iPhone 4.0 vs Android 2.1

[Johnly]

Android 2.1 was a very, very lame update. It did nothing but add a little refinement under the hood, no new controls, and adding a few more pre loaded applications.

The real test will be when Android 2.5 or 3.0 is released and actually launched. I'm not saying the Droid will be able to run it, which is why the 2.1 update bothered me. It seems like it took forever just to get live wallpapers, a new weather and gallery application and Goggles preloaded. If Google can put out a new update that cleans up the look and feel and adds refinement, Android will soon outpace Apple. I really hope we'll see it on the Droid.

The phone war is now very much in Google's hands. HTC is coming out with some great looking devices that match or exceed the iPhone and it's up to Google to figure out ways to make that software work with the phones. I really like my Droid. I'm hoping I'll get something better.

Right now, the only items that I can see that the iPHone has that really make a difference are as follows:

1) Music. It's 2010. Are you telling me that NOBODY can come up with a good player with a simple, efficient interface, the ability to edit playlists (one does) and can use the headphone control button properly?

2) Battery Life: At least on the Droid, it's horrible. Not sure if it's all those pixels or they just need a little more room for a bigger battery. I'll still carry it. With brightness all the way down, I barely make it through a business day.

3) Jerky/Lag: There are many times where the phone lags now, even more with 2.1. It's almost like it is coming out of sleep mode. At times I'll press the voice dial button and I have to wait several seconds for it to work.

4) A better standard /built in home screen. This is more Motorola's fault. Manufacturers have the ability to put in a hardware button to answer calls. I hate this swipe mechanism that doesn't always work the first time and calls go to VM. Needs to be a better way to assign buttons or for each manufacturer to be provided with a standard "front end kit" that has the optional docking bar like Home++ to be included as stock.

Other than the above... I'm very happy I'm no longer using the iPhone OS and being subject to doing whatever Jobs wants me to do. I LOVE K9 and the open development system. Many of the apps have the promise of being MUCH better than Apple's stock. Let's start with Calendar, Today Screen, Email. No looking back.

Lame update? Have u even used speech to text? U r kidding right.

 

[BrandonAsphyxiated]

in my opinion, whenever Apple releases major updates to iPhone its just for aesthetic reasons except 3.0 with the search feature and landscape keyboard in everything.

 

[cereal killer]

android 2.1's multi-tasking is already like that. If you aren't downloading something your program just sits in memory and does not use cpu cycles. Linux is very good at doing this.

Do we have to kill task? Some people say yes, but some people say no need to kill any tasks. :motdroidhoriz:

As Steve Jobs said "If you see a Task Manager they've done something wrong"

There is NO NEED for Task Killer type apps on Android based devices.

If our devices said Blackberry on them then I would agree : )

 

[Johnly]

CK, the world disagrees. I have tried to bring those to the dark side to see, that task killers are not necessary, but they just pick up their guns and defend it. I would try and help them see clearly, but I will not argue with them, lol!

 

[mrdroid]

Adobe Flash 10.1 is coming to Android but not iPhone OS.

Yeah, but the iPhone people are just parroting what Jobs says that Flash is old, worthless tech, and html 5 is the way to go.

Flash is old... so we don't care about it's support... even though it's the current standard and html5 won't replace it for another 10 years at best. That's a great viewpoint.

 

[mrdroid]

android 2.1's multi-tasking is already like that. If you aren't downloading something your program just sits in memory and does not use cpu cycles. Linux is very good at doing this.

Do we have to kill task? Some people say yes, but some people say no need to kill any tasks. :motdroidhoriz:

As Steve Jobs said "If you see a Task Manager they've done something wrong"

There is NO NEED for Task Killer type apps on Android based devices.

If our devices said Blackberry on them then I would agree : )

This has been discussed a million times and on any mobile multi-tasking device task killers will be needed if you want to provide prolonged battery life. They are not needed for most in terms of functionality and performance you're right. So there is a trade off. Have my apps remain in memory but drain my battery... or take a slight performance hit and kill them when not being used.

 

[pc747]

I am happy for my iphone using friends that after four generations they will get multitask with out the need to jailbreak. iphone gets hot around this time every year. apple releases something; whether it be a new iphone, ipod touch, ipad...., whatever. they are going to do what they need to do to keep their fanbase happy.
I hope next year around november motorola does the same. as far as what is better. well the 2.1 android is out the 4.0 iphone isnt. All the speculation means nothing until you actually see it in action.
Look at all the speculation on what would be in 2.1. a week ago CK and Hook had to calm all the angry people down because they wanted all that they thought would be in the update. Now we have more "I want to go back" threads popping up then "2.1" threads before the ota.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[jsh1120]

This has been discussed a million times and on any mobile multi-tasking device task killers will be needed if you want to provide prolonged battery life. They are not needed for most in terms of functionality and performance you're right. So there is a trade off. Have my apps remain in memory but drain my battery... or take a slight performance hit and kill them when not being used.

