# No multitasking? No flash video?



## Donut9 (Aug 14, 2009)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This thing is a joke.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Uh yeah. I suppose you'd prefer the HP Courier—oh wait—they haven't actually even created the prototype yet. The beauty of the free market is that you don't have to buy an iPad if you don't want to.

So how is "multi-tasking" working for all the droids and other smartphones out there?


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

iPad /= Smartphone so I'm not sure what your point is...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

My point is that the term "multitasking" is often bandied about as the trump card other makers have over Apple when really it's a little misleading. The iPhone, from which the iPad is derived, actually does multitask if you choose to have the iPod music play in the background while using a different app, for instance, and you can both talk on the phone and consult Google Maps, check the stocks or whatever at the same time as well. How are these things not multitasking?

The iPad may not be a phone, but it's on the same continuum as the iPod Touch and iPhone, both of which do what they need to do very well. Multitasking requires more memory and more processing power which undoubtedly would drive the price up. What do people want? I thought affordability was the biggest knock against Apple products. $499 to start for something that basically does what a netbook does and more, and look cool doing it, is pretty darn reasonable. What exactly does the OP wish to see?


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

When people refer to multitasking, they're referring to it in the capacity of a fully functional computer without a crippled OS. Being able to go from one app to the other, have multiple apps running at once, etc.

The iPad is obviously a different device than what some people were hoping for. It's not a computer. It offers internet functionality, the ability to use some specialized versions of familiar software and tailored versions of apps from the apps store. That's about it.

It's doesn't quite do what a netbook does though, yeah? Netbooks generally run full version OSs and aren't limited to running a single application at a time. So what if you can listen to music while you use 1 single application? That's hardly multitasking, more like riding the elevator with musac playing. The elevator is still dedicated to it's single function, while in the backgroud musac serenades you into a fury of calm. It's nice music, isn't it? I always found it lovely.....


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

donut9, kloan:

Read this: The iPad's future shock | Laptop | iPhone Central | Macworld

Then read this: stevenf.com - I need to talk to you about computers. I?ve been...

Then come back and tell me what you think.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

No, and Yes...



kloan said:


> When people refer to multitasking, they're referring to it in the capacity of a fully functional computer without a crippled OS.


Multi-tasking does not refer to the OS in any way, shape, or form. Whether it is a full OS or a scaled down iPhone OS is irrelevant. Multi-tasking is a feature of an OS which was decidedly left out for various reasons.



kloan said:


> Being able to go from one app to the other, have multiple apps running at once, etc.


Correct.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

chas_m said:


> donut9, kloan:
> 
> Read this: The iPad's future shock | Laptop | iPhone Central | Macworld
> 
> ...


Read it, One is suggesting simple is better. Perhaps it is for some, but it's not for me. I don't find my computer confusing in the least. I happen to like the full reign I have with it.

Second one is suggesting this is the beginning, wait and see what the future brings, etc... that's fine, I'm sure there's a future somewhere in it... but I'm not impressed with what I've seen of it so far. It's new, who knows.. maybe something will change and I'll be impressed, but I'm not yet.

For me, it's too simple. Too dumbed down, too limited. The video output was a huge negative for me. I'm am actually appalled it's only capable of 480p. Lack of camera, I could care less. Lack of multitasking, that's a pretty big deal breaker for me as well. I hated it when I owned a Palm, I hate it with my iPod Touch. Copy n Paste is the only good to come of all our complaints.. look how long it took Apple to do that. Imagine how long it'll take to actually get Apple to bring more functionality to the iPad.

Some people like it, others don't. Nothing's changed here, it's always been like that when Apple comes out with a new device. Sometimes people are won over, other times they're not. It's just the nature of it.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Kloan:

Sincere thanks for your comments. I think you may have misinterpreted my point in posting those links as trying to sell you on an iPad (I'm not), but I genuinely wanted to know what you thought *once it was clear what the device is actually for,* which I think those two articles do a great job of explaining.


----------



## mneub (Sep 15, 2002)

kloan said:


> For me, it's too simple. Too dumbed down, too limited. The video output was a huge negative for me. I'm am actually appalled it's only capable of 480p. Lack of camera, I could care less. Lack of multitasking, that's a pretty big deal breaker for me as well. I hated it when I owned a Palm, I hate it with my iPod Touch. Copy n Paste is the only good to come of all our complaints.. look how long it took Apple to do that. Imagine how long it'll take to actually get Apple to bring more functionality to the iPad.


