1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

iPad

Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by Augusto86, Jan 27, 2010.

  1. javyn

    javyn Senior member

    Messages:
    16,747
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Well, when I don't have flash and visit a site that requires it, it prompts me to go get it, not automatically install it. (that's w/ Windows and Linux...never used a Mac, can't comment on how it handles one not having a plugin, but automatically installing any plugin sounds just scary)

    Also, my point about iTunes wasn't that websites open it. It was that you can't remove it without breaking your Windows installation. Same with Quicktime.

    FYI there is no iTunes for Linux. Rhythmbox syncs just fine w/ an iPod for those who have one. But I doubt most *n*x users are going to buy an mp3 player that doesn't allow you to just drag and drop files in a window manager.
     
  2. MetroStyles

    MetroStyles Senior member

    Messages:
    15,831
    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Location:
    New York Shitty
    And if it's uninstalled, will my browser still download the files every time I log onto a site with a flash ad? Regardless, I can't uninstall anything on my work computer - I don't have access to that. It would just be nice to not have ads in flash or to be given an option before something downloads.

    I don't go to random websites that just load up my itunes because of some ad. Not sure where you're finding those...must be a weird linux thing.


    [​IMG]
     
  3. Roikins

    Roikins Senior member

    Messages:
    1,951
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Er, are you sure they were mocking the app switcher, and not the idea of allowing multiple full apps to run simultaneously? I'm not sure why they would slag on an interface for switching apps... I mean, how else would you switch apps?? This is a given. My point was that they're not just allowing every app to run all the time... it's a very controlled implementation of "multitasking." (Perhaps "background processes" would be a more accurate term.)
    Can't say for certain since the first generation of the software didn't have the ability to run simultaneous programs, so maybe they were mocking the ability to multitask and/or the task manager. However, I do enjoy this new quote about the iPhone's new task switcher: Q: How do you close applications when multitasking? A: (Scott Forstall) You don't have to. The user just uses things and doesn't ever have to worry about it. A: (Steve Jobs) It's like we said on the iPad, if you see a stylus, they blew it. In multitasking, if you see a task manager... they blew it. Users shouldn't ever have to think about it. Awesome! So each time I start a program, it will keep running because I can't close it! [​IMG]
    I hate Flash. Can Flash be removed from the internet? I don't want any computer to be able to show it actually. I do not want to watch a giant advertisement movie on my screen every time I load a website. Even when you try to hide the Flash, it's not fool proof. When amex ran their ads on the nytimes site last week, I had my computer slow down or I couldn't click on links I wanted. Just awful. So if we can watch videos without the use of Flash, I am all for it.
    Don't worry, with the new iAds and HTML5, you can get all those full screen video ads without using Flash at all. [​IMG]
     
  4. MetroStyles

    MetroStyles Senior member

    Messages:
    15,831
    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Location:
    New York Shitty
    Can't say for certain since the first generation of the software didn't have the ability to run simultaneous programs, so maybe they were mocking the ability to multitask and/or the task manager. However, I do enjoy this new quote about the iPhone's new task switcher:

    Q: How do you close applications when multitasking?
    A: (Scott Forstall) You don't have to. The user just uses things and doesn't ever have to worry about it.
    A: (Steve Jobs) It's like we said on the iPad, if you see a stylus, they blew it. In multitasking, if you see a task manager... they blew it. Users shouldn't ever have to think about it.


    Awesome! So each time I start a program, it will keep running because I can't close it! [​IMG]

    Don't worry, with the new iAds and HTML5, you can get all those full screen video ads without using Flash at all. [​IMG]


    God, I hate Apple so much. Why does the (jailbroken) iPhone have to be so good? Ugh......
     
  5. javyn

    javyn Senior member

    Messages:
    16,747
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    God, I hate Apple so much. Why does the (jailbroken) iPhone have to be so good? Ugh......
    I'll give Apple this....my coworker who has an iPhone got an app that uses the motion sensor to count pushups for you. Pretty damn sweet. Made me envious counting my pushups the old fashioned analog way.
     
  6. aqhong

    aqhong Senior member

    Messages:
    1,967
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Awesome! So each time I start a program, it will keep running because I can't close it! [​IMG]
    Wrong. When you switch to another app, the original app "closes" / stops running, but it has the ability to "freeze" its state (to be restored when you return) and/or access background processes (like audio, VOIP, GPS, etc.) if it needs to.
     
