100+ New Features of iPhone 4.0 - Multitasking and MORE
Oxford
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
on mobile devices, so congrats to Apple for solving this vexing problem!
Enjoy!
Lusotec
Amazing, the iPhone has multitasking. They did it! I must have been a
monumental technological achievement to get multitasking to work on that
hardware. Those Apple programmers are fantastic.
For those very distracted, I'm being sarcastic.
"We figured out how to implement multitasking for third party apps and avoid
those things. So that's what took so long. I'd like to demo it. We have a
great UI."
They figured it out?! The iPhone 3G has a 600 MHz CPU and 256MiB of RAM. How
difficult can it be to make multitasking work right with those kinds of
specs? The iPhone is not a speed demon but multitasking, was done right
decades ago with far less powerful hardware and far more demanding
applications.
"I'm gonna launch mail, this has a URL -- so I jump to safari -- so I want
to go back to mail... I double click the home button and a window raises
that shows me all the apps that are running." Like a dock you can call up --
smart!
Brilliant, I can see a patent or ten right there!
"It's easy to do this in a way that drains battery life, and a way that
reduces performance of the foreground app. If you don't do it right, your
phone will feel sluggish."
It is even easier to do it the *right* way, just by copying what others have
been doing for decades.
How naive/ignorant must one be to swallow this bullshit?! Or should I say
rotten apple.
Regards.
Fa-groon
Oxford
> Oxford wrote:
> > Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
> >
> > http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
> >
> > Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
> > on mobile devices, so congrats to Apple for solving this vexing problem!
> >
> > Enjoy!
>
> Amazing, the iPhone has multitasking. They did it! I must have been a
> monumental technological achievement to get multitasking to work on that
> hardware. Those Apple programmers are fantastic.
yes, they were the first to successfully accomplish multitasking on a
mobile device, glad you understand software engineering!
look at it again, wow, simply wow! (read bottom to top)
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
----------
ps: your follow up settings were incorrect, so you need to fix that
error. thanks.
nospam
<ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> yes, they were the first to successfully accomplish multitasking on a
> mobile device, glad you understand software engineering!
you can't be this stupid. are you trying to outdo larry?
Hadron
> Oxford wrote:
>> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>>
>> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
>> on mobile devices, so congrats to Apple for solving this vexing problem!
>>
>> Enjoy!
>
> Amazing, the iPhone has multitasking. They did it! I must have been a
> monumental technological achievement to get multitasking to work on that
> hardware. Those Apple programmers are fantastic.
>
> For those very distracted, I'm being sarcastic.
No. You're being a clueless "advocate" again.
Go and read up on the design decisions taken by Apple and then come
back.
It might surprise you but Apple engineers do know what they are doing.
Rick
> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>
> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
> on mobile devices,(snip)
... took 'em long enough...
--
Rick
Alan Baker
Rick <no...@mail.invalid> wrote:
I'd rather have it take a while and be done right, myself...
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Rick
> In article <rLWdnSUAfr2B3yPW...@supernews.com>,
> Rick <no...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:13:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>> > Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>> >
>> > http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-
event/
>> >
>> > Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking
>> > correctly on mobile devices,(snip)
>>
>> ... took 'em long enough...
>
> I'd rather have it take a while and be done right, myself...
Well, ... still took 'em long enough...
--
Rick
ed
> In article <rLWdnSUAfr2B3yPWnZ2dnUVZ_sAAA...@supernews.com>,
> Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:13:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
> > > Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>
> > >http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>
> > > Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
> > > on mobile devices,(snip)
>
> > ... took 'em long enough...
>
> I'd rather have it take a while and be done right, myself...
and you are, of course, *assuming* it's done right. ;D
Alan Baker
<def1bffc-2645-4763...@22g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
Nope.
I'm a wait and see kind of guy, myself.
Rick
Well.. Oxford said it's right... what else do you need?
--
Rick
Oxford
> > http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
> >
> > Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
> > on mobile devices,(snip)
>
> ... took 'em long enough...
what do you mean? they were the very first to do it correctly.
Alan Baker
Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
Sorry, but we don't know that yet.
ed
> ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 1:55 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article <rLWdnSUAfr2B3yPWnZ2dnUVZ_sAAA...@supernews.com>,
> > > Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:13:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
> > > > > Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>
> > > > >http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>
> > > > > Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
> > > > > on mobile devices,(snip)
>
> > > > ... took 'em long enough...
>
> > > I'd rather have it take a while and be done right, myself...
>
> > and you are, of course, *assuming* it's done right. ;D
>
> Nope.
>
> I'm a wait and see kind of guy, myself.
c'mon, you *really* don't think apple did it right? ;D
Oxford
> > I'd rather have it take a while and be done right, myself...
>
> and you are, of course, *assuming* it's done right. ;D
yes, i double checked, and they were first... take a look, wow!
(best viewed from bottom to top)
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
---
Rick
> Rick <no...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-
event/
>> >
>> > Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking
>> > correctly on mobile devices,(snip)
>>
>> ... took 'em long enough...
>
> what do you mean?
I mean ... took 'em long enough...
> they were the very first to do it correctly.
... more Flavor Aid for you?....
--
Rick
Rick
> In article <apony-C6FAC0....@news.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
>
>> Rick <no...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-
event/
>> > >
>> > > Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking
>> > > correctly on mobile devices,(snip)
>> >
>> > ... took 'em long enough...
