Meaning of "multitasking" on iPhone, iPad, etc
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Chris Ridd on 31 Jan 2010 12:10 On 2010-01-31 16:51:19 +0000, Ian McCall said: > On 2010-01-31 13:14:30 +0000, Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> said: > >> On 2010-01-31 11:36:56 +0000, Richard Tobin said: >> >>> In article <7sk0prF75pU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Bruce Horrocks <07.013(a)scorecrow.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Early hardware support for multi-tasking didn't support virtual machines >>>> in the hardware so one process could reasonably easily see another's >>>> address space. >>> >>> The term "virtual machine" already has two common uses. Using it to refer >>> to protected address spaces is just confusing. >> >> I expect Bruce meant virtual memory. > > Mode. Virtual mode: > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_8086_mode> Oh could be, but that's just the deeply crummy way that Intel revved the x86 architecture isn't it? Better designed processors didn't need to work this way. -- Chris
From: Ian McCall on 31 Jan 2010 12:17 On 2010-01-31 17:10:58 +0000, Chris Ridd <chrisridd(a)mac.com> said: > Oh could be, but that's just the deeply crummy way that Intel revved > the x86 architecture isn't it? Better designed processors didn't need > to work this way. True, but I have a small smidgin of sympathy. Intel hit a problem no-one else really hit at that time, how to keep backwards compatibility at the hardware level at a time when things were still being programmed in assembly and not high-level languages. 68000 line managed it, x86 line managed it, most others didn't (rip MOS). Cheers, Ian
From: zoara on 31 Jan 2010 19:47 James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > > > It's not that multi-tasking has been made impossible, just that the > > speed benefits are lost if it is enabled. Hence my comment about > > context switch times. > > I don't believe any such limitation exists, not even in the software, > let alone the hardware. I believe the GUI behaviour of quitting one > application as you switch to another is simply a design decision to > make > use of the phone simpler for people. That way users do not have to > think > about process management, saving memory, CPU usage, or battery life. That's exactly what happens, and exactly why. The iPhone multitasks (playing music while doing other things is the most obvious example of many) and I see no reason to assume that this will be missing from the iPad. It's just a design decision that stops someone multitasking whatever arbitrary apps they choose, nothing more. The iPad will surely be no different. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
From: James Taylor on 31 Jan 2010 20:57 zoara wrote: > James Taylor wrote: > >> I don't believe any such limitation exists, not even in the >> software, let alone the hardware. I believe the GUI behaviour of >> quitting one application as you switch to another is simply a >> design decision to make use of the phone simpler for people. That >> way users do not have to think about process management, saving >> memory, CPU usage, or battery life. > > That's exactly what happens, and exactly why. It's just a design > decision that stops someone multitasking whatever arbitrary apps they > choose, nothing more. The iPad will surely be no different. I understand the reasoning for the "auto quit on switch" behaviour, and it arguably makes sense on a phone, although it sounds like the Android phone implements this better by maintaining state properly. However, I believe the iPad is the kind of device where people are more likely to expect (or even need) to run multiple apps concurrently. So even if this is not the default, I think there should be an option to disable the auto quit on switch behaviour. -- James Taylor
From: Jack Campin - bogus address on 1 Feb 2010 09:52
> The iPhone has a hardware button below the screen, which you press whenever > an application is running, in order to get back to the 'home' screen, i.e. > the screen with all the pretty little icons. > > If you're running an application, say you're listening to a foreign radio > station, and you want to check your e-mail, the radio application will exit > if you press the hardware button. That is, the radio will stop. You then > have to launch it again and do whatever it requires, to get the radio back. CHECK your email? You don't get a "you have mail" notification? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin |