Multi Tasking and the iPhone

Fix for iPhone Gurgling Water Noises and Dropped Call
freegnu.blogspot.com — iPhone fix for bad to no call quality and
reception

http://freegnu.blogspot.com/2008/09/...oises-and.html

Note to Larry
This is why Apple doesn't want tons of background processes ruining
the phone experience.
You wannabe PC the N800 doesn't have to take a phone call while it is
running Linux apps of your choice and killing the N800 battery.

BTW when you say the iPhone can not multitask your full of cow rear
end droppings.
A properly written application can launch native OS functions under
its control and do other tasks it was written for.

The free applications Air Share runs a web server, and other i/0 via
wifi. At the same time you can browse and read Word or Excel documents
under its control. You can watch a movie under its control and it will
still pause and take an incoming phone call.

Last night I was playing an audible file while reading a long document
on the couch with Air Share as my PC was downloading hundreds of files
and folders to the iPhone from the other room. Then I got a phone
call, several times.

I tried the same thing using Air Sharing but with a video file playing
from CNet TV, same results.

I got to thinking, why is this happening when Larry and others of his
ilk, keep spreading all that FUD about no iPhone multitasking?

Perhaps one should ask...
Is Larry FULL OF IT?

Could it be there are many iPhone who want to be programmers who can
not follow the rules like the folks who developed Air Sharing for the
iPhone? These folks usually go the JailBeak route to get their apps on
the iPhone with results like those mentioned above.

BTW I like task management on the iPhone for it makes more sense to
pause a movie or a song to take a phone call then to keep on blithly
playing it while I am taking a message. That way I don't miss
anything.

I wonder how WinMo device handle such questions? How many times do
those users have to reboot during the day from flaky 'multitasking
apps'?

---

› See More: Multi Tasking and the iPhone

On Sep 11, 8:00*am, 4phun <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fix for iPhone Gurgling Water Noises and Dropped Call
> freegnu.blogspot.com — iPhone fix for bad to no call quality and
> reception
>
> http://freegnu.blogspot.com/2008/09/...ter-noises-and....
>
> Note to Larry
> This is why Apple doesn't want tons of background processes ruining
> the phone experience.
> You wannabe PC the N800 doesn't have to take a phone call while it is
> running Linux apps of your choice and killing the N800 battery.
>
> BTW when you say the iPhone can not multitask your full of cow rear
> end droppings.
> A properly written application can launch native OS functions under
> its control and do other tasks it was written for.
>
> The free applications Air Share runs a web server, and other i/0 via
> wifi. At the same time you can browse and read Word or Excel documents
> under its control. You can watch a movie under its control and it will
> still pause and take an incoming phone call.
>
> Last night I was playing an audible file while reading a long document
> on the couch with Air Share as my PC was downloading hundreds of files
> and *folders to the iPhone from the other room. Then I got a phone
> call, several times.
>
> I tried the same thing using Air Sharing but with a video file playing
> from CNet TV, same results.
>
> I got to thinking, why is this happening when Larry and others of his
> ilk, keep spreading all that FUD about no iPhone multitasking?
>
> Perhaps one should ask...
> Is Larry FULL OF IT?
>
> Could it be there are many iPhone who want to be programmers who can
> not follow the rules like the folks who developed Air Sharing for the
> iPhone? These folks usually go the JailBeak route to get their apps on
> the iPhone with results like those mentioned above.
>
> BTW I like task management on the iPhone for it makes more sense to
> pause a movie or a song to take a phone call then to keep on blithly
> playing it while I am taking a message. That way I don't miss
> anything.
>
> I wonder how WinMo device handle such questions? How many times do
> those users have to reboot during the day from flaky 'multitasking
> apps'?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In computing, multitasking is a method by which multiple tasks, also
known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU.
In the case of a computer with a single CPU, only one task is said to
be running at any point in time, meaning that the CPU is actively
executing instructions for that task. Multitasking solves the problem
by scheduling which task may be the one running at any given time, and
when another waiting task gets a turn. The act of reassigning a CPU
from one task to another one is called a context switch. When context
switches occur frequently enough the illusion of parallelism is
achieved.

