That's the same SJ who said that the future of the iPhone was in internet
"rich" app. He later changed his mind (probably under popular pressure and
witnessing what was done on jailbroken iPhones.
He may change his mind again.
Le 11 avr. 2010 à 10:30, David Bovill a écrit :
> Not good - http://b
On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
> BUT; 'compatibility' is polysemantic: what is compatible with what Mr Jobs
> envisages for the iPhone/iPad may
> not encompass all the things that are otherwise compatible.
>
There's the basic problem, Steve's vision isn't compatible w
On 11/04/2010 18:28, Colin Holgate wrote:
On Apr 11, 2010, at 4:30 AM, David Bovill wrote:
Not good - http://bit.ly/bnTy0D
What is comical is that although Steve is all out to prevent compatibility
layers, in his quest for perfect apps, he's ok with using Javascript and HTML5,
which I thin
On Apr 11, 2010, at 4:30 AM, David Bovill wrote:
> >Not good - http://bit.ly/bnTy0D
What is comical is that although Steve is all out to prevent compatibility
layers, in his quest for perfect apps, he's ok with using Javascript and HTML5,
which I think are compatibility layers. I've done test
Not good - http://bit.ly/bnTy0D
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
More info:
I've been trying out things with GameSalad and Unity too, and for both of those
I am able to build using SDK4. In both cases doing that gives me an app that
fast app switches correctly. I'm not sure how Rev makes its app files, but it
doesn't seem to be able to make an SDK4 app, even
On Apr 10, 2010, at 3:26 PM, François Chaplais wrote:
> >could not this boil down to an small extra number of API that have to be
> >"enforced" in revmobile in order to have proper multitasking?
I just did a test, to check a theory I had. An XCode project I have that was
built for 3.1.3 show
could not this boil down to an small extra number of API that have to be
"enforced" in revmobile in order to have proper multitasking?
In another post about the new SDK conditions, there was mention of the new
compiler structures (blocks) that have been added to implement Grand Central
Dispatch
Le 10 avr. 2010 à 05:57, Colin Holgate a écrit :
>
> It is quite possible that anything that is XCode based might start to behave
> properly if just recompiled under the SDK4, and that would indeed show an
> advantage of having used XCode. But what Apple could do is insist that all
> apps hono
There are a number of flaws in the arguments in that message. Currently all old
apps, proper XCode ones or non-XCode ones, don't behave correctly with the
multitasking. Some apps don't pause when you're fast app switching, and even
the ones that do pause do a start from scratch when you return t
I came upon this in the Ars thread on the subject, where there is generally
more heat than light on this issue, but didn't really understand concretely
what exactly it is saying.
If that were what the objective was, why would Apple not simply set
standards for the way the compiled app must work
Found this post interesting:
The primary reason for the change, say sources familiar with Apple's plans, is
to support sophisticated new multitasking APIs in iPhone 4.0. The system will
now be evaluating apps as they run in order to implement smart multitasking. It
can't do this if apps are run
12 matches
Mail list logo