>>
>> what do you mean? they were the very first to do it correctly.
>
> Sorry, but we don't know that yet.
No, we don't. And, I highly suspect "do it correctly" is going to be
highly subjective. It's certainly already inflammatory :-)
Still, Apple may well have done a good job at implementing multitasking
on the iPad ... within Apple's parameters.
--
Rick
Alan Baker
<4a74af89-e977-47f1...@20g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
I don't know. It *sounds* like a clever approach, but it is by its very
nature the kind of thing we'll have to actually see in use in order to
evaluate its success.
Lusotec
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Oxford wrote:
>> > Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>> >
>> > http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>> >
>> > Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
>> > on mobile devices, so congrats to Apple for solving this vexing
>> > problem!
>>
>> monumental technological achievement to get multitasking to work on that
>> hardware. Those Apple programmers are fantastic.
>
> yes, they were the first to successfully accomplish multitasking on a
> mobile device, glad you understand software engineering!
First?! Is that a joke?!
> look at it again, wow, simply wow! (read bottom to top)
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
You are easily impressed, very easily!
Regards.
Hadron
> In article <rLWdnSUAfr2B3yPW...@supernews.com>,
> Rick <no...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:13:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>> > Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>> >
>> > http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>> >
>> > Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
>> > on mobile devices,(snip)
>>
>> ... took 'em long enough...
>
> I'd rather have it take a while and be done right, myself...
You must remember that Rick probably doesn't even know what multitasking
is ....
Oxford
> > > I'm a wait and see kind of guy, myself.
> >
> > c'mon, you *really* don't think apple did it right? ;D
>
> I don't know. It *sounds* like a clever approach, but it is by its very
> nature the kind of thing we'll have to actually see in use in order to
> evaluate its success.
this will help everyone understand what just happened. enjoy!
http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/
---
Alan Baker
Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
No. That will just give us Apple's marketing take on things.
Only real experience will tell us whether that is true or not.
Henry Flam
Rick <no...@mail.invalid> wrote:
As opposed to other parameters?
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <OJudnWF7Co5u1CPW...@supernews.com>,
> Rick <no...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> As opposed to other parameters?
As opposed to "real multitasking"
--
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of
old ones.
Hawk
lol ... the Amiga did it right in 1985 ... long before MacOS could even
think about doing it correctly.
No multitasking for the Gen2 iPod Touch ... how lame ...
(*>
Hawk
> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>
>
> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
>
7
pounding the sock Oxford wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil
Traffic Light Department of Marketing:
> Start at the bottom
You know the ipone has become a distant second and rapidly
heading to the bottom in the market recently.
But still no Linux. If the thing can't run Linux its of no use.
Lets start at the bottom... even a Sheeva Plug runs Linux!
SHEEVA PLUG
http://www.marvell.com/products/embedded_processors/developer/kirkwood/sheevaplug.jsp
http://plugcomputer.org/plugwiki/index.php/Category:HowTo
http://www.plugcomputer.org/
http://computingplugs.com/index.php/Installing_X11 - installing VNCServer
Sheevaplug - pure Linux geek juice!!!
-------------------------------------
http://www.marvell.com/products/embedded_processors/developer/kirkwood/sheevaplug.jsp
Not very often you get a high end distro like Ubuntu 9.04
and a cheap embedded Linux developer system that is also
capable of running a high end distro.
The $99 Sheevaplug is very much it.
You get a mains adapter size box with a plug to
plug into mains. It has ethernet link, SDCard, USB
and a mini USB serial port.
Nothing else.
No monitor port, no keyboard, no mouse port, no nothing.
Its also running on an ARM chip!
So what does it do except sit there and do nothing?
Welll..... its the ultimate food from the
gods sent to geeks!!!
Since it has 'nothing' you have to bring it alive yourself
and mould it to your whims!!!
It is pure geek wallowing in Linux from here on in...
First connect the mini USB serial port to your
Linux Ubuntu desktop USB port. Running dmesg in a console
window shows it has been recognised and installed as /dev/ttyUSB1
The mini-usb plug is very flimsy and such small connectors are utterly
dodgy!
If the ftdi serial port chip is not recognised then manually
install the driver:
sudo modprobe ftdi_sio vendor=0x9e88 product=0x9e8f
(My desktop is Ubuntu.)
You now need some software to talk to the Sheevaplug.
Install minicom with
apt-get install minicom
in a console window.
Then run
minicom -s
to and change set up for 115200 baud 8 bits, N for no parity, 1 stop bit.
Change the default serial device to /dev/ttyUSB1
Press return to save changes.
Press save changes as default
Then Exit minicom.
Then run
minicom
again, and now you are connecting OK to the Sheeva plug through the
serial port.
Login as root with password nosoup4u
(yup that is the default password!)
First off change the password to something you like with the
passwd
command.
You can issue command like
shutdown -r now
and see the computer shutting down and rebooting like a real
computer through minicom.
Log back in, connect up the ethernet, give it a few
seconds and then enter
ifconfig
It shows the IP address of the Sheevaplug.
Now you can abandon the minicom console and start another
bash console window and connect via ssh!!!
ssh root@ipaddress_of_sheevaplug
So now you are in and looking around.
If you have konqueror installed on your desktop computer,
you can also get in by opening konqueror and entering in the URL
fish://root@ipaddress_of_sheevaplug
to snoop around to see what other software has been pre-installed.
