Is Multitasking or Lack Thereof a Deal Breaker?

[Jeff Campbell]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/18/inside_apples_ipad_multitasking.html' target='_blank'>http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ltitasking.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Apple's new iPad is being criticized for lacking the capacity to run multiple third party applications at once, but the company has a variety of options to pursue in addressing the issue."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1266528255.usr105634.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>Lot of complaining without much to base it on. We still don't know what the OS is going to look like on the final product, and as the article says when comparing the iPad to the iPhone , <em>"The iPhone OS is constantly running system processes that listen to the mobile network for incoming calls and texts, it runs an iPod process for playing back music all the time, it watches for background notifications being sent to idle apps, and there's a variety of other things always going on. This is the definition of multitasking." </em></p><p><em></em>For what I plan on using this for (book reader mainly and surfing the web), I don't see that expanded multitasking beyond what is already on the iPhone will be a deal breaker for me. What are your thoughts?</p>

[ptyork]

Lot of complaining without much to base it on...This is the definition of multitasking.

It is the definition of an OS kernel that supports preemptive multitasking. However, if it doesn't allow for the USER to multitask, what good is the ability?? Apple preemptively proclaimed which apps users would be allowed to run in the background (basically just Phone and iPod). There just MIGHT be others that would make some sense to some users. Gasp! Anything that doesn't fit the pause-it-and-come-back-later mold of usage--streaming A/V, chat, VOIP, navigation, etc., etc.--would be made useful instead of simply a novelty by enabling multitasking. Removing this choice from users certainly seems like quite a basis upon which to embark on a campaign of complaining.

BS Graph with "The Capacity for Viruses and Spyware to Run in the Background"

Seriously? That's the supposed equal counter weight to "The Ability to Install Third-Party Apps that Run in the Background." Come on! That's like saying "we're cutting off your feet so that you can't get blisters."

And FWIW, the PalmOS versions that ran on Treo's and Centro's (actually I think going back to v3.0) WERE, at their core, preemptively multitasking. A smartphone basically has to have a multitasking kernel to be in order to respond to all of the myriad events flying at it. And while most apps didn't take advantage of this capability (it was a pain in the butt to make work right due to its being basically "tacked on"), Palm didn't lock it out and there were a number of great ones that did spawn core processes that could run in the background. It was great and generally barely touched the battery life (which for me was always two days of casual usage, one day more than my iPhone). And amazingly, I never caught a virus or felt the need for virus protection. :)

For what I plan on using this for (book reader mainly and surfing the web), I don't see that expanded multitasking beyond what is already on the iPhone will be a deal breaker for me.

Can't argue with that and I'm sure that's what Apple is banking on. But rest assured that if they do implement it in 4.0 or 5.0, you will be wondering how you ever lived without it. :)

[danny_w]

I don't think multitasking is a big deal to me for the iPad, but if Apple doesn't get their act together and offer an option of running Flash (has SJ ever heard of Click2Flash?) I will not buy an iPad, period. And I expect a lot of "Average Joe" users will be returning theirs too; even if they don't know what Flash is now they will know when websites display the stupid blue lego.

[Macguy59]

Not for me but "saved state" could help bridge the gap. Something that mobile Safari already does. As for people returning the tablet because they will discover the no-flash limitation . . . I doubt it because the most likely consumers for it are they ones with iPhones , 'Touches and those wanting it as an ebook/periodical reader. The former are already aware of the limitation going in.

[Deslock]

Apple's "limited multitasking" approach (for calls, iPod music, notifications) is adequate for *most* users on a phone.

But a device the size of the iPad needs to at least play video and browse the web simultaneously. Better would be the ability to run multiple iPhone apps in their native resolutions in windows (to be able to run some apps landscape and others portrait so the user could fit them better on the screen would also be cool). Hopefully someone will figure out how to do that ala jailbreak .

[Macguy59]

But a device the size of the iPad needs to at least play video and browse the web simultaneously

I guess our viewing habits are different but I don't get needing to be able to web browse while a video is playing :confused: