question is: Can you write an app that runs in the background?
On iOS, it's merely suspended; your app doesn't run at all in the background
The entire app does not run in the background, only the parts of the app that need to run to accomplish the task.
Yes for iOS you can write a VOiP app that will take a call in the background. Music app that will play music in the background. GPS app will continue tracking location in the background. Alarms can ring in the background. Messaging apps can receive messages in the background. Apps can upload and download files in the background.
Again, what would be the advantage of the entire app running in the background slowing down the entire phone and wasting battery life when only one app can be viewed at a time?
He either can?t understand how the backgrounding APIs work or is just trolling. Either way, I think you?ve done more than enough to try to educate him.
AT&T should have done whatever was necessary, and I mean whatever was necessary, to insure to notch service in New York and SF.
Instead, and bizarrely, those are two of their worst service areas. One, the media capital of the nation, the other, the tech capital of the nation. The biggest news outlets and the biggest tech pundits all hate AT&Ts guts and say so all the time.
Hence the cognitive dissonance of many, if not most of AT&T's customers having perfectly fine to excellent service while being told, over and over again, that it's absolutely wretched.
If it had been the other way around-- if Manhattan and SF had been great, and great swaths of the midwest had been so-so to lousy-- do you think AT&T would be a punch line?
Really, what were they thinking? They could have invested heavily in a few square mile of coverage and improved their public image a thousand fold.
Here's the thing...I do live in the midwest, the service is so-so to lousy...The only way I can even get 3G is drive an hour away to a main city...I live in a town with a population of about 50,000 and can't get 3G.
I have been with AT&T for 7 years but switching now just became more appealing to me because Verizon offers 3G in my area. AT&T has told us 3G will be done by ( insert date here). Then when it's not done they say, "oh it will be done (insert year later date here)" and so on...
I'm tired of being lied to about it. Just get it done