First thing to do is to get the existing OS of the internal
flash chip (to avoid wearing it down) and run it off an SD Card
formatted with EXT2 to minimise wearing down the SD Card.
The instructions are here
http://plugcomputer.org/plugwiki/index.php/Category:HowTo
(Choose from all the howto available in that document
and don't use EXT3, use EXT2 - EXT3 will wear down your
SD Card. I used a 16Gb SD card and set aside 1Gb for swap
space - excessive because I didn't want to risk running
out of space for later parts of the experiments)
Having transferred everything off the internal flash and booting
off the SDcard allows you the freedom to install
lots of new software.
First off tried to get this useful utility installed
apt-get install wget
But it came up with error message - the issue is that two
directories are always in RAM and can get filled - so it forgets
to create them whenever Sheevaplug boots.
So create these two directories to get apt-get working
mkdir /var/cache/apt/archives
mkdir /var/cache/apt/archives/partial
Then I test downloaded a file using wget.
I then copied out the file from the sheevaplug using scp command.
So in effect the sheevaplug has just become my downloader
device consuming 5W that can be left running all night if need be.
and then installed away more stuff like the following
apt-get install lynx
apt-get install rsync
apt-get install youtube-dl
apt-get install sqlite3
apt-get install bash
apt-get install xterm
(If your /var/cache/apt/archives gets full,
then reboot the sheeva plug and recreate the
directories again)
(installing bash might have been redundant - but even
if redundant, you can see how it reacts to the command
to see if updates are available)
then I did
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
to upgrade the Linux to the latest version (but you may
have to do that before installing anything if some
of the packages got updated).
Then tried to get VNC server working
http://computingplugs.com/index.php/Installing_X11
Got that working.
(Be weary if you follow instructions to recompile from
source in that link to get xterm working
Your dependency checking may go out the window.)
And then got vncserver finally working!!!!
So even through Sheevaplug has no graphics card,
I can still get a VNC session on it going!!!
Then installed more complex software
apt-get install firefox
apt-get install pan
apt-get install openoffice.org
apt-get install mysql-server
apt-get install qcad
apt-get install konqueror
apt-get install xpdf
apt-get install dillo
apt-get install gnumeric
apt-get install abiword
apt-get install apache2
apt-get install dosbox (yes! and it works well!)
apt-get install kmail
apt-get install synaptic
apt-get install onboard (on screen keyboard)
apt-get install kwrite
apt-get install ytree
apt-get install mc
apt-get install streamripper
apt-get install mpg123 (mp3 player)
All in all 2Gb of software got installed.
Your luck will vary as the software is
constantly being updated (and broken)
so wait a day if something doesn't work
and try again. [My current install has problems
starting X and crashes first time but
second time its OK when running applications
like firefox.] Some things like gambas2 and
its libs are not in the arm repositories yet, so
not everything can work just yet anyway.
GUI software like firefox I can use
ssh -X root@ipaddress_of_sheevaplug
and then run
firefox
to get it to run as a remote X session.
Same with pan, open office, konqueror, gnumeric, abiword,
xpdf, qcad and dillo.
Apache server and mysql server is running!
Its turned the sheevaplug into a powerful server.
But also desktop features available too...
I ran pan (newsreader) and change pan to use dillo (webrowser)
instead of firefox and I get near full speed
reading newsgroups and browsing links
even through I am running remote X session.
Running firefox or dillo with remote X session
is also a safer bet - I can move all the dodgy website
browsing to the sheevaplug and change the SD card if some
dodgy infection is suspected.
For $99, the sheeva plug is 1.2GHz ARM with 512Mbytes of
RAM and 512Mbytes of flash and from the above
you can see it runs a full version
of Ubuntu very well!!!
The hardware is open and the sofwtare is all open source
so you can go make your own hardware and install as much
software as the repositories and memory chips/hard disks
can carry.
This post is brought to you from the Sheevaplug
running knode through a remote x session
on the main desktop computer :-)
> Enjoy!
Larry
@news.qwest.net:
> yes, they were the first to successfully accomplish multitasking on a
> mobile device, glad you understand software engineering!
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URsNHguzHoI&NR=1
BULLSHIT!
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
Larry
Rex Ballard
> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
> on mobile devices, so congrats to Apple for solving this vexing problem!
Apple's iPhone has always been based on OS/X which is a BSD Unix
kernel. The AT&T commercials tout the ability to surf the web while
you are talking on the phone.
On that tiny display, it's not easy to have multiple overlapping
Windows, but it's easily done.
> Enjoy!
I'm waiting for Verizon to offer iPhone service. At this point, I'm
still satisfied with my LG-Touch, which doesn't hit me with a phone
bill of $300 per month for my phone and my wife's phone. Both of are
phones aren't officially "smart" phones, but they are programmed in
Python with GNU libraries and a Symbian kernel. I'm not even sure
exactly what it's running, but I really like the phone.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349648,00.asp
Maybe, by the time I'm up for renewal, I'll be able to choose between
an iPhone and an Android. Until then, I like what I've seen on both
of them.
Good job Apple
Good job Google
Hadron
> On Apr 8, 2:13 pm, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
>> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>
>> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
>> on mobile devices, so congrats to Apple for solving this vexing problem!