I agree. Multitasking just makes sense. I hate my iPod for the same reasons. I use it for a lot of IM and I think the iPhone OS should be adequate for such a use. It's just too much of a hassle to have to use push and have to exit and open the program just to send a quick reply. If the iPad is supposed to expand on the capabilities of the iPhone OS, it will be difficult without having multitasking in some respects. It will be unnecessarily inconvenient in a number of ways.


----------



## Donut9 (Aug 14, 2009)

Apple iPad met with derision and laughter by web users | Mail Online

At first, I believed Apple's hype, until I learned a few facts they didn't mention. Now I cannot believe they are actually releasing this. 

And as for HP not having a working prototype, enjoy that while you can. It is coming.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

I love that most of the things that the Article points out as "flaws" in the iPad are things that people have known the iPad would have for months and months. 

- 10" screen
- Touch Keyboard
- Closed Apps
- No Multitasking
- No flash

There were definitely some pie-in-the-sky people who thought the iPad would run full OSX - but those people were few and far between.

We all knew the iPad would use the iPhone OS or some variant, which meant touch keyboard, closed apps and no multitasking (but not really, since you can run stuff like Push and iPod and maybe more in the BG anyway). 

I also love the quote they use to detract the iPad: "Unlike the iPhone, which filled an already well-established need, there is no existing need the iPad fills."

'Cept when I pull up an article about the original iPhone launch in 2007, they say the iPhone is terrible and will never sell 'cause:

- Price
- No Apps
- No access to Filesystem
- no 3G
- Touchscreen keyboard

Sensationalism at it's best.

The Daily Mirror ran a whole bunch of Anti-iPhone pieces leading up to launch:
Is the iPhone failing to live up to the hype? | Mail Online

This one even said phones like iPhone are packed with useless features - and then a few short years later, they say the iPad doesn't have ENOUGH features? Gimme a break.



And yet... hmm.... the iPhone was a flop too, I guess?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Donut9 said:


> At first, I believed Apple's hype, until I learned a few facts they didn't mention. Now I cannot believe they are actually releasing this.


So you didn't read my links then.

In that case, I'm not going to read yours either.

PS. I doubt you've ever lived in England -- if you had, I doubt you would have gone to the Daily Mail (aka the Fox News of the UK) for your link.



> And as for HP not having a working prototype, enjoy that while you can. It is coming.


So's christmas.


----------



## Donut9 (Aug 14, 2009)

chas_m said:


> So you didn't read my links then.
> 
> In that case, I'm not going to read yours either in that case.


Somehow, some way, I will just have to find a way to move on with my life.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Donut9 said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> This thing is a joke.





Donut9 said:


> Somehow, some way, I will just have to find a way to move on with my life.


Thank you for your lucid and erudite discussion of the merits and faults of the Apple's iPad.
I look forward to your future posts, especially after you graduate from Grade 7.

Seriously, you Trolls don't even _try_ anymore.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

TUAW has a great piece up about the lack of Flash on the iPad/iPhone, and the state of Flash in OSX in general.

It really is Adobe's problem. Even Firefox for mobile has disabled flash 'cause it performs SO TERRIBLY.

The Flash saga continues: Adobe responds to charges of "laziness"

I've said it so many times - want a full OSX, Flash-supporting touch screen tablet? Get a Modbook.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Or this new "iTablet" from unknown company X2. Which I'm SURE Trollnut9 will be getting since it meets all his requirements.

I guess we'll see which one sells better: the Flash-less, non-"multitasking" Apple iPad -- or the Windows7-running (thus "multitasking and flash supporting," app-store-less, multi-touch-optional, touch-app-less, 3x-the-thickness, webcam-less, unknown-price-and-weight iTablet.

Place your bets, folks. I know which horse I'm betting on ...


----------



## Donut9 (Aug 14, 2009)

It is funny how you can create all the posts you want discussing the merits of a product, but if you create one to talk about why you think it is a bad idea, you are a "troll". In real life, for example, someone can laugh at, say, the Toronto Maple Leafs, and they are not considered a "troll". However, if they should create a thread on a forum devoted to the discussion of the Leafs, they are then a troll to everyone who wants to hear nothing besides their praise. Similarly, a lot of people here seem to believe Steve Jobs is a demigod, and Apple is infallible. They released a product that I think is ridiculous, and instead of just ignoring the thread, you people come on here and call me a troll, and persist in making personal insults when all I did was criticize a product. You alluded to my education and mentality being that of a grade schooler, but I think if you were to turn the looking glass inward, you might find, as is often the case with people who resort to personal insults to support an argument, it is you who are acting exactly in the fashion which you ridicule. 

Continue though, I find it amusing. 

