Instantaneously? No. But negligible to the user.
Does the time you spend managing your RAM happen instantaneously?
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.
iOS 7 'Close All' Multitasking!
- Thread starter rsnapeuk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Instantaneously? No. But negligible to the user.
Does the time you spend managing your RAM happen instantaneously?
Restart?
It's not something that I would ever expect to be added. Apple has made it clear that they don't believe that managing background processes should be the users job.
Yet they make this brand new giant interface with fancy flick to close apps animation........yeaahhhhhhh.
Which has very little to do with managing background processes as most apps don't run the the background. The new animation is about task switching. Same as the old system.
Exactly. So why do we need a GIANT thumbnail showing an old "non-live" view of an app full of frustrating animations that prohibit quick use. Everything bounces around before it registers any tap. A problem plaguing all the iOS 7 animations.
The average user has no idea that they can manually quit apps from the task switcher.
Not this user.
Nope, but I can do it when I need to, and it's much more efficient than the way apple does it.
Look, it's great in theory, that the os just automatically takes care of all that. But it doesn't work as well as you would hope, and that's the point.
Most iPhone customers don't even notice that you can close individual apps. Most iPhones aren't being used by developers/IT folks.
I doubt that, given that the task switcher is a well-documented feature. And even if it were true, that would be even more reason to give the user a simple way to close all problematic background apps that are draining the battery. Look, I'm a developer myself and still had to resort to cumbersome trial and error to find the app that was heating up my phone.
Good one!
Could you please supply us the objective statistics that lead you to this conclusion?
The task switcher is well documented, but I would be surprised if more than 15% of people know that you can quit apps from it (completely made up statistic based on knowing many people with iPhones).
As a developer, you have access to tools that should make it much easier to find mis-behaving apps than the standard user.
It is perhaps not very well programmed, but not misbehaving. This is completely inside of Apple's guidelines for certain types of apps. And what is the standard user without access to debug tools supposed to do in your opinion?
I don't understand what the issue is for the anti-"close all" folks. Just add a button or some gesture and done. It is not a problem at all to implement this, and it can solve real problems for the user. There are plenty of complaints about excessive battery usage, and I bet a good part of them are caused by applications that are active in the background without the average user having any way of knowing about it.
I don't think that apple would add a close all button because that would perpetuate the myth that closing apps manually improves battery life. iOS is very strict in what apps can do in the background, and when and for how long they can do it.
When iOS sends a memory warning to an app it gives it a chance to do whatever the heck it needs to do before iOS closes it. I like to think of it as an "incoming game" message. There can be a slight delay when waiting for the background apps to close. this might be what you are noticing, but since it is less than a second of waiting I don't see that as a very good reason either.
Simply, there is no good reason for a clear all button, and if you have a misbehaving app that is running in the background and wasting battery, report it to the developer, because it's not a fault with iOS, and not a problem that should be addressed with changes to the OS. It's that kind of ideology of working around the bugs that caused IE6 to do so much damage.
When iOS sends a memory warning to an app it gives it a chance to do whatever the heck it needs to do before iOS closes it. I like to think of it as an "incoming game" message. There can be a slight delay when waiting for the background apps to close. this might be what you are noticing, but since it is less than a second of waiting I don't see that as a very good reason either.
Simply, there is no good reason for a clear all button, and if you have a misbehaving app that is running in the background and wasting battery, report it to the developer, because it's not a fault with iOS, and not a problem that should be addressed with changes to the OS. It's that kind of ideology of working around the bugs that caused IE6 to do so much damage.
If that were the reason they wouldn't have implemented any way at all to close apps (and make the task switcher just a simple "history"). But strangely they did. Apparently they think there is a need in some cases.
I think there is. And I haven't heard a rational reason against doing it so far.
That's great. It doesn't solve the problem for the user though if the developer doesn't happen to be responsive or has closed shop.
Agreed. When I pick up the kid's iPod it would be nice to remove all the apps from the Recently Used Apps list at once instead of removing them one by one. The only reason I do it is that because the iPod's performance is poor when many apps are in the list. Sorry, Apple... It is what it is.
Except none of those apps are actually consuming any real memory or CPU most likely.
My "running" programs:
What happens when I press home while in FB.
I'd also like to note that Camera or MobileSafari werent listed as running in the activity monitor. They just happened to show there because I had ran them the previous evening and are there as a shortcut.
So you have a working version of Facebook. Or they actually fixed the app. Big deal... It was used as an example because one or more versions of it has been found to cause trouble. Other apps may do the same. And thats why we want a killswitch.
Uh, well... My facebook executable is the EXACT same as yours if you have the most updated one. Compiled code doesn't vary from device to device. Either way, I've offered some pretty empirical evidence. Don't want to believe your lying eyes is your choice.
The apps don't have a choice in the matter, you could have the absolute worst and wasteful code in the world, and as soon as you press the home button iOS doesn't give two hoots to the matter, it takes all of it's memory and all of it's objects and compresses them into an unreadable, unrunable little package (think zip file) and writes that to disk.
Well I dont have Facebook anymore due to it killing my battery. I now resort to Safari for it. So it could be the issue is fixed. I dont know.
All im saying is that your find doesnt apply to all; http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/new...ery-drain.html
So while you, and probably a lot of others, may be content with ios in its current state, a killswitch would be benefitial for the rest of us, who dont trust that Apples, or third party developers code is always perfect.
After shutting down facebook, and later deleting it entirely, my battery lasts for almost twice as long as it did before. Thats pretty significant
----------
Thats not true at all. Several app types will be allowed to function in the background. Examples are navigation, voip and mediaplayers(?)
May be allowed, not will be allowed, apps request a specific amount of time in the background, it's not guaranteed, and only so long as they are actually performing specific tasks using predeclared API, for a set limited amount of requested time, not using several trigger API like updating graphics that will instantly terminate a background app and only so long as a foreground task does not need the resources.
Except with the new reworked multitasking system, this is no longer valid (once apps update to support it)