>
> Apple's iPhone has always been based on OS/X which is a BSD Unix
> kernel. The AT&T commercials tout the ability to surf the web while
> you are talking on the phone.
>
> On that tiny display, it's not easy to have multiple overlapping
> Windows, but it's easily done.
But not done "generally" for a reason. Well documented reasons.
What is so hard for you to understand?
ZnU
Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
WHat does this even mean, "yes, i double checked"? Did you look it up in
the Official Registry of Multitasking Mobile Platforms?
Look, Apple's approach does seem better thought out than the naive
"let's just let apps run in the background like on desktop platforms"
approach taken by some other vendors. But, you know, other vendors did
implement that.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Lusotec
> Oxford wrote:
>> yes, they were the first to successfully accomplish multitasking on a
>> mobile device, glad you understand software engineering!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URsNHguzHoI&NR=1
>
> BULLSHIT!
Win 3.1 running on DOSBox running on a N900
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_kEdkDWOWc
May not be very useful, but it certainly shows the processing power and
flexibility of the N900.
Regards.
Lusotec
> Hawk wrote:
>> lol ... the Amiga did it right in 1985 ... long before MacOS could even
>> think about doing it correctly.
>>
>> No multitasking for the Gen2 iPod Touch ... how lame ...
>
Are netbooks mobile devices?
Are laptops mobile devices?
Is the N900 a mobile device?
Regards.
Phil Da Lick!
Nor the iPhone 3G. Its only the S models. And it's not true multitasking
either. It's even more restricted than win3.1's multitasking! I think of
it more as multi-open-run-one-tasking.
KDT
How is it not multitasking? Did you actually see the third party
demonstrations from Skype and Pandora?
Phil Da Lick!
Who said it wasn't multitasking? I said it wasn't true multitasking. And
it isn't.
Peter Köhlmann
Because it isn't. It is "sort of multitasking".
Even the "cooperative multitasking" of Win3 was more powerful.
The other mobiles with multitasking *all* have much better multitasking
capabilities
> Did you actually see the third party
> demonstrations from Skype and Pandora?
Can't you read the descriptions of what it is?
--
All things are possible, except skiing thru a revolving door.
Richard B. Gilbert
What's the difference between multitasking and "true multitasking"?
Peter Köhlmann
If you have to ask that even now, it is useless to try to describe it to
you.
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Hadron
Phil is a "COLA advocate". This means that the "best way" is the way
Linux does it.
Another poster, Creepy, says that cooperative multitasking is NOT
multitasking. A surprise to those of us who don't get their posting
instructions from Roy Schestowitz.
Phil Da Lick!
> "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2010 12:24, KDT wrote:
>>>> On Apr 9, 6:54 am, "Phil Da Lick!"
>>>> <phil_the_l...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 09/04/2010 01:14, Hawk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/8/2010 1:13 PM, Oxford wrote:
>>>>>>> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
>>>>>>> on mobile devices, so congrats to Apple for solving this vexing
>>>>>>> problem!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Enjoy!
>>>>>
>>>>>> No multitasking for the Gen2 iPod Touch ... how lame ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor the iPhone 3G. Its only the S models. And it's not true multitasking
>>>>> either. It's even more restricted than win3.1's multitasking! I think of
>>>>> it more as multi-open-run-one-tasking.
>>>>
>>>> How is it not multitasking?
>>>
>>> Who said it wasn't multitasking? I said it wasn't true multitasking. And
>>> it isn't.
>>>
>>
>> What's the difference between multitasking and "true multitasking"?
>
> Phil is a "COLA advocate". This means that the "best way" is the way
> Linux does it.
Which is the same way that Winders and MacOS does it. And I said nothing
of "better" or "worse". Learn to read already.
Phil Da Lick!
In the context of the conversation, one suits the device and the other
doesn't.
In principle true multitasking is what you get on most OSs designed to
run on beefy hardware. Each task is basically running full belt with the
OS itself switching resources between them on a timeslice. Other kinds
of multitasking, such as the cooperative form found on winders 3.1, and
the throttle-the-background-apps kind found on iPhone OS 4 basically
require cooperation from the tasks to hand over resources when required
by other tasks. In the case of Winders 3.1 it was timesliced by the
system but only checked when the task queried the message queue. In the
case of the iPhone OS4 it appears the background apps basically shut
down most of their functionality. An understandable requirement given
the nature of the device.
Hadron
It's really funny how "advocates" (normally accountants who use windows)
feel the need to describe things like multi tasking to those of us with
backgrounds in systems programming. Funny as. It's as if they think
their hastily cobbled together posts impress anyone.
Phil Da Lick!
It's really funny how idiots (normally fanboys on an agenda) have to
jump in on every conversation even if it concerns them or not. An
explanation was asked for by Richard. If you don't want to provide one,
or don't like my explanation then just ignore the thread.
Richard B. Gilbert
After 45 or so years working with computers you develop some tolerance
for the latecomers.
Phil Da Lick!
?
If you knew the answer then why ask for it?
Richard B. Gilbert
Because this was the first time I have encountered the "distinction"
between multi-tasking and "true multi-tasking"!
Hadron
Did you think that after correcting you once then he needed any
explanation from you?
He was playing with you : there is no such thing as "true multitasking"
per se.
There are various ways to "multi task".
Phil Da Lick!
