It is multitasking it is running background processes. The problem with you and your cohorts is that your trying to apply a desktop metaphor/behavior on the iPhone. Which is a truly new OS with a completely new user interface and interaction. Thats the problem you guys can't seem to get over. The iPhone "can" multitask fine, it "can" do background processes. You just need to stop thinking desktop OS.
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 the iPhone
- Thread starter SeanWalsh16
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is multitasking it is running background processes. The problem with you and your cohorts is that your trying to apply a desktop metaphor/behavior on the iPhone. Which is a truly new OS with a completely new user interface and interaction. Thats the problem you guys can't seem to get over. The iPhone "can" multitask fine, it "can" do background processes. You just need to stop thinking desktop OS.
Again, you don't get it. Why should I think of my mobile device differently? Don't you want to be able to rapidly move between applications? Do you want to constantly be stuck with the quit and open app metaphor? I surely don't.
Speaking of which, though I'm not a fan of the Pre, there are *two* things they got right: Multitasking (NOT TALKING ABOUT BACKGROUND TASKS) and Notifications System.
Again my point still stands:
You cannot have Multitasking without Background Tasks, but you can have Background Tasks but not have Multitasking.
w00master
Sure, my beach ball won't go through a basketball hoop. Why should I think this thing won't work exactly like a basketball....
Sure, my beach ball won't go through a basketball hoop. Why should I think this thing won't work exactly like a basketball....
Not getting this metaphor, *shrugs* ahh well.
And there is your problem.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between multitasking and background tasks, but that's a whole 'nother topic of discussion.
We are not disagreeing on multitasking. I don't know why you and your partner slappy are not getting that.
No, I understand perfectly fine and it is you and your partner that are having a tough time with the English language and how a layman would interpret it.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.
Look.
I NEVER EVER stated the iPhone can't multitask. It can. When and with what Apple chooses to let it. I use the VERY limited multitasking the iPhone allows tons of times a week to listen to music and time my work outs. I have said this multiple times in this thread.
However, what we disagree on is the use of the word "full."
You both keep saying the iPhone can "fully multitask" and that is wrong, period.
But I am going to put it another way to see if we can clear it up.
Let's pretend I am an ATT sales rep and Little Johnny came in looking to buy a phone. Now, Little Johnny doesn't know the iPhone from a Xylophone mind you and he is having a hard time deciding on a device. He has also told me he really likes the Palm Pre because it can multitask.
So, being the good sales rep that I am, I proceed to tell Little Johnny that "The iPhone has FULL MULTITASKING." I see the excitement on his face and he is sold. So he buys the iPhone and is happy.
Well, I would FULLY expect to see Little Johnny again, after they bought the phone, to scream at me that I am a liar.
FULL multitasking will imply, to most people not familiar with the device, that it can multitask ANY applications.
That is all I am saying.
Geez.
And a Pre Metaphor..
And a Windows Mobile Metaphor..
Multitasking is not the same as background apps. That is true. Multitasking is also not the ability to "quickly switch between apps without quitting/hitting the home button." It is the ability to run multiple processes at the same time.
You cannot have background apps without multitasking.
How does the word "full" change the meaning of "multitasking" from "ability to run multiple tasks" to "allows third-party background processes"? The iPhone can multitask as many apps as OS X, within it's hardware limitations, of course.
Oh come on already!!
Enough of this nonsense.
You know I am right and that "full" would imply, to just about anyone, that they would be able to run more than one app, no matter the vendor, on the phone.
But whatever.
Fine.
The iPhone "fully multitasks"
On a limited basis, depending on the application.
Call it whatever you want. The bottom line is, the phone would be MUCH better if it could run other apps simultaneously besides just the ones that come on the phone stock.
Also, are you saying that OS X can only run multiple apps at once if they are native to the OS?
Thank God I don't own anything with that garbage on it then...
I completely agree with you.
Of course not. Multitasking is only the ability to run multiple processes at the same time. It is the quantity of apps and how they are managed with respect to the processor that is impacted by the multitasking implementation. Who they were developed by is irrelevant. If Microsoft decided tomorrow that only Microsoft produced code will be sold to Windows XP users and forced you to delete all third party code, it wouldn't change the fact that Windows XP is a fully multitasking OS.