  7. haganah

    haganah Senior member

    Messages:
    6,351
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Can't say for certain since the first generation of the software didn't have the ability to run simultaneous programs, so maybe they were mocking the ability to multitask and/or the task manager. However, I do enjoy this new quote about the iPhone's new task switcher: Q: How do you close applications when multitasking? A: (Scott Forstall) You don't have to. The user just uses things and doesn't ever have to worry about it. A: (Steve Jobs) It's like we said on the iPad, if you see a stylus, they blew it. In multitasking, if you see a task manager... they blew it. Users shouldn't ever have to think about it. Awesome! So each time I start a program, it will keep running because I can't close it! [​IMG] Don't worry, with the new iAds and HTML5, you can get all those full screen video ads without using Flash at all. [​IMG]
    I don't think iAds will be on my PC at work. I also don't use an ipad or iphone so I think I'll be OK [​IMG] But your point is taken (not that I'm positive it will work like that, although it probably will, since I haven't seen it in action).
    [​IMG]
    I'd love to just peg you in the head with an apple. The fruit or the computer would do. Right in the temple actually. I'm getting giddy right now thinking about it.
     
  8. UnFacconable

    UnFacconable Senior member

    Messages:
    1,178
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    I already did: It's not "multi-tasking" in the desktop OS sense, it's a limited set of APIs (audio, VOIP, location services, etc.) that can run in the background to provide the effective functionality of multitasking without the stability/performance/battery life issues of "true" (i.e. full apps running simultaneously) multitasking.

    The rest of your post isn't even worth a rebuttal. I'm a fanboy, everything I say is obviously biased by my love of Apple, I get it. Moving on.


    The fact that this limited version of "multi-tasking" can't be implemented on all but the newer most powerful iphone 3gs is an indication that they couldn't just flip a switch and turn on multi-tasking. You will claim it's to protect users, for battery life, whatever, but the facts are what they are - only the 3gs and newer phones will have the limited multi-tasking. Would it surprise me if the iPad has a better/fuller version of multi-tasking implemented now that the cat is out of the bag? I sure hope not, multi-tasking is useful and would make it a better product. I would take the battery life hit (surely there could be a setting to choose whether you want full multi-tasking or not, if Apple allowed users to make settings).

    As to the people knocking flash, I'm in no way defending the way flash is used on the web, I agree it's generally problematic - but take video games as an example. Lots of people play flash video games and it's hard to force programmers to sell games through the itunes store if their are cheaper alternatives. There are certainly advantages to vendors to use the itunes store (UI/experience and exposure to user base come to mind) but allowing products to run flash would provide an opportunity for folks to compete, which is a no-no for Apple's bottom line.

    Point being, the statements about flash are a smokescreen. Apple will not let users get app-type functionality other than through their front-end. No flash, no java, no alternatives ever.
     
  9. Roikins

    Roikins Senior member

    Messages:
    1,951
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Wrong. When you switch to another app, the original app "closes" / stops running, but it has the ability to "freeze" its state (to be restored when you return) and/or access background processes (like audio, VOIP, GPS, etc.) if it needs to.

    Yeah, so it sounds like eventually, over the course of a week, you could have every single program on your phone running "frozen" in the background with the task switcher 20 screens long full of icons from every program you've started? Seems like it would be easier to hold your finger over an icon on the task switcher and have a "close program" prompt pop-up.
     
  10. aqhong

    aqhong Senior member

    Messages:
    1,967
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    ^ I'm pretty sure that's not the case, and I agree that it'd be pretty dumb if it were. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is in fact a close button as you describe, but I haven't seen video from the event yet, so your guess is as good as mine.
     
  11. aqhong

    aqhong Senior member

    Messages:
    1,967
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Would it surprise me if the iPad has a better/fuller version of multi-tasking implemented now that the cat is out of the bag? I sure hope not, multi-tasking is useful and would make it a better product.
    What would "better/fuller" multitasking allow apps to do that they cannot do with the current "limited" form of multitasking?
     
  12. Roikins

    Roikins Senior member

    Messages:
    1,951
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    ^ I'm pretty sure that's not the case, and I agree that it'd be pretty dumb if it were. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is in fact a close button as you describe, but I haven't seen video from the event yet, so your guess is as good as mine.

    I would hope so, but with Apple, you can never be too sure. That's the one thing that kills Apple products for me -- they love to try and simplify things too much to the point it feels like you're dealing with a kid's Fisher-Price toy. Sometimes, a little complexity is a good thing and can actually be lead to being more efficient.
     
  13. kwilkinson

    kwilkinson Senior member

    Messages:
    33,650
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    I'll give Apple this....my coworker who has an iPhone got an app that uses the motion sensor to count pushups for you. Pretty damn sweet. Made me envious counting my pushups the old fashioned analog way.

    If the amount of pushups you can do at one time is higher than you can count, I don't know whether to be very happy for your muscular strength or very sad for your ability to count.
     
  14. MetroStyles

    MetroStyles Senior member

    Messages:
    15,831
    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Location:
    New York Shitty
    What would "better/fuller" multitasking allow apps to do that they cannot do with the current "limited" form of multitasking?

    a) Can you provide a good reason that full multi-tasking should be disallowed? Give one good reason it should not be allowed as a setting. Default can have full multi-tasking off.

    b) Real multi-tasking allows everything to run as if the program were really open in the foreground. For example, if I am using a program that requires a download of some sort, it could keep downloading while I switch to something else. If my Grooveshark app is loading a song, I can switch over to the internet while it is doing that. If my scrabble app is taking a long time to refresh a game, I can keep it running in the background instead of closing it. If I want someone to be able to Skype call me while I am playing a game, I can leave Skype on and multitask.