I think if they had called this thing an iPod Giant or something, it would have made more sense. The touch screen technology is intriguing, but this thing is a joke overall. It will cost 800 caps just to get a half decent model, and I can easily get a netbook without the gimmicky touch screen to do all this thing can do and more - minus the app store, which I can use an iPhone for. 

The only good I can see coming from this, is if future macs have touch screens. Do you guys think that will happen? I know Windows 7 is set up for this already (or so they say).

EDIT: I was just considering the irony of you calling me a troll AND comparing my mentality to that of a twelve year old (more or less the age of someone in grade 7). Calling someone a troll, or a n00b, or a phag, or anything like that is exactly how people in grade 7, or their mental equivalents of any age behave on the internet. Just something to think about. Shouldn't you guys be 'pwning' ten year olds on Call of Duty or something?


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Donut, you are perfectly welcome to your opinion, and you must know that your thought that the iPad is a "joke" is shared by lots of people on lots of forums. 

There are also those of us who think that the iPad is a great first step towards something you even say is something you want - a Touchscreen full-mac-os system. Apple is using the iPad as a training/interim device to get people to believe in the iPhone OS and beyond as usable/expandable for a bigger screened device.

Without the iPad as a middle step, it's my belief that an "Full Mac OS" Apple Tablet wouldn't be as big of a hit (See ModBook and their limited market).

It does interest me that so many people are mad about what Apple "left out", as if Apple owed them something with this device. I'm not gonna blindly follow Apple anywhere - there are lots of devices (including AppleTV and Apple's displays that I think are kindof useless/priced too high.

Point is: Apple never *promised* anyone anything. They didn't say a *word* about the tablet - there was just lots of rampant speculation and pent up demand. People assumed things and set their expectations sky high. There was no way the iPad was ever going to live up to any of those/your expectations and not be $3000.

If you don't like the iPad, and think it's a misstep for Apple, that's totally fine. It's your opinion and some people don't share it. In the end, it's not gonna matter what you or I or chas_m thinks about the iPad. It's gonna depend on whether or not Apple can sell a substantial amount of them. And we won't know any of that stuff till June/July at the earliest.


----------



## 9780 (Sep 14, 2006)

Been using a Google Nexus One since yesterday, and I'll hopefully soon compare it with an iPhone.. So far though, based on what I remember of my iPod Touch 2 years ago..

I'm glad Apple left some stuff out of the iPod. As they say, "Jack of all trades, master of none". Although the Nexus tries its best to be an imitation of the iPhone, the fact that it can do even MORE sometimes detracts.. As does the fact that it's not tied to iTunes or anything to sync, makes syncing a pain (except when you sync to Google services).

Of course this is just one day of use, and no iPhone yet so who knows how both will compare, but so far it appears to me like Apple is making the right decisions in limiting the devices, so that the functions that are there are working really well.

Patrix.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Verrrrrryyyyy Interesting!*

*Virtualization Is the Trojan Horse to Take the iPad Beyond Apple’s OS*



> One of the primary details to note there is that *multiple Windows 7 applications can run in a session on an iPad via Citrix Receiver and Xen virtualization*. Of course, it’s also important to note that Fleck is describing applications housed on remote servers — not running locally. Apple has already announced that it will have its iWork applications available for the iPad, but why won’t many Windows 7-centric users and businesses want access to Windows applications that they can run concurrently as well? *Doing so could eliminate multitasking limitations inherent to the iPhone OS*, and a larger screen than the iPhone’s will only help encourage such usage.


(GIgaOm)


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Why do people keep trying to make cars into airplanes?


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

chas_m said:


> Why do people keep trying to make cars into airplanes?


more like a fancy tricycle with a missing wheel. hehe


----------



## Newdeal (Nov 2, 2009)

*...*

after installing click2flash I realise now that I would never buy an ipad until either flash is accepted into it or the world switches away from flash. Most popular websites seem to have flash elements and if I want to look online at auto manufacturers websites forget it without flash


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Newdeal said:


> after installing click2flash I realise now that I would never buy an ipad until either flash is accepted into it or the world switches away from flash. Most popular websites seem to have flash elements and if I want to look online at auto manufacturers websites forget it without flash


I recently started using Click2Flash out of curiosity... it's not improving performance, but it's highlighting Safari's bloat. So far, in the past week, I've had three sites implode on me without any Flash use whatsoever.

I used to skip bug reports to Apple, but no more.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

chas_m said:


> Why do people keep trying to make cars into airplanes?


Because they can.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Why do people keep trying to make cars into airplanes?


