manskybook wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:35 PM, LuKreme wrote: > > On 4-Feb-2010, at 14:23, Jonathon Kuo wrote: >> On Feb 4, 2010, at 5:13 AM, LuKreme wrote: >> >>> In the context of iPhone and iPad whiners, "no multitasking" simply means >>> "I can't listen to my non-iTunes music while I read email." >>> >>> And my answer to them is, "Yeah? And?" >> >> And my answer to you is, "Why did they do that?" > > Many reasons. > > 1) much greater control over the memory usage of the device, and enough > control to ensure that the device never feels slow or sluggish because 'too > many' things are running. Also, security of the device and being able to have > every process run completely it its own space, unassailable from other apps. > >> Now it's just another intentionally crippled device. > > No, it's a device that will always be ready and will never give me a spinning > rainbow cursor. > Isn't that what it comes down to? Those who are disappointed with the iPad wanted a full OS implemented on a tablet touchpad. Folks who want to see the potential of future computing look for an intuitive interface that doesn't show its underwear (i.e. where the OS and the file system remain largely transparent).
Remember that the original Mac didn't offer multitasking, either, and the few smartphones that do now tend to be underperformers (not to mention fairly non-intuitive). Apple's not trying to compete with the upcoming HP tablet that runs Windows 7. It's creating a space above smartphones. I also suspect that future chip advances and software improvements will make the "multitasking" issue moot. The first couple of iPad iterations will be beta tests (performed by paying users, as usual). But it can't all be bad - the Apple mobile platform still has UNIX and OS X as its base, so it shouldn't be hard to make multitasking work, as long as it stays in the sandbox of the app. jmm_______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
