ivedoneyourmom said:
Marty, have you given reading the documentation a chance? I think it is actually quite brilliantly engineered.
Just got home and gave it a read through. Before I comment on it, let me be clear that I did not say that I didn't like Apple's implementation, nor did I say it was bad. I merely pointed out what I thought was a flaw/downside to their implementation. Their implementation could be good, but not perfect or without issues which is the one aspect I pointed out, not the whole system itself.
Moving on to what the document said, there is some unclear things to me that didn't seem covered there. First, it's unclear what takes place in linking to the new SDK that allows OS4 to suspend an app that it couldn't just do at an OS level automatically.
If I understood it right, simply linking against the library allows the app to be suspended but if memory resources become low, it can then be terminated. It takes additional effort in order to support the save state which will allow the app to resume to the last state it was in, or at least something close to it if the app ends up being terminated by the OS due to memory running low. Correct?
I can certainly understand and respect the save state needing additional programming, but I'm still unclear why they couldn't have developed the OS to just suspend the app on its own without the need of recompiling it. If simply linking it can intelligently pause the app, I don't see why that could't be done at runtime in the OS. An OS controls how the program interfaces with the hardware and should have a level of control that could pause execution of an app and set it aside.
So while it's nice to get more detail, it doesn't clearly depict why it couldn't have been done through the OS for the basic suspend state. I think what Apple did was great because it's a good balance of maintaining battery life while giving most of the things that someone would want to do, but that doesn't mean I still don't think it's an issue that you have to wait and rely on a developer to actually update their app. It seems by far more reasonable that there will be apps that don't get updated compared to assuming that they all will.
Like I said just because it's good, doesn't mean it doesn't have compromises.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
All of his arguments are about hypothetical situations. It's maddening. You can't win because he doesn't discuss reality.
He'll go on and on about "well if Apple did multitasking normally then every app would work right away," but that didn't happen and will never happen, so why even discuss it? It's insane, and he won't drop it.
And when everyone tries to inform him how it's impossible and that it has precedent in all operating systems, he just calls us all fanboys again.
It's amazing how you keep coming back to this when you have the thread in front of you. I comment on reality, someone either asks what I would like or tries to mock me by pointing out some insane way of my preference, and then I respond to those comments about what might have been. It amazes me you keep trying to pin that I don't live in reality when that is not how the conversation flowed. It also amazes me how you like to so strictly live in what has happened and don't ever want to discuss other possiblities because they don't exist yet. Amazing how far from reality you seem to be sometimes when you post things like this.
Burger said:
Hey another thread in which Marty Chinn is 'attacked' by 'apple fans'.
And by 'attacked' I mean 'presented with well reasoned arguments' and by 'apple fans' I mean 'people'.
And hey yet another usual suspect Apple fan taking that stance. All too predictable who will jump without reasonably reading because of their blind defense....
