3 ms·
What's to agree on? You either have multiple, concurrent tasks or you do not.
by coderdude 17y ago
What's to agree on? You either have multiple, concurrent tasks or you do not.
- ugh 17y agoI guess the disagreement is about whether multiple, concurrent tasks are necessary or not.
- coderdude 17y agoI think most people are used to their computers being able to play music and browse the Web at the same time. If Apple wants to push the iPad as a computing device, they might hit a snag with consumers. Edit: Whoops. I'll leave the comment but I do realize this isn't an iPad thread.
- stcredzero 17y agoIn any case, you can browse and use the iPod app at the same time.
- kulkarnic 17y agoTo a consumer, having interleaved tasks might appear like multi-tasking while it technically isn't (which you point out).
- jodrellblank 17y agoFalse dichotomy. You clearly have the ability to receive phonecalls at all times, so the phone is running so you have multiple concurrent tasks so there's no argument. Except there is an argument, so that isn't what's really being discussed even if the discussion is framed by that term.
- coderdude 17y agoI'm sorry but there isn't a false dichotomy between multi- vs. single-tasking, or did you mean to imply something else? I know the operating system is a multitasking environment, but that aspect of it is not exposed in any kind of useful way outside of Apple's pre-chosen features.
- jodrellblank 17y agoAs a technical description maybe there isn't, but at user level there is; one or the other or somewhere in between. This is what people are arguing about that you unhelpfully dismissed.