Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

slapppy

macrumors 65816
Mar 20, 2008
1,227
42
Whatever man.

I don't have an agenda, except that I want the phone I love so much to totally kick the ever loving @#$%^ out of ALL the competition. :D

But in all seriousness, you are the one playing with words and semantics, not me.

I NEVER said the phone can't multi-task. It can. I can listen to iPod while using the stop watch to time my run, no problem. I can play with email while voice recording, no problem.

I get that, I really do. And I also get the risk of just allowing any app to be running in the background.

All I am saying is, that saying the phone can FULLY multi-task is at least a gross over statement, if not, flat out wrong.

Why do some iPhone lovers have to keep making excuses for this limitation of the iPhone instead of admitting it is a limitation and moving on?
That works for me.

I thought Apple reviewed all new apps anyway before they released them?

"that saying the phone can FULLY multi-task is at least a gross over statement, if not, flat out wrong."

Yes its "can" fully multitask as already shown to you. Read it carefully. "can" not "cannot", no "maybe", not "because it has to have Pandora"... can multitask. Period.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
Ugh. Everyone (pro & against Multitasking), please understand this:

MULTITASKING on the iPhone is inevitable. It's just a matter of time. If it wasn't, our Macs would be stuck with cooperative multitasking today. So, it's coming maybe not 4.0, maybe not even 5.0, but eventually it will.

So, beyond music & IMing, what benefits are there in multitasking? How about one:

Opening more than one email at a time to compare and contrast (I do this everyday on the desktop), quickly on the fly switching to something else, then back to those two or more e-mails. Multitasking/Background tasks aren't only about 3rd party music apps and doing something else simultaneously, but it's also about combining tasks between different applications together.

You do this ALL THE TIME on your desktop, the Palm Pre is starting to do this, you can d*mn bet that the iPhone will do this eventually.

So again, those who are poo-poohing Multitasking/Background processes right now? Guess what, deep inside, you know you want it and you know it will come.

Like the thread OP mentioned, I'm going to put my money down on this, but the way Apple will implement Multitasking on the iPhone will be through Expose. Count on it.

w00master

I've only noticed one post in this thread "poo-poohing Multitasking/Background processes". I think you are preaching to the choir! :)
 

w00master

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,126
345
I've only noticed one post in this thread "poo-poohing Multitasking/Background processes". I think you are preaching to the choir! :)

Perhaps not as blatantly as other "missing features" of the iPhone, but it's there and it's a whole lot more subtle. The key line that these "poo-poohers" say is this:

"Besides IMing & Music apps, what use is there for Background/Multitasking?"

Trust me, right NOW they are poo-poohing it, b/c Apple hasn't done it yet. The moment that Apple does allow this they'll be saying:

APPLE IS DA GOD! THEY INVENTED MULTITASKING ON THE IPHONE!

w00master
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
But only for Apple's apps, if you think they won't eventually extend this to 3rd party developers, then I don't know what to say to you.

The iPhone OS is constantly evolving and growing (as well as the hardware) *and* their competitors. If you truly think that the iPhone won't EVENTUALLY have Multitasking, then I don't know what to say to you. Additionally, if you honestly can't think of any USE of multitasking on the iPhone, then how do you use your desktop then? One app at a time?

Users become more sophisticated with their devices. It happened on the desktop, it'll happen on the phone as well.

w00master

Maybe you should read the thread that you are responding to. Or at least the post you are responding to. You claimed the iPhone uses cooperative multitasking. It does not. It uses preemptive multitasking. And it does so currently, no "EVENTUALLY" about it.

I already stated earlier in the thread that I would bet on third-party background processes by the end of next summer.
 

w00master

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,126
345
Maybe you should read the thread that you are responding to. Or at least the post you are responding to. You claimed the iPhone uses cooperative multitasking. It does not. It uses preemptive multitasking. And it does so currently, no "EVENTUALLY" about it.

I already stated earlier in the thread that I would bet on third-party background processes by the end of next summer.


