Does iPad 2 support real Multitasking now?

[DoFoT9]

yawn, talk about beating a dead horse...

that OP is right. take an IM client for example. it will time out after x amount of minutes when not used. in order for the application company to ensure you still recieve messages they have to store the messages temporarily on their servers! that, to me is not real multitasking.

 

[ehoui]

Certainly iOS supports "real" (preemptive) multitasking -- the question is whether Apple will open it up to more kinds of apps. We all know this is to preserve battery and to prevent the phone from being bogged down (like an underpowered desktop) by a bunch of background apps.

 

[deeddawg]

No need to guess. Multitasking is available for all audio apps. Do you know what the other Multitasking APIs are?

Google is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_(Apple)#Multitasking

Before iOS 4, multitasking was limited to a selection of the applications Apple included on the devices. Apple worried that running multiple third-party applications simultaneously would drain batteries too quickly. Starting with iOS 4, on 3rd-generation and newer iOS devices, multitasking is supported through seven background APIs:

• Background audio
• Voice over IP
• Background location
• Push notifications
• Local notifications
• Task finishing
• Fast app switching

 

[Phil A.]

that OP is right. take an IM client for example. it will time out after x amount of minutes when not used. in order for the application company to ensure you still recieve messages they have to store the messages temporarily on their servers! that, to me is not real multitasking.

Personally, I think push notifications work better than desktop os style multi-tasking in this instance: Your device is not wasting resources (i.e. battery power) hanging around waiting for a message to come in. With an IM app, the thing you want it to do is show you an incoming message when you get one and let you respond to it, which is exactly what you get from push notifications.

 

[blackNBUK]

Indeed it is, with people thinking that programs that save their state, and stop are actually multitasking.

Crazy isn't it?

Audio apps I guess if the exception.

Note: I'm not saying I want proper multitasking at all, I'm just saying we should not let Apple pull the wool over people's eyes and attempt to redefine what multitasking means.

If you employed staff in a shop and as soon as you looked at one of them the others all froze in their tracks, you would not call them multitasking.

I don't care it does not do it. Just call it something else.

Audio Apps are not the only exception, there are a bunch of them. Background Apps can, for example, receive Skype calls, finish uploading or downloading files, give you Sat-Nav directions, log a GPS track and give you todo items based on where you are. The "exceptions" cover most of the common tasks that users would want to multitask on a mobile device. The big exceptions are tasks that involve receiving network alerts that don't fit into the Push Notifications model and downloading data based on a network alert (i.e. Getting new Kindle, RSS Reader, Instapaper content)

As to whether Apple should be calling this multitasking, I think that limiting the definition of multitasking to only manual, desktop style multitasking is rather short sighted. If the user can get the same end result (listen to internet radio while surfing, not have to wait for a file to finish uploading) why not call it the same thing? Plus for many users I would say that Apple's automatic approach to multitasking is simply better. There is no need to worry about quitting Apps to avoid running out of memory or battery life. I bet many iPhone users are getting the benefit of multitasking without realising they are doing anything.

 

[blow45]

there are no real or unreal multitaskings, there are diff. implementations, and I think apple's implementation isn't just proper multitasking, it's advanced multitasking in that it has been rethought with max efficiency in mind. Anyone can stick 3gbs of memory on a wintel tablet, and have "real" multitasking, but someone doing it blazingly fast with only 256 mb (the first ipad) that's something one needs to work on, and apple did.

 

[PhoneI]

It has got a Dual Core processor. Any word about getting real multitasking now?

As I type this on my iPad, with Pandora playing in the background. If only I can multitask.

 

[darngooddesign]

If you employed staff in a shop and as soon as you looked at one of them the others all froze in their tracks, you would not call them multitasking.

I don't care it does not do it. Just call it something else.

That's not completely correct. Assuming HR has told your employees how to multitask, what would happen is you are looking at employee 1 who is walking around and humming a song. You then look at employee 2 and employee 1 stops walking around but continues humming. Employee 1 is still doing the thing you wanted him to do, humming.

Or in the case of VOIP. Employee 1 is your receptionist. You look at employee 2, and your receptionist stops walking around, but is still able answer your company's phone.

 

[blow45]

you are elaborating too much, some people don't want to get it, although they can, too bad.

 

[sniffies]

OS functionality, which multitasking is part of, has little to do with hardware, which is the new iPad 2.

So you should ask this question when iOS 5 is released, not iPad 2.

 

[DoFoT9]

Personally, I think push notifications work better than desktop os style multi-tasking in this instance: Your device is not wasting resources (i.e. battery power) hanging around waiting for a message to come in. With an IM app, the thing you want it to do is show you an incoming message when you get one and let you respond to it, which is exactly what you get from push notifications.

somewhat. take Colloquy for instance - you get push notifications for 10minutes, and then it times out! how useful is that? (not very).

what annoys me is a large majority of the push servers time out anyway, after 3 or x amount of hours. not worth paying for if they arent going to work how i want them to.

 

[Androidpwns]

Nope. Just real efficient multitasking.
The itoys will never see real multitasking. Apple is bringing iOS style multitasking to osx with lion this summer.

OMG, i really hope not

 

[EssentialParado]

Indeed it is, with people thinking that programs that save their state, and stop are actually multitasking.

Crazy isn't it?

Audio apps I guess if the exception.

Note: I'm not saying I want proper multitasking at all, I'm just saying we should not let Apple pull the wool over people's eyes and attempt to redefine what multitasking means.

If you employed staff in a shop and as soon as you looked at one of them the others all froze in their tracks, you would not call them multitasking.

I don't care it does not do it. Just call it something else.

As dgd observed, this isn't an accurate analogy at all.

Apple's solution would be more akin to giving all your employees things to do, and then they go home when they're finished. Much more efficient than the alternative, which would be telling an employee to stack shelves and another employee to send off some letters, but you don't give them any other tasks for a week, except for that whole week they're eating all your food.

 

[mac jones]

I don't know much , and i may be wrong, but it seems to me that Apple knows what they are doing regarding this issue.

It's similar to tightly controlling what goes into the app store.

Things can get out of control, mainly by apps that want center stage with limited resources. It's too random.

The OS's that allow a wild west, open source approach, are going to be less stable.

Don't know.

(told you I din't know much)

 

[hayesk]

Nope. Just real efficient multitasking.
The itoys will never see real multitasking. Apple is bringing iOS style multitasking to osx with lion this summer.

Are you a troll or just ignorant of computing technology?

iOS devices won't have full multitasking because:
- they don't have fast storage for swap space
- full multitasking takes up more CPU and thus drains your battery.

 

[jclardy]

does it pain you not to have some apps supporting saved state and some not and it's pretty much a gamble that while you're doing that one important thing on an app that someone doesn't call you otherwise it's hasta la vista. apple should make this a global thing rather than depend on developers to implement "saved state" support

Actually it is a global thing, dev's just have to build with the 4.0 SDK and their app supports fast app switching, so you can quickly switch between your last used apps.

It is not required to implement save state once the app gets bumped out of RAM however, which happens more often on iPad because of its limited RAM compared to iPhone 4.

 

[sphoenix]

It has got a Dual Core processor. Any word about getting real multitasking now?

Wait for iOS 4.5 or 5.0 or whatever it'll be. That's bound to have some multi-tasking improvements.

 

[whyhellojoe]

This has nothing to do with Apple. Its the developers responsibility to implement this in their app. There are plenty of docs in apples documentation to show a dev how to do this.

problem is, i wish apple would make it a requirement to implement these features for any apps that are updated since x date. at the very bare minimum, saved state