45 years working with computers and you can't tell the difference
between the multitasking of say windows 3.1 and windows 7?
Phil Da Lick!
No shit, sherlock.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 09/04/2010 13:21, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Another poster, Creepy, says that cooperative multitasking is NOT
>> multitasking.
It sure isn't if the applications don't cooperate by yielding control.
>> A surprise to those of us who don't get their posting
>> instructions from Roy Schestowitz.
More idiocy from "Lying Larry".
--
You have a strong appeal for members of your own sex.
Chris Ahlstrom
> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>
>> If you knew the answer then why ask for it?
>
> Because this was the first time I have encountered the "distinction"
> between multi-tasking and "true multi-tasking"!
Easy. Preemptive multi-tasking is "true" multitasking.
Calling cooperative multitasking "true" multitasking is a bit like
calling polling "interrupt processing".
--
A day for firm decisions!!!!! Or is it?
ZnU
Um... no. This is not a remotely accurate description of the new
multitasking features. iPhone OS implements pre-emptive multitasking. It
has from day one. No cooperation is needed from the foreground app for
background apps to receive processor time.
iPhone OS 3 and earlier just quit third-party apps when the user
navigates away from them. The whole "no multitasking" thing has always
been an awful description of this, that has caused far more confusion
than necessary, when it could have just been described as "no
third-party background tasks".
In iPhone OS 4, third-party apps no longer quit when the user navigates
away from them. They're put into a suspended state, where they remain in
memory (unless they need to be purged in a low-memory situation), but
they're not allocated any CPU time, unless they've told the OS they want
CPU time in the background, and told it under what circumstances they
want it by specifying one of several different modes. In some of these
modes, the OS gives apps CPU time essentially continuously, while in
others it gives apps chunks of CPU time to respond to specific events.
But either way, when multiple apps have been allocated CPU at the same
time, the system does timeslice-based resource switching just like any
other preemptive system.
[snip]
ZnU
Hadron<hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
Great. Is this going to be the next widespread misconception that's
going to have to be debunked thousands of times over the next few years?
iPhone OS doesn't use cooperative multitasking. Cooperative multitasking
is a scheme in which the app that has the CPU (not necessarily the
foreground app in UI) has to explicitly yield the CPU, at which point
the next app is given a chance to use it until it decides to yield it,
etc.
This is not how iPhone multitasking has ever worked in any version of
iPhone OS.
White Spirit
> In iPhone OS 4, third-party apps no longer quit when the user navigates
> away from them. They're put into a suspended state, where they remain in
> memory (unless they need to be purged in a low-memory situation), but
> they're not allocated any CPU time, unless they've told the OS they want
> CPU time in the background, and told it under what circumstances they
> want it by specifying one of several different modes. In some of these
> modes, the OS gives apps CPU time essentially continuously, while in
> others it gives apps chunks of CPU time to respond to specific events.
> But either way, when multiple apps have been allocated CPU at the same
> time, the system does timeslice-based resource switching just like any
> other preemptive system.
In other words, no true multitasking ;)
nospam
<ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
> Easy. Preemptive multi-tasking is "true" multitasking.
>
> Calling cooperative multitasking "true" multitasking is a bit like
> calling polling "interrupt processing".
cooperative multitasking is also 'true', it just uses different
scheduling. both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Alan Baker
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/04/2010 01:14, Hawk wrote:
> > On 4/8/2010 1:13 PM, Oxford wrote:
> >> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
> >>
> >> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
> >>
> >> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
> >> on mobile devices, so congrats to Apple for solving this vexing problem!
> >>
> >> Enjoy!
> >
> >
> > No multitasking for the Gen2 iPod Touch ... how lame ...
Incorrect.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/>
>
> Nor the iPhone 3G. Its only the S models. And it's not true multitasking
> either. It's even more restricted than win3.1's multitasking! I think of
> it more as multi-open-run-one-tasking.
Incorrect.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/>
"iPhone OS 4 Compatibility
iPhone OS 4 will work with iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and the second- and
third-generation iPod touch this summer, and with iPad in the fall. Not
all features are compatible with all devices. For example, multitasking
is available only with iPhone 3GS and the third-generation iPod touch
(32GB and 64GB models from late 2009)."
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Alan Baker
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
Incorrect.
Peter Köhlmann
feel free to tell us all 0 advantages of "cooperative multitasking"
Hadron
ZnU
White Spirit <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
"True multitasking" is not a term with any specific technical meaning.
It appears to be a term invented yesterday with a definition engineered
to allow Apple-bashers to go around telling people iPhone OS doesn't
have it. And that definition isn't especially coherent.
nospam
<z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> "True multitasking" is not a term with any specific technical meaning.
> It appears to be a term invented yesterday with a definition engineered
> to allow Apple-bashers to go around telling people iPhone OS doesn't
> have it. And that definition isn't especially coherent.
the term was invented long ago to bash classic mac os.
Lloyd Parsons
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <hpnn7q$jt7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> White Spirit <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 09/04/2010 17:42, ZnU wrote:
> >
> > > In iPhone OS 4, third-party apps no longer quit when the user navigates
> > > away from them. They're put into a suspended state, where they remain in
> > > memory (unless they need to be purged in a low-memory situation), but
> > > they're not allocated any CPU time, unless they've told the OS they want
> > > CPU time in the background, and told it under what circumstances they
> > > want it by specifying one of several different modes. In some of these
> > > modes, the OS gives apps CPU time essentially continuously, while in
> > > others it gives apps chunks of CPU time to respond to specific events.