Taking a phone call is an interrupt to your current tasks.

Real time
Another reason for multitasking was in the design of real-time
computing systems, where there are a number of possibly unrelated
external activities needed to be controlled by a single processor
system. In such systems a hierarchical interrupt system was coupled
with process prioritization to ensure that key activities were given a
greater share of available process time.

4phun <[email protected]> wrote in news:d378b90d-9026-40e1-8aad-
[email protected]:

> You wannabe PC the N800 doesn't have to take a phone call while it is
> running Linux apps of your choice and killing the N800 battery.
>
>

Simply not true. I make and take calls, swap files and live text with
Skype, Gizmo and Fring on N800 simultaneously with running other apps,
except for rdesktop which demands the computer's full attention.

Playing games, doing WP or email, anything but remote desktop from the PC
at home, works fine while Skyping to friends across the planet.

So, what you're telling them is simply not true. The multitasking N800 has
no trouble running any of its VoIP programs simultaneously with other apps.

Linux will even play video and audio on any of the various media players
while simultaneously monitoring Skype. You can play music on the speakers
during a phone call if you're more multitasking than I am...(c; We are not
limited to one app to/from the audio, either, but I am.....too old.

Your turn....

At 11 Sep 2008 05:00:20 -0700 4phun wrote:


> Fix for iPhone Gurgling Water Noises and Dropped Call
> freegnu.blogspot.com — iPhone fix for bad to no call quality and
> reception
>
> http://freegnu.blogspot.com/2008/09/...oises-and.html
>
> Note to Larry
> This is why Apple doesn't want tons of background processes ruining
> the phone experience.



Because they can't make the OS stable enough to allocate resources
where/when needed?



> You wannabe PC the N800 doesn't have to take a phone call while it is
> running Linux apps of your choice and killing the N800 battery.


Any number of WinMo phones do it every day. They, just like the iPhone,
have dedicated phone radio hardware. The UI controls the phone functions,
(i.e. "dial xxx-yyy-zzzz," answer, hang up, etc.) but the "phone" pretty
much runs independently, consuming little more in system resources when in
use, than when not in use. This is why, for example, I can "turn off" the
PDA in my phone mid-call and keep talking.


> BTW when you say the iPhone can not multitask your full of cow rear
> end droppings.
> A properly written application can launch native OS functions under
> its control and do other tasks it was written for.



Yes, it can multitask - the NATIVE apps and one third-party app.


> The free applications Air Share runs a web server, and other i/0 via
> wifi. At the same time you can browse and read Word or Excel documents
> under its control. You can watch a movie under its control and it will
> still pause and take an incoming phone call.


So what you're really saying is this app will run and still allow access to
native functions. That was never in doubt. Now go and launch another
downloaded app store app while still using Air Share...



> Last night I was playing an audible file while reading a long document
> on the couch with Air Share as my PC was downloading hundreds of files
> and folders to the iPhone from the other room. Then I got a phone
> call, several times.
>
> I tried the same thing using Air Sharing but with a video file playing
> from CNet TV, same results.
>
> I got to thinking, why is this happening when Larry and others of his
> ilk, keep spreading all that FUD about no iPhone multitasking?


Nice dodge: two third party apps can't run at the same time, but I suspect
Apple will allow that rule to broken by it's "special friends" like Google,
or maybe TomTom, etc.


> Perhaps one should ask...
> Is Larry FULL OF IT?


More likely exaggerating for effect, much like you are now.


> Could it be there are many iPhone who want to be programmers who can
> not follow the rules like the folks who developed Air Sharing for the
> iPhone?


Absolutely. The larger question is whether it's Apple's responsibility to
"protect" end-users from errant apps? Is third-party app multitasking
prohibited on a Mac? No, so why not? Are iPhone users so "special" (in
the "Special Olympics" sense) that they need extra protection than, say,
Mac users?


> These folks usually go the JailBeak route to get their apps on
> the iPhone with results like those mentioned above.



Those folks are part of community that neither wants nor needs an iNanny.


