Look, guys, I dion't want to turn into this petulant child who just goes "why?", "why?", "why?" all the time, but just one specific example would be nice! Is that so difficult?
Originally Posted by TheBigM:
“Essentially a single-core processor can only process one thread at a time. What they do is "time-slicing" i.e. a given time frame is sliced into many portions.”
I understand this, but the commonly-perceived definition of "multi-tasking" falls under this 'time-slicing' definition - I appreciate we didn't have "true" multi-tasking until multi-core, but
what we accept as multi-tasking has existed for quite some time.
Originally Posted by clonmult:
“Symbian is the only one of the big 3 at the moment that handles full multi tasking rather than variants of task switching. And at the same time it tends to offer better power management as well.”
What is your definition of multi-tasking that fits Symbian's application of it, but not Android's?
Originally Posted by
Krustylicious:
“On symbian you can actually start installing an app and then HIt the home key and switch
...”
I can do that on Android too. I don't sit and watch every application install!
Quote:
“All programs on symbian are multitaskable, where as on android and ios this is not the case.”
Again, what is your definition of multitaskable that fits Symbian and not Android?
Quote:
“Symbian will swap programs in and out of memory as required. You can actually run out of memory :P .. Done it on my nokia e75.”
I'm not sure you're making quite the convincing argument
for Symbian's multitasking that you think you are
Quote:
“Also if one app becomes non responsive it usually doesn't cause problems for the other running apps. Again sign of a mature OS.”
Ditto Android. Non-responsive apps generate a "Wait / Force Close" dialogue and the phone continues along as if nothing had happened. I'm not sure what you're basing your Android generalisations on, but they don't appear to be very grounded in reality...