This:
YouTube - The Flying Car


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Why do people keep wanting Flash on the iPhone and iPad? It would improve usability on some all-flash sites, but it would also open the iPhone/iPad up to a whole whack of viruses/malware that uses Flash and tries to break out of the sandbox.

Adobe warns of new Reader, Flash holes | InSecurity Complex - CNET News


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

fyrefly said:


> Why do people keep wanting Flash on the iPhone and iPad? It would improve usability on some all-flash sites, but it would also open the iPhone/iPad up to a whole whack of viruses/malware that uses Flash and tries to break out of the sandbox.
> 
> Adobe warns of new Reader, Flash holes | InSecurity Complex - CNET News


As if.


----------



## l84toff (Jul 27, 2008)

chas_m said:


> donut9, kloan:
> 
> Read this: The iPad's future shock | Laptop | iPhone Central | Macworld
> 
> ...


Excellent articles. The simplicity of it all is what brought me to switch to Mac in the first place. Like the man said: it just works! I am looking forward to the next few decades of technology, I think it'll be really exciting.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

fyrefly said:


> Why do people keep wanting Flash on the iPhone and iPad? It would improve usability on some all-flash sites, but it would also open the iPhone/iPad up to a whole whack of viruses/malware that uses Flash and tries to break out of the sandbox.
> 
> Adobe warns of new Reader, Flash holes | InSecurity Complex - CNET News





MannyP Design said:


> As if.


x2


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Okay, so be nice I'm not into the spec or tech thing. I can understand the multitask concern, but my question is, if multitasking is an OS issue, and Apple decides at a later date to add multitasking to the iPad will that involve a new purchase or will it simply be a patch to the current OS on the thing? This, I'm thinking would also apply to iPhone and Touch users.


----------



## l84toff (Jul 27, 2008)

Rps said:


> Okay, so be nice I'm not into the spec or tech thing. I can understand the multitask concern, but my question is, if multitasking is an OS issue, and Apple decides at a later date to add multitasking to the iPad will that involve a new purchase or will it simply be a patch to the current OS on the thing? This, I'm thinking would also apply to iPhone and Touch users.


I suspect that they will follow the same model as with current iPod touch users and charge a small amount for any _significant_ upgrades (e.g. $9.99). Any minor upgrades will most likely be in the form of a free download.

But in all fairness only Apple can answer that question, so we'll have to wait...


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Rps said:


> Okay, so be nice I'm not into the spec or tech thing. I can understand the multitask concern, but my question is, if multitasking is an OS issue, and Apple decides at a later date to add multitasking to the iPad will that involve a new purchase or will it simply be a patch to the current OS on the thing? This, I'm thinking would also apply to iPhone and Touch users.


Depends if the hardware is capable of supporting multitasking. If so, then it'd be an OS update. If not, you'd have to upgrade the device itself.

Neither the iPhone or Touch is capable of performing true multitasking. It gets way too bogged down, even with simple applications such as Safari. Barely enough RAM to even remember the last page viewed when opening a new page.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

fyrefly said:


> Why do people keep wanting Flash on the iPhone and iPad?


Because when all you see is nails, you want to have a hammer.


----------



## l84toff (Jul 27, 2008)

I'm actually quite curious about the speed of Safari on the iPad. I find the iPhone and Touch super slow compared to the full size Mac version, it's one of those things that keeps me from using it more than I have to. I'm referring to full signal strength wifi and not 3g here.

If it's the same as the current, I will have to disagree, this will not be the best way to surf the web...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

^^from the keynote it appeared the ipad was pretty fast while surfing the web.


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

Have you ever used an HP product? I would rather eat glass. Go buy that P.O.S when it comes out, if it's made by HP I'm sure it will last you all of eleven days.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

kloan said:


> Neither the iPhone or Touch is capable of performing true multitasking.


This is, of course, demonstrably not true. As every Touch or iPhone owner knows.

I can be listening to a podcast, reading mail and receiving text messages simultaneously. If that isn't multi-tasking, you're using a definition not found in any dictionary.

Apple *limits* multi-tasking to their own apps and the approved methodology (single source push). But that says absolutely nothing about the hardware's ability to multitask (indeed, it is of course doing exactly that on some level every second its on). This system came about out of genuine, practical concerns: quality of experience, stability, battery life, cost containment.

Kloan *is* right, however, to say that the RAM limitations do hold back the iPhone and iPod Touch's capabilities somewhat -- but OTOH look at how those limitations have forced developers to get creative! I am constantly DUMBFOUNDED at the ability of these apps to work in the 128MB of operating RAM (the 3GS has 256MB of RAM). We have apps on our iPhones that run RINGS around anything OS 9 had.