> BTW I like task management on the iPhone for it makes more sense to
> pause a movie or a song to take a phone call then to keep on blithly
> playing it while I am taking a message. That way I don't miss
> anything.


That's a function of well designed software and OS, not a multitasking
prohibition (or else your iPod software would shut down when the phone rings,
rather than pause.) My WinMo phone pauses the native media player when a
call comes in, because the WMP software was written that way, not because
the OS chokes the device into submission. A third-party open source video
player I use doesn't pause automatically, because it wasn't written to
check the phone's state.


> I wonder how WinMo device handle such questions?


In theory, a WinMo device handles multitasking fairly well, if you stick to
the native apps, and/or stay with well written third-par y apps. The last
few versions of WinMo have been plagued by "memory leaks" where closed apps
don't always release all of their used memory back to the OS, and over time
the free RAM shrinks to the point that the phone needs to be rebooted to
recover it.

Certainly there are errant apps that cause problems, whether multitasking
or when running alone, but I'd suggest the solution is to avoid such apps,
rather than cripple the execution of all third-party apps. I've had some
bad meals in my day, but the solution wasn't to swear off food! (Insert
your own Waffle House joke here!)


> How many times do
> those users have to reboot during the day from flaky 'multitasking
> apps'?


Many times, I'm sure. The solution, again, is to stop using the offending
app- not to prohibit the good ones from multi-tasking. Preventing multi-
taski of third-party apps is throwing in the towel! It's essentially
saying you either lack faith in your OS, your developers, or both.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> I got to thinking, why is this happening when Larry and others of his
>> ilk, keep spreading all that FUD about no iPhone multitasking?
>
> Nice dodge: two third party apps can't run at the same time, but I
> suspect Apple will allow that rule to broken by it's "special friends"
> like Google, or maybe TomTom, etc.
>
>> Perhaps one should ask...
>> Is Larry FULL OF IT?
>
> More likely exaggerating for effect, much like you are now.
>
>

Nope, not really. Rita Reys MP3 is playing at 128K using YouAmp with its
audio leveling through the little speakers, lulling me into a euphoria as
I'm reading about the poor bastards that invested in Lehman Brothers
loosing their greedy asses on finance.yahoo.com financial news. Skype is
running back there, somewhere, waiting for a call from a buddy on Sahkalin
Island in the Sea of Japan I've known for years. The email icon popped up
telling me gmail had a message for me a while ago from a sailboater who
wants me to fix his HF antenna problems Saturday in exchange for food, ale
and sailing on Sunday. I answered him affirmatively, of course, and fired
off another email to a nurse to ask if she wants to come flaunt that
metallic green thong I got a glimpse of a couple weekends ago. She must be
busy at the hospital...no answer yet. YouAmp is in shuffle mode of every
song on two 16GB SDHC Class 6 cards and is playing "Sexy Eyes"
appropriately as I'm typing this, thinking of that thong....(c;

Well, don't invest in financials. Multitasking on the N800 is quite
effective. Pity the frutifone is so hobbled up. I bet if it ran open
source there's be plenty of free multitasking apps running on it by now
without Nanny Jobs and his ATT handlers staring over their shoulders.....

All part of the benefits of open source Linux and NO SELLPHONE CONTROLS.

.....Come on over to the "Dark Side"....You like 80's rock?

At 12 Sep 2008 01:21:55 +0000 Larry wrote:

> >> I got to thinking, why is this happening when Larry and others of his
> >> ilk, keep spreading all that FUD about no iPhone multitasking?
> >
> >> Perhaps one should ask...
> >> Is Larry FULL OF IT?
> >
> > More likely exaggerating for effect, much like you are now.
> >
> >
>
> Nope, not really. Rita Reys MP3 is playing at 128K using YouAmp with its
> audio leveling through the little speakers, lulling me into a euphoria as
> I'm reading...


I didn't mean you were exaggerating about the N800's ability to multitask,
but the iPhone's INability to do it.

As Vic points out, the iPhone multitasks it's built-in functions just fine-
but only one 3rd-party app runs at a time. Sort of like the Java VM on an
ordinary cellular phone- a single app can run, with it's own little sandbox
to play in, where it can't run amok and accidentally hurt the other apps or
data areas of the phone.

