A joke named "Multitasking" in 4.2.1

[peled]

I am a Windows User. Never had anything to do with apple's operating systems. The iPAD is a first. Now they call that storage place where they freeze various programs a Multi task program.. And people still believe it is.
It should be called Temp Storage.
Fact is Apple is great with marketing, succeeding to sale us that joke. They need learn some basic things from Microsoft

 

[DaveSt]

I think Apple is probably doing OK without any input from Microsoft

They really should have called this something like "fast app switching". I think everyone complained for so long that iOS devices didn't have multi-tasking that Apple decided to use the term here. It sure isn't multi-tasking but it is better than nothing.

 

[Dannyboy85]

In my opinion it's "true multitasking" or "smart multitasking" keeps battery life in perspective. Honestly, I don't have time to constantly check what apps are running and how many I can leave open so my battery will last the day. I'm glad Apple does all that for me.

 

[Tinman]

<sigh>

Exactly what do you want to multitask? If you took the time to understand how it works you would see it does multi-task for apps that can do something useful in the background. There is no benefit to running something like Angry Birds in the background, or for that matter the majority of applications. But returning to where you left is often helpful--though not always.

As someone who used to work for Microsoft's Embedded Devices devision (think... Windows CE) the comment about Microsoft was funny. It's been FOURTEEN years since Windows CE first came out. Most of that time it sucked and often because it kept things in memory for no benefit. So now fourteen years later Windows Phone 7 comes out and you think Apple should learn from it? Pray tell what??? Wait till 2021 before making iOS relevant? lol

At least complain about a specific app that you want to run in the background. If there is one that could use it, that would be a legitimate complaint.

 

[DaveSt]

I think "true" multitasking would be having access to two or more running applications at the same time. I suppose iOS has always had a simple form of multitasking in that the music application can run in the background while using certain apps. That being said, I'm not sure what we have now qualifies. Still, I don't really have a need for multitasking on these devices, and I'm pretty sure we would need a bunch more RAM in the system to accomplish real multitasking anyhow.

 

[SamAshley]

<sigh>

Exactly what do you want to multitask? If you took the time to understand how it works you would see it does multi-task for apps that can do something useful in the background. There is no benefit to running something like Angry Birds in the background, or for that matter the majority of applications. But returning to where you left is often helpful--though not always.

As someone who used to work for Microsoft's Embedded Devices devision (think... Windows CE) the comment about Microsoft was funny. It's been FOURTEEN years since Windows CE first came out. Most of that time it sucked and often because it kept things in memory for no benefit. So now fourteen years later Windows Phone 7 comes out and you think Apple should learn from it? Pray tell what??? Wait till 2021 before making iOS relevant? lol

At least complain about a specific app that you want to run in the background. If there is one that could use it, that would be a legitimate complaint.

preach.

 

[IpadOne]

Guy’s no need to reply at this bashing…. he can go to exchange or ask refund … so many million people happy how one can talk like this right ???

maybe is women refuse some game yesterday night so this morning it’s Apple is ennemy

 

[Tinman]

I think "true" multitasking would be having access to two or more running applications at the same time. I suppose iOS has always had a simple form of multitasking in that the music application can run in the background while using certain apps. That being said, I'm not sure what we have now qualifies. Still, I don't really have a need for multitasking on these devices, and I'm pretty sure we would need a bunch more RAM in the system to accomplish real multitasking anyhow.

While I do indeed agree that most times we don't really need multitasking on a device like this... I will also say that it really is possible to multitask if it is useful.

There are many apps that use it... more than you may think. ReelDirector, for instance, will encode a movie in the background. Now that is something that is indeed useful--waiting for that would be torture (can take an hour or more depending how big the video is). I have done this and been browsing the Web and listening to music at the same time--and getting email pushed.

There are cooking apps that, while their entire app does not need to stay in memory, will run any needed timers. When it is time to get your attention they wake up and do so--taking you right to that step in the recipe.

I think everyone knows by now that navigation apps will still run the necessary processes to keep going. I constantly use that on my iPhone 4. I can be be in any other app, or most likely listening to music or a radio stream, and my voice prompts still pop in as needed.



Michael

 

[DaveSt]

I suppose it does come across as bashing, but in reality the OP does have a valid point here. Apple does market this as "multitasking". Straight from Apple's website "iOS 4.2 brings multitasking from iPhone and iPod touch to iPad.". I think we all know that isn't really what we have here. I'm not complaining, please don't take it as such. I am perfectly happy with the solution we have now, and I will be happier once some of my more used apps start taking advantage of this feature. Still, it seems like a liberal use of the term.

 

[DaveSt]

While I do indeed agree that most times we don't really need multitasking on a device like this... I will also say that it really is possible to multitask if it is useful.