A bit of "developer discipline" seems to have paid off handsomely, and while nobody knows yet how much RAM the iPad has, my guess would be at least 512MB based on how well it performs. As for "the hardware" (meaning the A4 chip), details on the ARM Cortex A9 (which I believe serves as the basis of Apple's A4 chip) should provide anyone who is actually interested in knowing sufficient details on its ability to "multitask."


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

chas_m said:


> This is, of course, demonstrably not true. As every Touch or iPhone owner knows.
> 
> I can be listening to a podcast, reading mail and receiving text messages simultaneously. If that isn't multi-tasking, you're using a definition not found in any dictionary.
> 
> Apple *limits* multi-tasking to their own apps and the approved methodology (single source push). But that says absolutely nothing about the hardware's ability to multitask (indeed, it is of course doing exactly that on some level every second its on). This system came about out of genuine, practical concerns: quality of experience, stability, battery life, cost containment.


As every Touch or iPhone owner knows? Is that so? I happen to own both, and know it it to be demonstrably true, as many others do as well. You're really stretching it Chas (and sounding more and more like a fanboy everyday).... So what if you can listen to music while you read emails? That's hardly a productive feature.

Plenty of people with experience with the iPhone/Touch have experienced Safari locking up and crashing while they've had music running in the background. Same thing goes for tons of other apps as well. If the iPhone or Touch can't even manage to play music in the background while using another app that requires more processing power (and Ram), what makes you think either device is capable of REAL multitasking?

What you're talking about is limited to it's one specific function: music while another app is running. That's not multitasking. Being able to have multiple, real applications running while being able to switch back and forth with ease, without the system locking up, is multitasking.

You're just deluding yourself if you think by listening to music and reading your emails you're multitasking.


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

...now this is getting silly.
Fact is the OS does allow some multitasking, it does not allow 3rd party apps free rein over the system. So, yes multitasking is limited, but it is there and things can change as the hardware advances.

I dont know of a single person in the past who has complained about the lack of multutasking on the iPhone, and the iPad isnt even released yet.

Clearly if you need to run multiple 3rd party apps, this device will not work for you. get a MacBook.
If you are the intended audience, the websurfer, media, consumer, email, skype etc, then it will be for you.

Technically you can multitask on a NetBook running XP on Atom CPU, but they can barely do one app at a time. 
The lack of Flash will be a bummer to some regular consumers, but otherwise this will be a definite alternative to a NetBook.
The iPhone OS is a continuing development, so who's to say where it will go,
Apple eventually gives in to customer requests if they nag enough.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I never had a problem running multiple applications on my MSI Wind. It had a big hard drive and 2GB of ram. I ran Firefox, music, email, bittorrent and a chat program all at the same time. Guess what? NO PROBLEM.

Barely do one app at a time? Quit exagerating. My guess is you've never owned one.

"Things can change as the hardware advances" - So are you are you not admitting that the current hardware is somewhat limited in the kind of multitasking it's capable of supporting?

All my point was that the iPhone/Touch is limited, especially by it processor and ram. It's been designed to run specific tasks/processes in the background, but that's not the same as actually running multiple applications - regardless of 3rd party or not, that doesn't make a difference. Considering the iPhone/Touch is NOT capable of such feats, it's anyone's guess if the iPad will be. That's all my point was. Chas just likes to selectively quote single sentences and take peoples comments out of context to fit his own retorts.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

Whoa - seems like everyone needs to chill a bit. Things are getting a little too intense.

The iPhone *can* do multitasking - it's not pretty. Cydia has a couple of apps that'll let you run stuff in the BG. As Kloan says - it's not great and not what the iPhone/iPod Touch was designed for. I for one have had an iPhone 2G, and a 3GS and never had safari crash on me 'cause I was trying to listen to music and text and safari at the same time. And my iPhone 3GS is so fast at switching applications, I dunno what else I could want while every application I have remembers it's previous state. Do you need to be gaming and have your Safari running at the same time? Doubtful. And it would kill your battery pretty quick.

Now the iPad has a bit better processor, but I think Apple wants to control the experience a bit. Make sure it's great at doing singular things, rather than being so-so at doing multiple things. Though again, the iPad is built for people who aren't super-power-users. "I want to check out a YouTube Video". You press YouTube, it launches in milliseconds and you watch the video. Then you go to check your e-mail in the Mail client and remember you wanted to look up something in maps. You press home (the Mail client remembers what you were doing and returns you there when you relaunch) and you load up maps (which remembers what you were doing last time you used Maps).

I dunno how this is so far off from Multitasking.


----------