As I've opined before, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept-
it makes for a much more stable device, and one can certainly make the
argument that for a device who's primary function is a telephone, stability
is paramount. Unfortunately it also makes certain types of apps that
require constant background execution difficult to pull off, like VoIP, IM,
a 3rd-party MMS solution, etc. From what I understand, Apple has created a
notification system to simulate multi-tasking, so that incoming events
(like a VoIP call, or incoming message) can trigger the phone to run the
needed app. For most functions that should be sufficient.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> As I've opined before, there's nothing inherently wrong with the
> concept- it makes for a much more stable device, and one can certainly
> make the argument that for a device who's primary function is a
> telephone, stability is paramount. Unfortunately it also makes
> certain types of apps that require constant background execution
> difficult to pull off, like VoIP, IM, a 3rd-party MMS solution, etc.
> From what I understand, Apple has created a notification system to
> simulate multi-tasking, so that incoming events (like a VoIP call, or
> incoming message) can trigger the phone to run the needed app. For
> most functions that should be sufficient.
>
>
>

Ah, I see. Any mention of VoIP is a pipe dream on any sellphone,
including iPhone. The carriers will not allow anyone to bypass the
revenue streams.

What's really needed is an FCC that hasn't been bribed so they can be
convinced what America needs is a DATA device service, like WiMax, that
is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the current sellphone carriers so the data
service doesn't become subservient to the sellphone bureaucrats. I
don't like the idea of Sprint running the WiMax in America. That
shouldn't be allowed for competition reasons. A phone carrier-free
Wimax system in real competition with phone carriers would put them out
of business in short order....as soon as the WiMax (or whatever mobile
data service evolves that's better) was built-out across the country.

The independent mobile data services would have no reason to limit
services like VoIP, streaming video/audio, etc. And their license
should PROHIBIT the limitations of what the user can do with his
expensive data service, by law if necessary. No screwing around with
contractural limits like email and web browsing only.....sellphone
carrier bull****.

But, I'm just dreaming with the FCC we have now, run by the sellphone
carriers at their pleasure, not in the interest of the public that pays
them....We'll never see it in our lifetimes. It'll be business as
usual...email and WebTV and sell-me-data apps like MobiTV....anything
that doesn't use any bandwidth on the infrastructure we're selling to
the bankers and real estate tycoons.

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> As I've opined before, there's nothing inherently wrong with the
>> concept- it makes for a much more stable device, and one can certainly
>> make the argument that for a device who's primary function is a
>> telephone, stability is paramount. Unfortunately it also makes
>> certain types of apps that require constant background execution
>> difficult to pull off, like VoIP, IM, a 3rd-party MMS solution, etc.
>> From what I understand, Apple has created a notification system to
>> simulate multi-tasking, so that incoming events (like a VoIP call, or
>> incoming message) can trigger the phone to run the needed app. For
>> most functions that should be sufficient.
>
>
> Ah, I see. Any mention of VoIP is a pipe dream on any sellphone,
> including iPhone. The carriers will not allow anyone to bypass the
> revenue streams.

Here we go again...

> What's really needed is an FCC that hasn't been bribed so they can be
> convinced what America needs is a DATA device service, like WiMax, that
> is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the current sellphone carriers so the data
> service doesn't become subservient to the sellphone bureaucrats. I
> don't like the idea of Sprint running the WiMax in America. That
> shouldn't be allowed for competition reasons. A phone carrier-free
> Wimax system in real competition with phone carriers would put them out
> of business in short order....as soon as the WiMax (or whatever mobile
> data service evolves that's better) was built-out across the country.

Why would a "phone carrier-free" WiMax system be free from the same
bandwidth problems that plague cellular carriers? Spectrum is spectrum.
WiMax providers, whether or not it's Sprint and Clearwire or whatever
"independent" provider you'd rather have, will have to price the service
competitively to balance bandwidth use vs. capacity, just like Verizon,
AT&T, et al.

