For organizational purposes? To launch apps? etc... I'm not sure where you are going here.
Because you have a limited amount of RAM.
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.
Multitasking on iphone is retarded
- Thread starter djsound
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For organizational purposes? To launch apps? etc... I'm not sure where you are going here.
Because you have a limited amount of RAM.
Agreed, the main reason for the double-tap tray is to be able to switch between recently used apps while in the middle of an app. In cases where you would need to navigate around the home screen, it can be faster, especially when a double-tap on the home button isn't quite the same as two taps on two different things. It addresses the scenario of: Writing a mail, switch to Safari to grab link, switch back to mail to paste the link. Not so much to solve normal navigation issues.
Agreed again. And the "multi-task bar" is more a "recently used list". If something is in the list, you don't really know if it is doing background work, suspended, or even in RAM just by the fact that it is there. Apps in there don't always go into the background and suspend. Those that suspend can be kicked out of RAM to make room for other apps. And if it is doing actual background work, there are other ways to tell what it is doing (play icon, or location icon in the status bar, or the call bar for VoIP). All that you can really tell is that if it isn't in the recently used list, then it isn't suspended, in-RAM or using resources.
Would someone be so kind as to briefly explain how the multitasking works with no difference in battery life? I have a fairly solid idea, but would like to see whether others are on the same page.
At times, I notice that when I kill certain RAM hogging apps, it makes a noticeable difference in my battery life. As a result, it's left me wondering whether all of the apps released are truly optimized to multitask at the same level or are some just better designed to be more effective.
At times, I notice that when I kill certain RAM hogging apps, it makes a noticeable difference in my battery life. As a result, it's left me wondering whether all of the apps released are truly optimized to multitask at the same level or are some just better designed to be more effective.
Apple's design is this: If you aren't "signed up" with the OS to do something in the background, it suspends you. End of story. You aren't given CPU cycles, events don't come in, the app is frozen. So as long as the app is frozen, all it's doing is consuming RAM, which has to be powered at all times anyways.
Where differences come in is based on what services an app might sign up to use in the background, and how well it does it.
- VoIP will keep the radio and CPU active, so being on a call is just as power intensive as if it was a cell call.
- Audio may or may not be all that power consuming. Differences are in implementations, or the need to decode it themselves (wma) versus letting the hardware do it (mp3/mp4/m4a), or if they are streaming (Pandora) or not. Letting the hardware decode saves power, as does not having to stream the audio.
- Location services (Loopt, Trapster, TomTom with a route, etc) are extremely battery hungry. This is because the GPS unit is a radio, and just as power hungry as the cell or WiFi radios. Any apps that use this in the background will drain the battery pretty quick.
- Task Completion varies a ton. This is supposed to be a means to let apps finish up a task after you leave it. Say I tell NewsRack to refresh my RSS feeds, and then switch to a different app. NewsRack will finish the refresh before it gets suspended by the OS. This also applies to a couple IRC apps, and file management apps like Filer that will try to finish a file download in the background. The OS will honor a request for task completion, but will only honor it for up to 10 minutes. At 10 minutes, the app is suspended, end of story.
So it really depends on the app and what it is doing. RAM hunger doesn't factor into it as heavily as you think (and I'm not sure what evidence you have to say that all the apps you are having problems with are RAM hungry). There is a bit more work to flush an app out of RAM, but it should be getting offset by the ability to 'cache' apps in RAM and not have to read from flash into RAM every time you launch an app.
The best solution to this problem would be an option you can turn off and on, when you leave an app to have a pop up that asks if you want to move this app to the multitasking bar or quit the program.
Its pretty simple IMO
Its pretty simple IMO
I'm pretty sure it would get very annoying very quickly to have to respond to a popup every time you pressed the home button to leave an app...
Why would you need / want this?
What benefit does this provide?
Why don't you just use the device the way it was designed to be used, which, coincidentally, is the way which provides the most benefit to the user?
The short version is the most apps are suspended to RAM when you switch from the app. They are no longer running. When the system needs more RAM, it simply closes the suspended apps (probably in order of least recently used). So the next time you start that app, it will be as if you had closed it completely.
There are three main exceptions that will affect battery life. Audio apps can run in the background while playing audio. VOIP and real-time navigation apps can also run in the background while utilizing their respective services.
The only other way to run in the background is to use task completion. Basically, the apps asks the system for an extra few minutes to complete a task after the app is switched away from. For example, the Flickr app can ask for 5 minutes to complete the upload of a photo before it is suspended.
That's far too complex.
Apps need to know what will happen to them if they are closed.
They can't work in a "sometimes suspended, sometimes killed" model.
Generally it will use more resources and battery power to open something up once you have "killed" it from the Multitasking Bar than it would if you hadn't killed it.
I do like Apple's approach to simplicity, but I think they need to provide a bit of visibility on what's going on in the background if users are interested.
Their approach to multitasking is pretty good - it doesn't almost everything I could want. However...
It would be nice to be able to go into the Settings and see not just what apps are currently loaded in the background, but stats about them. e.g. how much RAM they're taking up, whether they have background tasks scheduled etc. I don't mind if this info is hidden away. It would just be nice if it was accessible SOMEWHERE.