I *never* claimed that iPhone does "cooperative multitasking." Show me a SINGLE thread where I mentioned that. I used the *analogy* of *MAC* Cooperative Multitasking (see a few posts up), but if you noticed I said Mac and not iPhone.

The point is about THIRD PARTY APPS as well as the UI. It seems to me that you weren't reading my posts.

w00master
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
I *never* claimed that iPhone does "cooperative multitasking." Show me a SINGLE thread where I mentioned that. I used the *analogy* of *MAC* Cooperative Multitasking (see a few posts up), but if you noticed I said Mac and not iPhone.

The point is about THIRD PARTY APPS as well as the UI. It seems to me that you weren't reading my posts.

w00master

Sorry! I didn't mean "you", I meant the post that I was responding to (below).

The way the iPhone does (cooperative) multitasking is like building a desktop on top of DOS and call it an operating system.

You responded to my response to that post.
 

Rat-Boy

macrumors 65816
Jul 28, 2008
1,184
15
Georgia
"that saying the phone can FULLY multi-task is at least a gross over statement, if not, flat out wrong."

Yes its "can" fully multitask as already shown to you. Read it carefully. "can" not "cannot", no "maybe", not "because it has to have Pandora"... can multitask. Period.
No, it can't.
 

slapppy

macrumors 65816
Mar 20, 2008
1,227
42
By what definition of "multitasking"?

Thats what he doesn't understand, because it doesn't conform to his definition or agenda. Pandora has to run on the iPhone in the background, then he will say the iPhone can Multitask. :p
 

Goona

macrumors 68020
Mar 11, 2009
2,268
0
Gosh your silly. So unless you can run "Pandora" in the background you can't multitask.

The poster listed apps running in the background, doing task. I can use VoiceRecorder while doing task. OH wait that doesn't count because its not Pandora. His definition is correct. If the definition said: Multitask is true only if you can run Pandora in the background then yes. or Multitask is true if only 3rd party apps are allowed to run in the background then yes.

Well so far thats not the definition. So you FAIL.


You guys are getting silly about this.

The main reason that we have heard for multitasking is Pandora, is that all people do on their phones all day, run pandora in the background, lol.
 

w00master

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,126
345
Thats what he doesn't understand, because it doesn't conform to his definition or agenda. Pandora has to run on the iPhone in the background, then he will say the iPhone can Multitask. :p

To be fair, the iPhone barely multitasks, but does do background tasks (except for 3rd party apps). Besides iPod (aka music), the iPhone doesn't (yet) have a metaphor for multitasking, e.g. rapidly switching between applications. Everything is centered around the "Home" button/quitting even for apps that still run in background.

That's how I separate the differences between multitasking & background tasks. They are related (which is why I usually lump them together), but conceptually they are different.

w00master
 

slapppy

macrumors 65816
Mar 20, 2008
1,227
42
To be fair, the iPhone barely multitasks, but does do background tasks (except for 3rd party apps). Besides iPod (aka music), the iPhone doesn't (yet) have a metaphor for multitasking, e.g. rapidly switching between applications. Everything is centered around the "Home" button/quitting even for apps that still run in background.

That's how I separate the differences between multitasking & background tasks. They are related (which is why I usually lump them together), but conceptually they are different.

w00master

No, it can't "barely", it "can", as it does this already. Its not barely, maybe, possibly, probably... Unless you define "running Pandora in the background as multitasking for a definition".
 

Eso

macrumors 68020
Aug 14, 2008
2,026
917
How many times do we have to discuss this?

The iPhone has absolutely one instance of actual multi-tasking - double-clicking the home button to bring up iPod controls.

Everything, everything, else is background processes. There's a difference - please just get it because I'm tired of harping on it. In brief, multi-tasking is having multiple apps open simultaneously - please leave your Websters-Mirriam-Meaningless dictionary entries on your other browser tabs. You may refer to my explanation of multi-tasking.