> > > But either way, when multiple apps have been allocated CPU at the same
> > > time, the system does timeslice-based resource switching just like any
> > > other preemptive system.
> >
> > In other words, no true multitasking ;)
>
> "True multitasking" is not a term with any specific technical meaning.
> It appears to be a term invented yesterday with a definition engineered
> to allow Apple-bashers to go around telling people iPhone OS doesn't
> have it. And that definition isn't especially coherent.
Yeah, it gives them yet another reason to feel superior while Apple
calmly goes around doing things the way that makes sense, the customers
like, and makes Apple boatloads of money in the process.
--
Lloyd
Moshe
You mean customers don't want the source code to the device and
it's applications?
Silly me!
I thought that would seal the deal for certain :)
Chris Ahlstrom
And classic windows os.
--
You mentioned your name as if I should recognize it, but beyond the
obvious facts that you are a bachelor, a solicitor, a freemason, and
an asthmatic, I know nothing whatever about you.
-- Sherlock Holmes, "The Norwood Builder"
Chris Ahlstrom
> nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <hpnkgk$9ot$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Chris Ahlstrom
>> <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Easy. Preemptive multi-tasking is "true" multitasking.
>>>
>>> Calling cooperative multitasking "true" multitasking is a bit like
>>> calling polling "interrupt processing".
>>
>> cooperative multitasking is also 'true', it just uses different
>> scheduling. both have their advantages and disadvantages.
>
> feel free to tell us all 0 advantages of "cooperative multitasking"
Your app can monopolize the whole system. :-)
--
Man is the only animal that blushes -- or needs to.
-- Mark Twain
Chris Ahlstrom
> In article <Uu-dnZkUG93gmiLW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > No multitasking for the Gen2 iPod Touch ... how lame ...
>
> Incorrect.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/>
The multitasking has a service-count limitation, but it seems
pretty reasonable for a small phone or player, to me.
Does anyone do this, though?
...IT managers have even more reasons to deploy iPhone throughout their
enterprises.
--
Beware of a tall black man with one blond shoe.
Moshe
> Alan Baker pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> In article <Uu-dnZkUG93gmiLW...@brightview.co.uk>,
>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > No multitasking for the Gen2 iPod Touch ... how lame ...
>>
>> Incorrect.
>>
>> <http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/>
>
> The multitasking has a service-count limitation, but it seems
> pretty reasonable for a small phone or player, to me.
>
> Does anyone do this, though?
>
You're as clue less as Jeb, Ahlstrom.
ZnU
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
Not much specific info recently, but as of 2008 35% of the Fortune 500
was involved in the iPhone 2.0 beta program (2.0 is when Apple added
Exchange and a bunch of other enterprise features).
Apple has some profiles here:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/profiles/
And certainly the amount of attention Apple has dedicated to enterprise
deployment concerns indicates they're seeing some interest there.
People need to get over the whole conception of Apple as that quirky
little company that makes those cute little iMac things.
Hawk
Hawk wrote:
>>> No multitasking for the Gen2 iPod Touch ... how lame ...
Alan Baker wrote:
>
> Incorrect.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/>
>
Alan Baker also wrote:
>
> "iPhone OS 4 Compatibility
> iPhone OS 4 will work with iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and the second- and
> third-generation iPod touch this summer, and with iPad in the fall. Not
> all features are compatible with all devices. For example, multitasking
> is available only with iPhone 3GS and the third-generation iPod touch
> (32GB and 64GB models from late 2009)."
>
There is no multitasking for the Gen2 iPod Touch ... you quoted the info
yourself ... there is nothing "incorrect" about my statement as it is
ALSO quite lame that they won't allow it on a Gen2.
I didn't say that the Gen2 won't run OS4, I said it won't multitask with it.
Why not give the customer an option to turn multitasking on or off? If
the particular apps that the customer is trying to run bog the device
down too much, at least they had the option of trying it. Of course
they could provide this option, because they already disable it when it
detects Gen2 hardware.
Yet another way to try and twist peoples arm to abandon their current
hardware that in some cases is less than a year old. The Gen2 COULD
multitask, but they choose not to allow it. Soooo weak....
Phil Da Lick!
> Peter Köhlmann pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <hpnkgk$9ot$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Chris Ahlstrom
>>> <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Easy. Preemptive multi-tasking is "true" multitasking.
>>>>
>>>> Calling cooperative multitasking "true" multitasking is a bit like
>>>> calling polling "interrupt processing".
>>> cooperative multitasking is also 'true', it just uses different
>>> scheduling. both have their advantages and disadvantages.
>> feel free to tell us all 0 advantages of "cooperative multitasking"
>
> Your app can monopolize the whole system. :-)
>
Which has even worse potential with the model that Apple are employing
with the iPhone OS. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But the
jizz-fest that's going on about this issue is frankly pathetic. Yes,
multitasking *could* be a boon for the iPhone. *If* it's implemented
correctly. But it's a big gamble on the part of Apple, especially seeing
as how many apps are now out there in the wild based on the old model. I
suppose with the arrival of the iPad they had to give it a crack. Let's
hope they get it right.
Phil Da Lick!