Their approach to multitasking is pretty good - it doesn't almost everything I could want. However...
It would be nice to be able to go into the Settings and see not just what apps are currently loaded in the background, but stats about them. e.g. how much RAM they're taking up, whether they have background tasks scheduled etc. I don't mind if this info is hidden away. It would just be nice if it was accessible SOMEWHERE.
Do you mean if you've got your device plugged into your mac? Or independently from the mac-side dev tools? Is there an app or something?
The best I've come across is SwitcherMod (and Cydia apps like it). I've got it set to make apps not in RAM or in the background transparent in the multitasking bar.
Personally, I think Apple's implementation of multitasking, although not true, is so brilliant that many people don't really understand how it works. They've really made it so transparent that it's confusing to those who seek to understand the underpinnings of tech. The upside is that for the vast majority of users, all they know is that the device is faster and can now play music and navigate in the background.
I use multitasking (or fast app switching, whatever people want to call it) and it's really good with thing like IM and web browsing and games. One thing that was pointed out to me and I have noticed ever since is that leaving the Photos app open seemed to drain my battery faster. Not sure if this was real or just my perception of it. I've started closing all apps I'm not using anyway, just cos I find it easier to navigate the app switching bar that way. Not OCD
multi-tasking
ok... lets meet half way
What about additional option in settings, weather the user could choose to keep the recently opened apps open, or close them after you click Home. (if for some reason they did not want/nor bothered about resuming the app)
This would probably be good.. I'd use this too.
ok... lets meet half way
What about additional option in settings, weather the user could choose to keep the recently opened apps open, or close them after you click Home. (if for some reason they did not want/nor bothered about resuming the app)
This would probably be good.. I'd use this too.
Fun fact. You can use multi-touch to close the apps from the tray faster.
Or, you can just disable it if you don't like it.
How many apps are you using per day that it becomes a problem to clear them out? It doesn't take much time.
In fact, I think... (key word think), that you would use less processing power launching from a save state, rather than re-loading the app each time, essentially increasing battery life by just a bit. Especially if you're a heavy user.
Sidenote: Disabling multitasking not only makes apps launch slightly faster. Talking about .2-.4 seconds. It makes the UI slightly faster as well. (Closing folders, launching closing apps.)
I usually disable multitasking during the work week since I'm not as social, and actually use the phone part, rather than using it as a toy.
But it's up to preference. Still think it works well.
Or, you can just disable it if you don't like it.
How many apps are you using per day that it becomes a problem to clear them out? It doesn't take much time.
In fact, I think... (key word think), that you would use less processing power launching from a save state, rather than re-loading the app each time, essentially increasing battery life by just a bit. Especially if you're a heavy user.
Sidenote: Disabling multitasking not only makes apps launch slightly faster. Talking about .2-.4 seconds. It makes the UI slightly faster as well. (Closing folders, launching closing apps.)
I usually disable multitasking during the work week since I'm not as social, and actually use the phone part, rather than using it as a toy.
But it's up to preference. Still think it works well.
Multi tasking on iOS is just fine in its limited ways.
Coming from android where hardly any apps use push you have to have your FB and twitter apps polling for new info at a often interval just to make sure you get notifications. The result is all these apps running in the background polling for data that i dont really need until i open the app, and doing nothing but running down the battery more. I dont personally have an issue with the way the iphone handles it background tasks, i have not run into one instance that made me curse the method Apple has chosen.
My android phone i had to charge twice a day vs. the once a day with my iphone. If Apples multi tasking is "retarded" and makes the battery life last twice a long then i'll pick an iphone anyday over an android with "true" multi tasking.
Coming from android where hardly any apps use push you have to have your FB and twitter apps polling for new info at a often interval just to make sure you get notifications. The result is all these apps running in the background polling for data that i dont really need until i open the app, and doing nothing but running down the battery more. I dont personally have an issue with the way the iphone handles it background tasks, i have not run into one instance that made me curse the method Apple has chosen.
My android phone i had to charge twice a day vs. the once a day with my iphone. If Apples multi tasking is "retarded" and makes the battery life last twice a long then i'll pick an iphone anyday over an android with "true" multi tasking.
Depends on what you're talking about, since unfortunately Apple often redefines words to fit their current situation.
If you mean an app that's really doing something in the background (audio, data transfers, location), then yes it has to use more battery. There's no magic way around that.
If you mean the "freezing" of an app in memory (assuming it's compiled for it) when you switch to another app, then they're just doing the same thing that Android was doing: keep as many apps suspended in memory as possible, for quicker restart if/when you choose it again.
Interestingly, Windows Mobile was designed in a very similar manner back in 2000: apps always stayed in memory until another app needed the RAM. The difference was that the app itself was responsible for giving up RAM when asked to by the OS, instead of the OS forcing the issue. Alas, most WM apps didn't play nice and that led to problems.
I wouldn't call iPhone's faux multi-tasking "retarded" but it is less than intelligent. It's just another way Apple has dumbed down iPhone, hopefully we will see real multi-tasking on the next iPhone version.