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.
The real reason there's no multitasking
- Thread starter briand05
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For me, it's not a rejection of the concept. There's nothing to dislike about the benefits of multitasking, as long as the costs aren't too severe. If you have a good desktop/laptop, it should have plenty of memory and processing bandwidth to handle it... plus anti-virus software, etc. For the iPad, if it's done right, it'd be great. But I'd rather see no multitasking than bad multitasking. I'm sure they're working on some implementation of it.
My guess is that if there was no control over it, you'd wind up with every other app having some kind of background "always-on" process running to look for updates or stream twitter feeds or some nonsense. You'd get users with two dozen of these background processes running, chewing up memory & processor cycles... or not realizing they didn't close the app they were just using, and the user will be wondering why their once-fast iPad is now dog-slow. They won't blame it on the background processes, because they'll have no idea what's going on. They'll only know their iPad is slow and clunky.
If Apple can figure out a way to solve this problem in a way that users who have no clue what multitasking is can manage it, and in a way that won't allow a zillion mostly useless (or in some cases nefarious) hidden tasks to be running, I'm all for it.
I think Apple should take a clue from Backgrounder in the way they implement multitasking... Why'll using BG I can choose which apps I want to have in the background (not the app itself). That way a malicious app can't do any bad things in the background, or if I feel things are getting sluggish, I can cancel the hog app all together.
Just my 2¢
Just my 2¢
Nope. The original Apple II, original IBM PC and original Mac did not multitask. Still had millions of happy customers.
that was then and this is now. times have changed and so has technology. I remember when a color TV was a BIG deal. Now try finding a b&w TV...
Lol I think you misunderstood me... Someone said that multitasking might not be a good idea because it drains the battery, then I said "you don't have to multitask", meaning that if you are worried about battery drain you have the option to multitask, you don't have to
But people haven't changed that much. A recent study showed that students who multitasked, and thought they really good at it, actually didn't perform as well as other students, on average. Drivers who think they're good at multitasking are seen as such a serious road hazard that certain combinations of tasks while driving are now illegal.
If you want a netbook, buy a netbook, and do your 20 things at a time.
You are utterly, 100% correct. The iPhone already multitasks brilliantly. iPod + anything you want. Even Safari with the BBC iPlayer + anything you want. Meanwhile, email is checking in the background.
Apple wants to force you down their route. It's the Apple way.
Seriously? You're comparing the current and future technology to computer systems from the early 80's, and using that as a legitimate example?
The original outhouse had plenty of happy customers, too. Doesn't mean I want to get rid of my plumbing.
Personally, I could care less if there is multi-tasking. If they do offer it, I hope they are an "ON/OFF" switch in the Settings menu. I'm not looking at the iPad to be a computer replacement. This will be my "toy" to surf the Internet, check some e-mails, and maybe listen to some music or play some games. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I don't need to do "20 things" at once, but the inability of the Touch/iPhone to even play Pandora while doing ANYTHING else, is ludicrous. I like to listen to music while browsing or using the Kindle app. Can't do that with Pandora--can only listen to the iPod app when using other apps.
Dave, as has been pointed out countless times, if the iPad doesn't offer some feature or functionality you consider imperative (or are unwilling to consider alternatives to), then the answer is simple: don't buy one.
The amount of time you spend here grousing about things like this is baffling.
Lou, I believe you've nailed one of the key reasons that some are disappointed: they wanted or expected a device which could replace their computers.
What's funnier to me is that that's exactly what my iPad will be for me: my primary computer. I know my MBP, hackintosh Dell Mini9, Kindle2, and 3GS usage patterns quite well by now. And so for me the iPad is a humongous win because - based on my usage - I will be able to happily live with only it and my 3GS. I will retain my household iMac as a media hub as I do now.
As for multitasking, I do believe we'll get it, but in a way that won't risk ruining the iPad's overall user experience. I do not believe it'll be "unlimited" the way it is with Windows or full OSX, allowing for as many applications and windows open as you and your hardware can take.
I think it'll be controlled, limited to common app groupings up to say 4 or 6 at a time - whatever the A4 and associated guts can take without the thing bogging down (hello Palm Pre).
