Just wondering. Is there any message imbedded that says "This is the max # of apps you can have running!" or... yeah.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Developers with GM iOS 4: how many apps CAN run in the background?
- Thread starter Apple...
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
At this point in time.... 0.
No apps that support Apple's way of multitasking have been released yet.
Nice try, but I'm sure there's at least a few developers out there who already are. Anyway, can I get this answered? By someone? Please? Just want to know, that's all.
OK, I'm a developer and there are NO APPS that support multitasking released YET.
Now do you understand....
I think he means:
When iOS 4.0 is released to the public and the iPhone 4 is available at retail locations, how many applications can run in the background on the retail, production, publicly available devices using iOS 4.0 Apple approved applications from iTunes?
When iOS 4.0 is released to the public and the iPhone 4 is available at retail locations, how many applications can run in the background on the retail, production, publicly available devices using iOS 4.0 Apple approved applications from iTunes?
That's not what he is asking and my understanding of his first post was re-enforced with his poor response.
Sorry about the poor response/ wording. I mean exactly what 8767092 says.
1. Developers can make apps that are multitasking.
2. Developers can put these apps onto their iPhones for testing + via adhoc.
1+2: put multiple instances of the apps on the said iPhones...test!
2. Developers can put these apps onto their iPhones for testing + via adhoc.
1+2: put multiple instances of the apps on the said iPhones...test!
So you go ahead and code up a bunch of apps that multitask, I have one I'm working on.
As far as Apple....
We don't know how many will be able to run at the same time. I'm sure it will also depend on if they're using the same multitasking protocols. It will then also depend on what you're doing, i.e. is you phone just sitting there, are you surfing the net while having other programs run, etc...
It all depends on the amount of free RAM the iPhone have available at the time, don't expect to see more than 1-2 running apps with an audio app as well. Many apps are likely to be suspended than to be left running in the background. Games are less likely to be running as well.
So nobody really knows the actual answers because it all depends on the size of RAM in the hardware and what limitation or tolerance Apple has set in iOS 4.
Think about GPS apps, they are more likely to be in suspended state but with certain parts running like traffic/direction updates via voice. Just like Pandora will be left in suspended state with the audio running in the background.
So nobody really knows the actual answers because it all depends on the size of RAM in the hardware and what limitation or tolerance Apple has set in iOS 4.
Think about GPS apps, they are more likely to be in suspended state but with certain parts running like traffic/direction updates via voice. Just like Pandora will be left in suspended state with the audio running in the background.
While that's true, even apps that were written for previous versions get rudimentary support (ie, relaunch them from the multitasking menu and you "end up back where you were"). That's minor, but important. And very welcome.
No they don't. They have to have the suspend APIs built in. They also don't "run" in the background either.
Hm, maybe I'm being fooled by a couple of my apps being better than I gave them credit for. No, they wouldn't run in the background unless they were written to. That's obvious.
That's true. Apple's apps work fine in suspend. It's already changed how I use the System app. With other apps it simply works like an app switcher which is actually very useful despite the limitation.
At this current time there is no numerical limit to the amount of background apps iOS 4.0 can handle, at least not on my 3GS. Although remember that the only apps that support background usage at this time are the default applications built into iOS 4.0. (For example iPod, Mail, etc.)
Well thats going to suck. Apple really needs to get their sh*t together and stop screwing around. 256MB of RAM in brand new devices like my iPad and the new iPhone and very limited multitasking is pathetic, its not 2004
Google and HTC can get it right, its embarrassing that Apple still cant, especially given how much money I spent on this iPad. Ridiculous.Well thats going to suck. Apple really needs to get their sh*t together and stop screwing around. 256MB of RAM in brand new devices like my iPad and the new iPhone and very limited multitasking is pathetic, its not 2004
While it is not the point you were trying to make but people don't really have 256MB available, it's less than 128MB of free ram at most in both iPhone/iPad. The iPad having 256mb is just weird, it has space for more and it should've at least have 512mb.
The question is, how much battery life do you lose by allowing multiple applications run in the background on the Android devices? I don't think we seen any benches or reviews on this yet. I remember hearing a lot of complaints about battery life on some of the Android devices. I know I heard a lot of battery life issues with the latest EVO device even with 4G radio set to off.
I agree the iPad should have 512MB. I have the Evo and my battery life is fine, but I am also using an 1800mah extended battery. You dont lose battery life by apps running the background at all. This pretty much explains it all
http://www.androidspin.com/2010/05/25/why-you-dont-need-a-task-killer-app-with-android/
No it doesn't. Part of the speed of the iPad comes from bringing the RAM into the CPU package. The CPU and the RAM are literally a a few tenth of millimeters away. This means they can have much tighter memory clocks. Using all the empty space inside the iPad would make for a slower iPad (and now iPhone 4).
Apple don't use tighter memory clocks, they are conservative in their hardware specs and the two layers of RAM on CPU can be denser. The tighter memory clocks don't bring huge performance gains, it's the latency that counts when putting it on top of the cpu. I did hear that there are 256mb dies for this, so it's not just 128mb only.