There needs to be a good balance between background processes, push notifications, and multi-tasking. Push was introduced as an alternative to background processes, not mutli-tasking. If you don't believe me (i.e. remember), watch the keynote that introduced 2.0 and push. This is a great solution for 3rd-party apps and I really think that background processes should always be limited to default apps.

Third-party background processes is a terrible idea! It is really not in the user's best interest when developers can decide to have their apps continue as a background process even though the user explicitly closes them as if they were something so great and important. This is one thing that makes new Windows machines so terrible. I can think of so few programs on the Windows platform that don't add a process to run at start-up. Pretty soon your status bar is loaded up with a dozen icons indicating running processes for programs you don't even have running as a task (in a window). On the other hand, sers do want, an SMS messages to send after closing the app.

Push has it's limitations. Multi-tasking opens up a lot of functionality beyond opening apps up faster and to the same screen. Among other things, it allows the user to selectively run any application as a background process. This is espeically important for at least streaming media and turn-by-turn navigation apps, if not many others. Now, despite the FUD that gets tossed around these forums, multi-tasking doesn't inherently drain the battery any faster than not having it. Of course, if you are continuously running demanding apps, it should be no surprise your battery drains quicker - just like if you were talking on the phone or surfing on Safari for 5 hours. Most apps, however, have no affect on battery life in the background as they won't be processing anything.
 

slapppy

macrumors 65816
Mar 20, 2008
1,227
42
How many times do we have to discuss this?

The iPhone has absolutely one instance of actual multi-tasking - double-clicking the home button to bring up iPod controls.

Even if thats your only example, thanks for confirming that the iPhone "can" multitask. :)
 

Goona

macrumors 68020
Mar 11, 2009
2,268
0
I think for 3rd party multitasking to work Apple would have to overhaul the user interface.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
To be fair, the iPhone barely multitasks, but does do background tasks (except for 3rd party apps). Besides iPod (aka music), the iPhone doesn't (yet) have a metaphor for multitasking, e.g. rapidly switching between applications. Everything is centered around the "Home" button/quitting even for apps that still run in background.

That's how I separate the differences between multitasking & background tasks. They are related (which is why I usually lump them together), but conceptually they are different.

w00master

With computers, multitasking is the ability to run multiple processes at the same time. Like Rat-Boy, you are changing the actual definition.
 

w00master

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,126
345
No, it can't "barely", it "can", as it does this already. Its not barely, maybe, possibly, probably... Unless you define "running Pandora in the background as multitasking for a definition".

Again, you misread what I wrote. I'm distinguishing my definitions of background tasks and multitasking. They are related (as I stated in my previous post) but they are not necessarily the same.

So, based on this, besides the iPod which both runs in background and is true example of multitasking on the iPhone, what background tasks are you able to truly multitask with on the phone? None.

Without "quitting" the app, can you rapidly switch between Mail & SMS? Nope.

Without "quitting" the app, can you rapidly switch between SMS & Safari? Only partially. You get that annoying "pop up" which quickly switches you to the SMS app, but there's no way of quickly getting back to Safari.

This is what I mean by saying: there's not a true metaphor on the iPhone for multitasking. There is none. It's quit and go to another app. That's it.

Now *background tasks?* Yes, iPhone does and can do this: Mail, iPod, Messaging, they all do this.

w00master
 

w00master

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,126
345
With computers, multitasking is the ability to run multiple processes at the same time. Like Rat-Boy, you are changing the actual definition.

I'm not deny that. I'm talking about a layman's definition between "background tasks" and "multitasking."

When I think of multitasking, I think of rapidly moving between applications or items within an application. Can you name me one example on the iPhone where you don't quit to move between applications (besides the iPod)? You cannot. That's what I mean by multitasking.

I do not doubt that my actual definition isn't correct. I'm using a layman's definition to distinguish between the two.

w00master
 

w00master

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,126
345
Third-party background processes is a terrible idea! It is really not in the user's best interest when developers can decide to have their apps continue as a background process even though the user explicitly closes them as if they were something so great and important. This is one thing that makes new Windows machines so terrible. I can think of so few programs on the Windows platform that don't add a process to run at start-up. Pretty soon your status bar is loaded up with a dozen icons indicating running processes for programs you don't even have running as a task (in a window). On the other hand, sers do want, an SMS messages to send after closing the app.

