|
Crimguy -> RE: Just got my iPad! (4/9/2010 11:33:06 PM)
|
I'm not sure where you're getting your information about multitasking being half-assed. I have read scarcely a bad word about it. Admittedly they're pretty late to the party but who cares?
Quoth Paul Thurrott (runs winsupersite, tech pundit, and generally pretty hard on apple products):
"Multitasking. Obvious and necessary, multitasking has been sorely lacking in the iPhone OS but Apple is finally adding it three years after the fact. The good news? They’re doing it right. It looks like the implementation is good, both for users and developers. This one warrants praise, though it’s unclear what took so long. From a competitive standpoint, Windows Phone may very well ship with no multitasking (beyond notifications), though of course Microsoft plans to add it over time, just like Apple is doing."
From what I understand about it, it does not pause your application. The API specifies shutting down part of the application except what needs to run in the background, such as downloading, waiting for a job to finish, listening for messages, playing audio, etc.
I'm not encoding audio on my phone - who needs more? What on earth do you care if it's a full pre-emptive multitasking or not? You running SETI@home on your droid or something?
Currently I just opened up the ipod app on my phone and started an audio track. I closed it up, leaving the music running, and am now checking facebook for messages . That works, but as you said running two 3rd party apps will not. That will change with the next OS.
BTW, I love the Android OS - my para has one and it is awesome. She only has the Motorola and it is much faster than my iPhone 3G in many ways. App store and google searches are much faster. the new voice to text is impressive. Browsing is still much better on the iphone. Both app stores are filled with crap.
The ram is anemic on my 3G, but only rarely do I hit a snag. Go figure they're not letting me multitask with OS4. The 3GS has 2x as much. Don't see a problem there.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
It won't be real multitasking though. In the future, Once you'll open app "B", app "A" will freeze and be moved to the background (means it will be paused), and if you then switch back from "B" to "A", then B will be paused.
Currently, listening to some tunes and writing an SMS on an I-phone will work (because the music-player is a part of the OS), but if you want activate a 3rd party app AND then an Apple utility, the 3rd party app will be closed.
Also, listening to music and using facebook or other 3rd-party apps won't work, unlike on OS's with real multitasking - like Android.
Multitasking is a core element of the Android OS.
Apple used to dismiss multitasking in the past, as they claimed it would be an unnecessary burden for the battery.
Well, Google showed that you can do it, so Apple tries to counter Google's attack with their half-assed version of multitasking, now.
Apple = Overpriced, restrictive, missing functions or functionality, limited RAM, imho.
Their only advantage: The design is top-notch.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Crimguy
I had no idea this forum was populated by a band of luddites.
Luddite? Nah. It's just like Apple doesn't seem to catch up with the technical possibilities/progress, once they create a forerunner. It's been like that with the I-Cube, the I-Mac, and the I-Phone just follows that path. The competition uses to pass Apple after a while, sometimes picking up one or another idea or enhancing ideas, but always adding many more features, sometimes the competition passes and breaks new ground.
The I-cube, for example, was really neat: small, no fans inside (passive cooling), integrated CD-ROM drive, but you couldn't upgrade it. It had one or 2 memory banks, that was it. It was 10-20% more expensive than the other G4 machines, and you could only put in bigger HDs (>128 GB) if you installed OS X with special drivers. The cube let Apple stocks drop, and it took an iPod to solve this crisis. After Apple released the I-Cube, other companies came up with those "barebone" PCs, the awesome looking MacBook Air (reportedly overheating at 66° Celsius [150° F] already) was passed by even smaller eeePCs with Intel's Atom CPU.
They keep doing stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