And if you're correct, and WiMax turns into a cheap unlimited nationwide
data service (and it won't- Sprint already has said that for bandwidth
reasons they were NOT interested in competing with fixed-location broadband
providers like DSL or cable, which is marketing speak for "we'll be more
expensive than they are to prevent that from happening"), it still won't
"put the carriers out of business in short order"- the carriers will simply
price themselves competitively with the new "threat" and business, and life,
will go on as usual. Keep in mind AT&T and Verizon just bought huge chunks
of nationwide spectrum at 700MHz- that'll be perfect for launching new
data-only services if need be to compete with WiMax.


> The independent mobile data services would have no reason to limit
> services like VoIP, streaming video/audio, etc.

Sure they would- they, like cellular carriers only have so much spectrum
available. This gives them the same incentive NOT to "oversell" the service
as cellular carriers have.

> And their license
> should PROHIBIT the limitations of what the user can do with his
> expensive data service, by law if necessary. No screwing around with
> contractural limits like email and web browsing only.....sellphone
> carrier bull****.

Fine- then they'll just cap usage. For al of AT&T and Verizon's blustering
about what you can and cannot do with their service, they don't pay
attention to any of it- until you exceed the 5GB cap. VoIP and stream and
download and do anything else verboten on AT&T or Verizon- they won't notice
or care; until you hit 5GB, that is!

If the FCC says a network has to be completely open to any compatible device
or application, (like the 700MHz band supposedly will be) then providers
will just fall back to the good old 'fair use' playbook and cap usage at
x#GB. Problems solved, and all those pesky regulators are kept at bay.


> But, I'm just dreaming with the FCC we have now, run by the sellphone
> carriers at their pleasure, not in the interest of the public that pays
> them....We'll never see it in our lifetimes. It'll be business as
> usual...email and WebTV and sell-me-data apps like MobiTV....anything
> that doesn't use any bandwidth on the infrastructure we're selling to
> the bankers and real estate tycoons.

The joy of a competitve market is that anyone with a better, and workable,
idea can come in and upturn it. The fact that an Apple, Google, or
Microsoft hasn't found that opportunity and moved in, might be an indication
that, given the current state of technology, your wireless internet utopia
just isn't financially workable.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The joy of a competitve market is that anyone with a better, and
> workable, idea can come in and upturn it.

It would be wonderful if that were true, but in America it simply is not.

The cellular carriers control the FCC, just like the cable carriers.
They'll never allow any competitors to the cellular interests.

It's why Clear Channel owns your radio stations.

It's really too bad.

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> The joy of a competitve market is that anyone with a better, and
>> workable, idea can come in and upturn it.
>
> It would be wonderful if that were true, but in America it simply is not.
>
> The cellular carriers control the FCC, just like the cable carriers.
> They'll never allow any competitors to the cellular interests.

The 700MHz spectrum auction was open to any company with a large enough
checkbook- where were the computer/internet companies that could save you
from the "sellphone" monopolies? Where were Google, Microsoft, Apple,
Yahoo, etc? They were on the sidelines letting Verizon and AT&T gobble up
even more spectrum because there's no sustainable business model in
undercutting the big cellular companies. (See "metro WiFi.") The cost of
building and maintaining the infrastucture is just too high to make a living
at building a network and tthinking you can sell it for less money and more
profit than the incumbents.

> It's why Clear Channel owns your radio stations.
>
> It's really too bad.

While I'm no fan of Clear Channel, they're a good example of what happens
when the Feds get their nose OUT of a free market. Per-market caps on
station ownership was an artificial market interference that inhibited the
natural mergers and consolidations that other technology sectors have
experienced. As long as the stations fulfill their public service
requirements (EBS, etc.) they can play the crap they play 24/7/365 for all I
care. I'll find my entertainment in other ways. Besides, Clear Channel's
pablum programming leaves room for a small number of good indie radio
stations serving a dedicated audience. Look at pay TV- all of the
interesting "niche" channels cable gave us access to, MTV, SciFi, Comedy,
Military, History, Arts and Entertainment, Discovery, Learning Channel,
Bravo, etc. were all gobbled up by giant congloms and broadcast similar crap
that has little to do with their original niche. (Take the History Channel
as the perfect example- anyone see any "History" on it lately?)