Please note that I agree with most of what you wrote, but this statement I'm wondering about. How does OS X on the Mac not do the same? I have plenty of Third Party apps that their developers chose to run in background as well as part of the startup process. Heck, Mac OS X even has a similar thing to the status bar... just look up at top.

w00master
 

slapppy

macrumors 65816
Mar 20, 2008
1,227
42
Again, you misread what I wrote. I'm distinguishing my definitions of background tasks and multitasking. They are related (as I stated in my previous post) but they are not necessarily the same.

So, based on this, besides the iPod which both runs in background and is true example of multitasking on the iPhone, what background tasks are you able to truly multitask with on the phone? None.

Without "quitting" the app, can you rapidly switch between Mail & SMS? Nope.

Without "quitting" the app, can you rapidly switch between SMS & Safari? Only partially. You get that annoying "pop up" which quickly switches you to the SMS app, but there's no way of quickly getting back to Safari.

This is what I mean by saying: there's not a true metaphor on the iPhone for multitasking. There is none. It's quit and go to another app. That's it.

Now *background tasks?* Yes, iPhone does and can do this: Mail, iPod, Messaging, they all do this.

w00master

Again your trying to fit the definition to your liking, just like the other guy who's confused. You've already confirmed the fact that it "can". So thanks.
 

w00master

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,126
345
Again your trying to fit the definition to your liking, just like the other guy who's confused. You've already confirmed the fact that it "can". So thanks.

Slappy-

Give me a break dude. Seriously. Multitasking is *not* the same as background tasks.

Again, I listed some examples above. Show me how you can QUICKLY SWITCH BETWEEN THE APPS (aka MULTITASKING) without QUITTING/HITTING THE HOME BUTTON.

Guess what, You CAN'T.

Multitasking =/= Background Tasks.

w00master
 

slapppy

macrumors 65816
Mar 20, 2008
1,227
42
Slappy-

Give me a break dude. Seriously. Multitasking is *not* the same as background tasks.

Again, I listed some examples above. Show me how you can QUICKLY SWITCH BETWEEN THE APPS (aka MULTITASKING) without QUITTING/HITTING THE HOME BUTTON.

Guess what, You CAN'T.

Multitasking =/= Background Tasks.

w00master

Using the home button as function to navigate between apps is incorrect for your selected definition. I can say, lets add a button on the side to move between apps, or hey, lets put a toggle on the bottom, or lets do a shake command. You don't understand it. The iPhone "can" and is fully capable of multitasking. You cannot apply an absolute rule that it can't, like that other guy who doesn't get it either.
 

w00master

macrumors 65816
Jul 18, 2002
1,126
345
Using the home button as function to navigate between apps is incorrect for your selected definition. I can say, lets add a button on the side to move between apps, or hey, lets put a toggle on the bottom, or lets do a shake command. You don't understand it. The iPhone "can" and is fully capable of multitasking. You cannot apply an absolute rule that it can't, like that other guy who doesn't get it either.

I never claimed that the iPhone wasn't capable of multitasking. I was telling you the differences between BACKGROUND TASKS and MULTITASKING.

So, I'll spell it out to you this way: you cannot have multitasking without background tasks, but you can have background tasks without multitasking.

When you switch between apps, effectively the app that you were using before (although may be running in BACKGROUND) is no longer there for you. It's as if you have "quit" the app (in most situations you have). In order to get back to the original app, you have to quit the app you are using right now (by hitting the home button), then find the former application to run it.

I'd like to be able to have more than one email open simultaneously. I'd like to be able to group TASKS together and quickly move between them. This is something you can do now on your Mac/Windows/Linux Desktop. This is available to some smartphones (Pre does this the best), but as of yet the iPhone can Background Task but cannot truly Multitask (except for the iPod).

w00master
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.