MODS Sorry for consecutive posts. Meant to double-quote and somehow messed that up. Can't figure out how to delete one of the two posts to combine.
I think for me, the whole issue with the ipad and this forum is that I ASSUME everyone on here is a tech concious person.
If my assumtion was correct then I wouldnt see too many people here making excuses for the ipad and lack of features. What baffles me is there is quite the opposite going on here, people justifing why a certain feature isnt important.
Funny thing will happen tho, when/if Ipad/iphone does get multitasking or flash, people here will think its the best thing ever... and how did I live without it and so on.
I myself just dont like the BLATANT fanboyism going on here. Even tho its macrumor and apple follower visit here, doesnt mean people have to be so bias and blind with the products.
Why is this so hard to believe? I didn't even know what Pandora and similar sites were; I had to look them up after all the complaining that this would doom the iPad. iTunes is fine for me. Not to mention that, being in Canada, I can't even use Pandora, or Hulu, etc.
I can listen to Pandora while doing anything else. Do it all the time. Start the Pandora app (etc.) on my iPod Touch. Run Kindle (etc.) on my iPhone 3GS. No problem with 2 non-Apple tasks. Controlling them is quite easy since I have 2 full touchscreens for UI. Another advantage: I can kill the battery on my Touch and still get phone calls on the iPhone.
Will probably do the same thing with an iPad + iPhone. Apple's tasks + my 2 apps of choice: no problem. Or throw in the Touch if I want to try some 3 ball juggling.
That's how it was done on one episode of Star Trek, multiple tablets. Good enough for Picard - Good enough for me!
Not good enough for me, however. It's unconscionable that none of those 3 devices can multitask (except for some native apps like the ipod app and a few others)
Why is it that people find it so hard to understand why there is no (general) multi-tasking and, for that matter, why there is no flash (in it's current form).
Apple has a reputation of creating computing devices "that just work". They have a reputation of stability where other company's products do not.
The iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad are computing products aimed at the masses so Apple, to maintain it's reputation, must do all it can to ensure flawless operation.
By controlling certain aspects of what software can be run on these devices Apple goes a LONG WAY toward ensuring as flawless a user experience as possible. The three biggest steps towards achieving this that they have taken on devices running iPhone OS are, firstly, to restrict background processes to those they can control, secondly to disallow plugins to any software running on the iPHone OS, and finally to allow no software to run at all that hasn't been vetted by them (can anyone say "Yay no viruses!").
The only reason these three things are done is to ensure as stable and as enjoyable experience as possible to the end user. Allowing open multitasking would open the way to inexplicable crashing and slow performance. Allowing plugins of any kind opens the way for inexplicable crashing and slow performance. Allowing anyone to install any kind of software from any source throws the doors wide open for malicious software.
Exactly when did people forget that what makes Apple different from the rest of the computing industry is that they have a vision for computing (insert Steve Jobs here) which revolves around two main concepts; 1. Quality, 2. Ease of Use.
Exactly when did this get warped into "Apple is Hitler and all your base are belong to Apple"? The driver behind Apple's decisions to apparently restrict certain "freedoms" are sound and are not driven by some conspiracy theory or other dark evil plan to screw you all but are instead driven by a clearly defined vision of a computing world where everyone is happy and can use a computer without needing an army of IT support just to write a freakin' email. (by the way don't think that last bit is irrational... there was this lady at work the other day that... oh never mind it's beside the point)
*end rant* Hmmm... this was going to be a simple reply but I got fired up about two sentences in.
MacRumors forum is a funny place sometimes.
Sometimes, if we're lucky, we get a very thoughtful yet impassioned post like the one above. ☝
But more often than not, we get a reductionist and stereotyping post like the one below. ☟
Or you get post thats add nothing to the discussion one way or another... like yours.
I think that was just his point. Machines in the 80's DIDN'T multi-task and people were happy. ...but now in the 21st centruy meachines DO in fact multi-task and to not have a device that can do that might as well put us back in the 80's.
Mike
There's a difference between "I could care less" and "I couldn't care less", and I think you've confused them as meaning the same. I think you meant the latter. *Trying his best not to make the correction in a douchey way*