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The 700MHz spectrum auction was open to any company with a large
> enough checkbook- where were the computer/internet companies that
> could save you from the "sellphone" monopolies? Where were Google,
> Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, etc? They were on the sidelines letting
> Verizon and AT&T gobble up even more spectrum because there's no
> sustainable business model in undercutting the big cellular companies.
> (See "metro WiFi.") The cost of building and maintaining the
> infrastucture is just too high to make a living at building a network
> and tthinking you can sell it for less money and more profit than the
> incumbents.
>
>

Weren't the sellphone carriers overbidding on these frequency bands just to
bury them to prevent competition? Verizon has one little TV data
transmitter, conveniently located near their biggest stores to move product
without failing, here. It only works within a few miles of North
Charleston and is dead everywhere else. It doesn't look like they're
actually interested in selling them, at all, just enough to keep the band
occupied so noone else can get some 700 Mhz super wifi data network running
without their permission.

It's akin the the Verizon Seat Warmers VZW hires any time the FCC holds a
hearing so noone else can get into the conference room.....

At 13 Sep 2008 02:15:10 +0000 Larry wrote:

> > The 700MHz spectrum auction was open to any company with a large
> > enough checkbook- where were the computer/internet companies that
> > could save you from the "sellphone" monopolies? Where were Google,
> > Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, etc? They were on the sidelines letting
> > Verizon and AT&T gobble up even more spectrum because there's no
> > sustainable business model in undercutting the big cellular companies.
> > (See "metro WiFi.") The cost of building and maintaining the
> > infrastucture is just too high to make a living at building a network
> > and tthinking you can sell it for less money and more profit than the
> > incumbents.
> >
> >
>
> Weren't the sellphone carriers overbidding on these frequency bands just
to
> bury them to prevent competition?

The really didn't have to- no one else really showed up- the cable cos
bought a little, Echostar (DISH Network) bought some one-way (receive only)
frequencies, probably to supplement their DBS service with some terrestrial
component, but Verizon and AT&T bought the bulk of it with little
competition.

> Verizon has one little TV data
> transmitter, conveniently located near their biggest stores to move
product
> without failing, here. It only works within a few miles of North
> Charleston and is dead everywhere else. It doesn't look like they're
> actually interested in selling them, at all, just enough to keep the band
> occupied so noone else can get some 700 Mhz super wifi data network
running
> without their permission.


These auctions were for 20-25MHz chunks, similar to the 30MHz 800MHz
allocations. They ain't gonna waste that kind of spectrum on MobiTV!

Both Verizon and AT&T plan to roll out 4G data on their 700MHz spectrum in
the next couple of years. Still think WiMax is going to put them out of
business?

The 700MHz mobile TV Verizon offers is just using the 6MHz allocated for
UHF-TV channel 55, which Verizon bought the use of.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Both Verizon and AT&T plan to roll out 4G data on their 700MHz
> spectrum in the next couple of years. Still think WiMax is going to
> put them out of business?
>
>

No, America will simply do without the kind of data service the Japanese
take for granted with the big old monopoly companies preventing anyone from
threatening their stranglehold on roaming data comms with the help of their
bribed FCC lawyers making damned sure no real competition ever happens.

That's the reality of comms in America....pay the big corporations or do
without. The days of the small comm companies is over. Motorola has
ruined the 2-way radio business. I have a friend who fought for 2 years to
get a UHF frequency to put a business band radio on. He had to hire
communications attorneys to conduct the "study" on a band that's nearly
dead. It's bull**** to sell business Motorola trunk systems to prevent
them from having their own equipment and NOT making Motorola monthly
payments to the big corporation.

I fully expect, at some point in time, there will be a change in the rules
that will eliminate you connecting to a free wifi, even in your home. Big
communications companies will be RENTING you service from the pole in the
yard.

Larry wrote:
> I fully expect, at some point in time, there will be a change in the rules
> that will eliminate you connecting to a free wifi, even in your home. Big
> communications companies will be RENTING you service from the pole in the
> yard.

Then will be back in 1969 when you had to rent your phone from
the teleco. And we know how THAT ending up after Carter.