    Again, why not allow users complete multitasking functionality? There is no good reason. Unless you enjoy having your hand held and being told what you can and cannot use the device for. After all, you spent a lot of money on it. If you don't mind a bit of extra battery drain from multitasking heavily, you should be allowed to use that function.

    And it exists. I have it on my jailbroken iPhone. It is such a small little process tweak that it is really sad it doesn't exist for the casual user.
     
  15. aqhong

    aqhong Senior member

    Messages:
    1,967
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    a) Can you provide a good reason that full multi-tasking should be disallowed? Give one good reason it should not be allowed as a setting. Default can have full multi-tasking off.
    Because it increases resource usage while providing no functional benefit over "limited" multitasking? I basically just asked you "why?" and you responded "why not?"
    b) Real multi-tasking allows everything to run as if the program were really open in the foreground. For example, if I am using a program that requires a download of some sort, it could keep downloading while I switch to something else. If my Grooveshark app is loading a song, I can switch over to the internet while it is doing that. If my scrabble app is taking a long time to refresh a game, I can keep it running in the background instead of closing it.
    This is possible. Task completion is an available API. Loading photos in Flickr was given as an example.
    If I want someone to be able to Skype call me while I am playing a game, I can leave Skype on and multitask.
    This is possible. VOIP is an available API. Skype was even demonstrated during the event.
     
  16. javyn

    javyn Senior member

    Messages:
    16,747
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    I would hope so, but with Apple, you can never be too sure. That's the one thing that kills Apple products for me -- they love to try and simplify things too much to the point it feels like you're dealing with a kid's Fisher-Price toy. Sometimes, a little complexity is a good thing and can actually be lead to being more efficient.

    Yeah, that's a big drawback to your or me, but I guess it could be a good thing to certain people. Like the guy who earlier in this thread who wanted to get one for his Dad to check email and browse but couldn't figure out how to use a PC or Mac...

    Which I find a bit fishy though, considering my father has no problems using Ubuntu (with a UI I set up pretty much identical to a Mac's) for browsing and emailing, but he can't even work the VCR.
     
  17. javyn

    javyn Senior member

    Messages:
    16,747
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    If the amount of pushups you can do at one time is higher than you can count, I don't know whether to be very happy for your muscular strength or very sad for your ability to count.

    I have no idea how many I can do now, but in my prime in December when I was on the 100 pushups program, I got up to 65 consecutive.
     
  18. MetroStyles

    MetroStyles Senior member

    Messages:
    15,831
    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Location:
    New York Shitty
    Because it increases resource usage while providing no functional benefit over "limited" multitasking? I basically just asked you "why?" and you responded "why not?" This is possible. Task completion is an available API. Loading photos in Flickr was given as an example. This is possible. VOIP is an available API. Skype was even demonstrated during the event.
    I guess I'm not really seeing the difference in the two multi-tasking options. If it can run everything in the background and allow for easy switching between apps, what are the complaints? I know for example the iPhone is worthless in this regard without jailbreak. I would only qualify that it should allow for closing of apps after multitasking is no longer needed to limit resource usage.
     
  19. javyn

    javyn Senior member

    Messages:
    16,747
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Exactly how I see it. I know nothing about the OS on the phone/pad though. Is it based on OS X? ie, BSD? If so, then there definitely no good reason to not have multitasking.
     
  20. haganah

    haganah Senior member

    Messages:
    6,351
    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Location:
    New York, NY
    The fact that this limited version of "multi-tasking" can't be implemented on all but the newer most powerful iphone 3gs is an indication that they couldn't just flip a switch and turn on multi-tasking. You will claim it's to protect users, for battery life, whatever, but the facts are what they are - only the 3gs and newer phones will have the limited multi-tasking. Would it surprise me if the iPad has a better/fuller version of multi-tasking implemented now that the cat is out of the bag? I sure hope not, multi-tasking is useful and would make it a better product. I would take the battery life hit (surely there could be a setting to choose whether you want full multi-tasking or not, if Apple allowed users to make settings). As to the people knocking flash, I'm in no way defending the way flash is used on the web, I agree it's generally problematic - but take video games as an example. Lots of people play flash video games and it's hard to force programmers to sell games through the itunes store if their are cheaper alternatives. There are certainly advantages to vendors to use the itunes store (UI/experience and exposure to user base come to mind) but allowing products to run flash would provide an opportunity for folks to compete, which is a no-no for Apple's bottom line. Point being, the statements about flash are a smokescreen. Apple will not let users get app-type functionality other than through their front-end. No flash, no java, no alternatives ever.
    I don't play video games, but people seriously go to websites to play flash video games?
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by