The difference of course being that the scheduling can be dictated by
the app and not the system. Especially with badly written apps.
Richard B. Gilbert
Since I don't program for Windows, I never had a need to find out how
Windows multitasks. It is transparent to the user. The difference
between Windows 3.1 and Windows XP is that the latter works and the
former did not! At least not so you could count on it. It may be years
before I upgrade to Windows 7; I may never upgrade. What I have works
and does what I need.
With Unix or OpenVMS I have some idea what the O/S is doing behind the
scenes.
Phil Da Lick!
I don't know of many other preemptive systems that would throttle apps
back when they go background to the same degree. Precisely why I didn't
use the term pre-emptive in my original comment on this. I'm not saying
this is a bad thing, and it's a proper implementation given the hardware
on the device but it is not true multitasking the same as any other
general purpose OS and shouldn't be portrayed as such.
>
> [snip]
>
Phil Da Lick!
> In article <hpnn7q$jt7$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> White Spirit <wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 09/04/2010 17:42, ZnU wrote:
>>
>>> In iPhone OS 4, third-party apps no longer quit when the user navigates
>>> away from them. They're put into a suspended state, where they remain in
>>> memory (unless they need to be purged in a low-memory situation), but
>>> they're not allocated any CPU time, unless they've told the OS they want
>>> CPU time in the background, and told it under what circumstances they
>>> want it by specifying one of several different modes. In some of these
>>> modes, the OS gives apps CPU time essentially continuously, while in
>>> others it gives apps chunks of CPU time to respond to specific events.
>>> But either way, when multiple apps have been allocated CPU at the same
>>> time, the system does timeslice-based resource switching just like any
>>> other preemptive system.
>> In other words, no true multitasking ;)
>
> "True multitasking" is not a term with any specific technical meaning.
> It appears to be a term invented yesterday with a definition engineered
> to allow Apple-bashers to go around telling people iPhone OS doesn't
> have it. And that definition isn't especially coherent.
I hope you're not referring to me there. I love my iPhone. But it is a
mobile phone at the end of the day and hardware restrictions require a
certain level of optimisation especially when it comes to multitasking.
Phil Da Lick!
Our old MacOS9 workstation ran rings around the comparable winders OS at
the time in terms of multitasking. I wasn't aware there was a prior
definition. My mistake.
Snit
1:52 PM:
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:13:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
>> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>>
>> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
>> on mobile devices,(snip)
>
> ... took 'em long enough...
>
>
Has anyone else beaten them to doing it *the method* the are... or something
even similar?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1:56 PM:
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:55:07 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> In article <rLWdnSUAfr2B3yPW...@supernews.com>,
>> Rick <no...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:13:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>
>>>> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-
> event/
>>>>
>>>> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking
>>>> correctly on mobile devices,(snip)
>>>
>>> ... took 'em long enough...
>>
>> I'd rather have it take a while and be done right, myself...
>
> Well, ... still took 'em long enough...
In retrospect, when you now know their solution, it is easy enough to see it
that way. One of those oh-I-should-have-thought-of-that-moments for you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:26 PM:
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:11:46 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> In article <apony-C6FAC0....@news.qwest.net>,
>> Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rick <no...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-
> event/
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking
>>>>> correctly on mobile devices,(snip)
>>>>
>>>> ... took 'em long enough...
>>>
>>> what do you mean? they were the very first to do it correctly.
>>
>> Sorry, but we don't know that yet.
>
> No, we don't. And, I highly suspect "do it correctly" is going to be
> highly subjective. It's certainly already inflammatory :-)
>
> Still, Apple may well have done a good job at implementing multitasking
> on the iPad ... within Apple's parameters.
Do you know any phone or similar device that does it better?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Phil Da Lick!
> In article <Uu-dnZkUG93gmiLW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/04/2010 01:14, Hawk wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2010 1:13 PM, Oxford wrote:
>>>> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of WOW moments!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-os-4-event/
>>>>
>>>> Apple has finally cracked the code of how to do multitasking correctly
>>>> on mobile devices, so congrats to Apple for solving this vexing problem!
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy!
>>>
>>> No multitasking for the Gen2 iPod Touch ... how lame ...
>
> Incorrect.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/>
>
>> Nor the iPhone 3G. Its only the S models. And it's not true multitasking
>> either. It's even more restricted than win3.1's multitasking! I think of
>> it more as multi-open-run-one-tasking.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/iphone/preview-iphone-os/>
>
> "iPhone OS 4 Compatibility
> iPhone OS 4 will work with iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and the second- and
> third-generation iPod touch this summer, and with iPad in the fall. Not
> all features are compatible with all devices. For example,
OK...
> multitasking
> is available only with iPhone 3GS and the third-generation iPod touch
> (32GB and 64GB models from late 2009)."
That's what I said. "Nor the iPhone 3G. Its only the S models.". I
didn't mention iPod touch at all.
ZnU
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > Peter Köhlmann pulled this Usenet boner:
> >
> >> nospam wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <hpnkgk$9ot$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Chris Ahlstrom
> >>> <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Easy. Preemptive multi-tasking is "true" multitasking.
> >>>>
> >>>> Calling cooperative multitasking "true" multitasking is a bit like
> >>>> calling polling "interrupt processing".
> >>> cooperative multitasking is also 'true', it just uses different
> >>> scheduling. both have their advantages and disadvantages.
