I was just remembering how awful the Macintosh operating system was before Steve Jobs scraped it and built OS X on top of NeXT.
One of the huge gripes I had was Mac multitasking in the late 90s was essentially non existent, even though Unix and other workstation and mainframe OSes had been multitasking for decades, and usable multitasking had been in consumer grade devices like the Amiga, the Atari, Acorn, etc for more than 10 years. Even Windows multitasking was passable.
When iOS came out, I could understand freezing applications in the background to make it possible for such a low powered low RAM device to be responsive.
What's the point of that today? It's extremely annoying to me that I can't, if I wish, allow an app to run all the time in the background.
The only argument I can see here to constantly shut down apps is battery life, however that could be the default, and I should have the option to let something run if I need it to.
One of the huge gripes I had was Mac multitasking in the late 90s was essentially non existent, even though Unix and other workstation and mainframe OSes had been multitasking for decades, and usable multitasking had been in consumer grade devices like the Amiga, the Atari, Acorn, etc for more than 10 years. Even Windows multitasking was passable.
When iOS came out, I could understand freezing applications in the background to make it possible for such a low powered low RAM device to be responsive.
What's the point of that today? It's extremely annoying to me that I can't, if I wish, allow an app to run all the time in the background.
The only argument I can see here to constantly shut down apps is battery life, however that could be the default, and I should have the option to let something run if I need it to.