There are many apps that use it... more than you may think. ReelDirector, for instance, will encode a movie in the background. Now that is something that is indeed useful--waiting for that would be torture (can take an hour or more depending how big the video is). I have done this and been browsing the Web and listening to music at the same time--and getting email pushed.

There are cooking apps that, while their entire app does not need to stay in memory, will run any needed timers. When it is time to get your attention they wake up and do so--taking you right to that step in the recipe.

I think everyone knows by now that navigation apps will still run the necessary processes to keep going. I constantly use that on my iPhone 4. I can be be in any other app, or most likely listening to music or a radio stream, and my voice prompts still pop in as needed.



Michael

Those are very good points. I hadn't thought about background processes as all.

 

[peled]

<sigh>

Exactly what do you want to multitask? If you took the time to understand how it works you would see it does multi-task for apps that can do something useful in the background. There is no benefit to running something like Angry Birds in the background, or for that matter the majority of applications. But returning to where you left is often helpful--though not always.

As someone who used to work for Microsoft's Embedded Devices devision (think... Windows CE) the comment about Microsoft was funny. It's been FOURTEEN years since Windows CE first came out. Most of that time it sucked and often because it kept things in memory for no benefit. So now fourteen years later Windows Phone 7 comes out and you think Apple should learn from it? Pray tell what??? Wait till 2021 before making iOS relevant? lol

At least complain about a specific app that you want to run in the background. If there is one that could use it, that would be a legitimate complaint.

I am Asking for a very basic thing. I want to go to the browser get a movie to start downloading from YouTube, and while waiting - to read and/or reply to mail. Once I hear in the background that the movie started, I'll switch back to the browser, and watch the movie.

Another Example. I want to be able to open at the same time 5 sites on my browser. While the system is loading them I will use the time to write some memo. The sites will load in the background ( Internet might be sloaw - so it takes time...).

More:
I watch a movie. I am getting to a boring part , I want it to run in the background while I am into my mail. Geting back when the good part starts...
And a lot of other examples for real true multitasking.

 

[Tinman]

I am Asking for a very basic thing. I want to go to the browser get a movie to start downloading from YouTube, and while waiting - to read and/or reply to mail. Once I hear in the background that the movie started, I'll switch back to the browser, and watch the movie.

That sounds like a reach. If the youtube app wanted to, or the hook into Safari, it could do that. But why? I don't "wait" for youtube vids to start--not long enough to do anything else anyway. And I would prolly wanna see it anyway.

Regardless, you have so far listed an app example.... not a limitation of the OS.

Another Example. I want to be able to open at the same time 5 sites on my browser. While the system is loading them I will use the time to write some memo. The sites will load in the background ( Internet might be sloaw - so it takes time...).

iOS has always done that. I have done that on my iPhone since 2007. Not a new feature.

I watch a movie. I am getting to a boring part , I want it to run in the background while I am into my mail. Geting back when the good part starts...
And a lot of other examples for real true multitasking.

That is kind of a lame example. For one thing, I am thinking that many people want to actually watch a movie while it is playing. Regardless, a sound stream could play if it was desired. For me it is not something I would want.

Moreoever.... look at what you just wrote. Here is what I would do if I encountered a boring part: skip over it. Why would I want to keep it playing if I can just skip it?

Regardless, it most certainly is possible in the OS.




Michael

 

[Yakuzagang5]

I think that's the slim sliver if truth behind them marketing it as multitasking lol an app can run a background service if it needs to.

I still get annoyed when people say look, it can multitask cause pandora can play in the background.... When you pull up the multitask bar, you see the iPod icon replaced by whatever app is playing audio, meaning that all they did was let it take the place of the iPod running in the background. True multitasking would let me run iPod AND pandora in the background lol

[

Those are very good points. I hadn't thought about background processes as all.

 

[epb]

Now they call that storage place where they freeze various programs a Multi task program.. And people still believe it is.
It should be called Temp Storage.

I agree it's not true multi-tasking, but honestly, I didn't ask for multi-tasking in the first place, so no biggie for me. On the up-side, I get to play Rhapsody in the background while I work, which is nice. (I've got 400+ songs in Rhapsody and only 6 in iTunes.) Now, if Amazon comes out with a way for me to stream Video on Demand on the iPad (I've got 20+ tv seasons and 100+ movies there), I'll be riding a gravy train with biscuit wheels.

 

[wrecklass]

Yea to be honest simply giving me the ability to switch apps quickly is a big big advantage. I hated hitting the home button to check mail, then slapping my head when I realized I had to restart an app when I was done. Having my browser instantly ready with the pages I was looking at before switching has already saved me a bunch of time.

Its not quite as good as Androids options, but it is much more useful than iOS 3.x was.