> >> feel free to tell us all 0 advantages of "cooperative multitasking"
> >
> > Your app can monopolize the whole system. :-)
> >
>
> Which has even worse potential with the model that Apple are employing
> with the iPhone OS.
Huh? That makes absolutely no sense.
The key distinction between cooperative multitasking and preemptive
multitasking is that with cooperative multitasking the current process
decides when it the next app gets a shot at using the CPU, while with
preemptive multitasking the OS decides.
Apple's iPhone OS multitasking model is indisputably preemptive. The
OS's scheduler merely takes several things into account when deciding
which apps should get CPU time (and how much) that traditional
preemptive schedulers don't take into account.
There is no way for the foreground app, or any other app, to
unilaterally choose to monopolize the whole CPU.
[snip]
Phil Da Lick!
Hope so. We'll see. Even on preemptive systems with negotiation with
client apps things can possibly go wrong. Let's hope Apple's
implementation is better than the winders equivalent.
ZnU
There is absolutely no plausible technical argument that iPhone OS, even
from the first version, has not had preemptive multitasking. You are
playing games with definitions, and conflating what the system allows
certain types of apps to do with what the system's technical
capabilities are.
Alan Baker
My mistake. Sorry.
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)
Alan Baker
Alan Baker
There's no need to hope. It wasn't that way in iPhone OS 1, 2 or 3 and
it isn't in 4, either.
Alan Baker
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
Which is of no relevance to iPhone OS...
Phil Da Lick!
Not at all.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/multitasking-comes-to-iphone-os-4-0/
"The system actually runs the services apps need in the background --
the apps don't need to do them individually, so it's not a "true"
multitasking system, but it seems plenty effective. There are seven
services: background audio, which allows you to use the standard
pop-over iPod controls, Voice over IP, which can receive calls in the
background, location services for GPS and social networking (there's an
indicator if any service is tracking you), updated push notifications
with local notifications, task completion so you can finish things like
uploads in the background, and fast app switching, which lets apps sleep
and resume instantly."
If true, and there's no reason to assume otherwise until more
information comes out, then that is hardly the same as a true preemptive
multitasking system.
And again, I'm not trying to portray this as "bad" in any way. It's
simply a case of making the stuff work properly with the resources at
hand. Something at which so far the iPhone has excelled.
Edwin
One apology down, 1,000,000 to go.
The bottom line is...
... Alan Baker is WRONG...
... AGAIN! <G>
Phil Da Lick!
I'm just glad I held out for a 3GS. :)
Edwin
Two admissions of error from Alan Baker on the same day... it's almost
impossible to get even one of those out of him...
... still...
... the bottom line is...
...Alan Baker is WRONG...
... AGAIN! <G>
Phil Da Lick!
I'm not saying it won't rock. It's just not a "true", "proper", "full",
whatever you want to call it, multitasking system.... according to early
reports - which may be wrong. We'll see. I personally hope they don't
make it fully multitasking. There's not much wrong with the iPhone OS as
it is.
Phil Da Lick!
> In article <PIidnbCUY743ACLW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <hpnkgk$9ot$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Chris Ahlstrom
>>> <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Easy. Preemptive multi-tasking is "true" multitasking.
>>>>
>>>> Calling cooperative multitasking "true" multitasking is a bit like
>>>> calling polling "interrupt processing".
>>> cooperative multitasking is also 'true', it just uses different
>>> scheduling. both have their advantages and disadvantages.
>> The difference of course being that the scheduling can be dictated by
>> the app and not the system. Especially with badly written apps.
>
> Which is of no relevance to iPhone OS...
>
So far. But then again my experience is so far limited to a few dozen
apps (mostly games) out of how many thousand?
ZnU
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <a-OdncYtItIwAiLW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> > "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >>> In article <BaGdnXSqmL2tuCLW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> >>> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 09/04/2010 13:06, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> >>>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> >>>>>> On 09/04/2010 12:24, KDT wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:54 am, "Phil Da Lick!"
> >>>>>>> <phil_the_l...@SPAMMERSKISSMYARSE.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 09/04/2010 01:14, Hawk wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2010 1:13 PM, Oxford wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Start at the bottom of this link and move up. Plenty of
> >>>>>>>>>> WOW moments!
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/live-from-apples-iphone-
> >>>>>>>>>> os-4-eve nt /
Not an accurate description about some of the background modes.
And even if it were, it would still be an issue of what the OS allows
third-party applications to do, not what type of scheduling the OS uses.
> so it's not a "true" multitasking system
Not a technically meaningful statement.
[snip]
Phil Da Lick!
Well, you'll have to take both those up with engadget.
Alan Baker
It is full true and proper.
Not allowing a facility to be used indiscriminately is not the same as
not *having* a facility.
Alan Baker
It doesn't matter.
No app is allowed to monopolize the processor because iPhone OS -- like
its predecessor OS, Mac OS X -- uses PMT.
Phil Da Lick!
No, it is not. Let's leave platform differences out of it. Are you
seriously suggesting that the iPhone apps are getting the same runtime
expectations as MacOS apps? Even though engadget is reporting that the
background execution is limited to seven predefined system resources?
> Not allowing a facility to be used indiscriminately is not the same as
> not *having* a facility.
No, not having a facility would never result in an app waiting to use it.