Then leave it at that. You're arguing semantics. You see no difference between the ability to multi-task and the privelage of the OS giving every program the ability to multi-task. Some of us do, and unless you can cite a technical dictionary that proves your point, it's just really not that important considering you agree with Rat-Boy (and myself) about its advantages.
The iPhone can multitask.
It is the OS that determines whether something can multitask - it determines how the CPU runs programs. That fancy graphics you aka springboard you see is running on top of unix. The magical command line "&" has been with Unix since the 70s. Try it on a process to see the iphone multitask anything.
It is the OS that determines whether something can multitask - it determines how the CPU runs programs. That fancy graphics you aka springboard you see is running on top of unix. The magical command line "&" has been with Unix since the 70s. Try it on a process to see the iphone multitask anything.
Then leave it at that. You're arguing semantics. You see no difference between the ability to multi-task and the privelage of the OS giving every program the ability to multi-task. Some of us do, and unless you can cite a technical dictionary that proves your point, it's just really not that important considering you agree with Rat-Boy (and myself) about its advantages.
That's my point. You say that you want every program to have the ability to multitask. You are actually asking for the ability for any program to run in the background. That is not the same thing. When you use the wrong term, it is confusing.Way back at the start of this thread, the OP said he had a proposal for how Apple could implement multitasking. He really meant that he had a proposal for a task switcher. These are two different things.
BTW, the point of this forum is discussion. Please stop telling people when they should leave it.
We want background apps to be able to run, in the background, and a good way to switch between them. It doesn't seem to be confusing for everyone else. Please, cite a technology-specific dictionary concerned with technical terms so that you can prove that you're the one with the right answer. Until then, I'll continue using both apathetically (and with no loss of comprehension to any reasonable person reading this thread). If you find it, I'll gladly change terminology.
I wasn't telling "people", I was telling "a person".
Everyone is going to want something different.
Here is what I personally want.
I want to be able to open an app, say, Flight Control. When an SMS comes in, or something else, I want to be able to go check that and have Flight Control still running.
Then, I want an icon in the top bar to indicate when I have stuff running in the background.
Then, I want to be able to turn my iPhone sideways in to Landscape, and have all the running apps be scrollable much like a combination of cover flow and how Safari handles multiple pages. I would like the X up there in the corner to be able to close the apps.
I would also like there to be a limit so as not to be able to totally destroy the memory of the phone. Say, three apps max and on the fourth, the one not accessed in the longest amount of time closes?
I mean, Apple could totally implement this IF they wanted to.
Of course, they need a way to send apps to the background vs. closing them.
Here is what I personally want.
I want to be able to open an app, say, Flight Control. When an SMS comes in, or something else, I want to be able to go check that and have Flight Control still running.
Then, I want an icon in the top bar to indicate when I have stuff running in the background.
Then, I want to be able to turn my iPhone sideways in to Landscape, and have all the running apps be scrollable much like a combination of cover flow and how Safari handles multiple pages. I would like the X up there in the corner to be able to close the apps.
I would also like there to be a limit so as not to be able to totally destroy the memory of the phone. Say, three apps max and on the fourth, the one not accessed in the longest amount of time closes?
I mean, Apple could totally implement this IF they wanted to.
Of course, they need a way to send apps to the background vs. closing them.
See. You didn't use the work "multitasking" and it turns out to be very clear.
Here are a bunch of definitions from Google.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...f-m9S3Ag&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Two would be "people". Talk about arguing semantics!
Face it: the iPhone doesn't multi-task (with the exception I've mentioned). What is multi-tasking? Running more than one app at a time . In other words, having multiple apps open simultaneously. Here's what the professionals say:
http://gizmodo.com/5126870/in-a-nutshell-palm-pre-vs-iphone-vs-g1
http://mobilitysite.com/2009/01/palmpre-vs-iphone-vs-winmo-vs-android-vs-blackberry-fight/
etc.
http://gizmodo.com/5126870/in-a-nutshell-palm-pre-vs-iphone-vs-g1
http://mobilitysite.com/2009/01/palmpre-vs-iphone-vs-winmo-vs-android-vs-blackberry-fight/
etc.
Who in here said the iPhone could not multitask AT ALL?LOL. Still at it eh. Well hold on I guess I'm imagining things as voice recording is running right now as I'm typing this message here. That's not possible according to some of you.
No one, that's who.
Lord.