You're right, it has been discussed a million times. You're wrong, however, that having a task "in memory" will drain the battery. Imagine a room with 20 chairs (i.e. your memory) and a buffet (i.e. your battery). Some people eat and some don't. The ones that eat consume the battery. The others just sit quietly; they don't. Sometimes new folks come into the room and grab a bite at the buffet. If there aren't any available chairs, the o/s grabs a tiny bite at the buffet and ushers some of those sitting around out the door to provide an empty chair.

Unless your room has a glutton who keeps jumping up and getting another helping at the buffet without doing anything else, you don't need a task killer.

 

[mrdroid]

This has been discussed a million times and on any mobile multi-tasking device task killers will be needed if you want to provide prolonged battery life. They are not needed for most in terms of functionality and performance you're right. So there is a trade off. Have my apps remain in memory but drain my battery... or take a slight performance hit and kill them when not being used.

You're right, it has been discussed a million times. You're wrong, however, that having a task "in memory" will drain the battery. Imagine a room with 20 chairs (i.e. your memory) and a buffet (i.e. your battery). Some people eat and some don't. The ones that eat consume the battery. The others just sit quietly; they don't. Sometimes new folks come into the room and grab a bite at the buffet. If there aren't any available chairs, the o/s grabs a tiny bite at the buffet and ushers some of those sitting around out the door to provide an empty chair.

Unless your room has a glutton who keeps jumping up and getting another helping at the buffet without doing anything else, you don't need a task killer.

I'm not even going to bother being polite about this because I'm getting tired of people chiming in when they don't know what they are talking about. So, point being, you don't know what you're talking about. Every task you add to memory exponentially increases the amount of electricity required by memory to keep it there. ANY task in memory is draining battery. It uses the same amount of battery from memory whether it's using CPU cycles or not. It's kind of ridiculous that people actually believe memory doesn't require electricity to function.

 

[rebornlaxer]

Iphone 4.0 is basically Android 1.6 without open source. Haha. Android FTW

 

[armeddroid]

HTML5 is being integrated into alot of major sites. You will never know if it is or not. Just use your phone to find sites and see if you can watch shows. If you can, then you know they are on HTML5.
I was waiting for Flash. Not anymore. I know is going to slow your phone down. It does for PC's, it will def for your phone. Hell LWP slows your phone.

 

[jsh1120]

This has been discussed a million times and on any mobile multi-tasking device task killers will be needed if you want to provide prolonged battery life. They are not needed for most in terms of functionality and performance you're right. So there is a trade off. Have my apps remain in memory but drain my battery... or take a slight performance hit and kill them when not being used.

You're right, it has been discussed a million times. You're wrong, however, that having a task "in memory" will drain the battery. Imagine a room with 20 chairs (i.e. your memory) and a buffet (i.e. your battery). Some people eat and some don't. The ones that eat consume the battery. The others just sit quietly; they don't. Sometimes new folks come into the room and grab a bite at the buffet. If there aren't any available chairs, the o/s grabs a tiny bite at the buffet and ushers some of those sitting around out the door to provide an empty chair.

Unless your room has a glutton who keeps jumping up and getting another helping at the buffet without doing anything else, you don't need a task killer.

I'm not even going to bother being polite about this because I'm getting tired of people chiming in when they don't know what they are talking about. So, point being, you don't know what you're talking about. Every task you add to memory exponentially increases the amount of electricity required by memory to keep it there. ANY task in memory is draining battery. It uses the same amount of battery from memory whether it's using CPU cycles or not. It's kind of ridiculous that people actually believe memory doesn't require electricity to function.

Polite or not, the marginal amount of electricity to maintain a few kilobytes of code in memory compared to running an app is infinitesimal. The electricity you're talking about is maintaining memory whether it is filled or not. The notion that "every task you add to memory exponentially increases the amount of electricity required" suggests you don't understand the word "exponentially."

 

[mrdroid]

You're right, it has been discussed a million times. You're wrong, however, that having a task "in memory" will drain the battery. Imagine a room with 20 chairs (i.e. your memory) and a buffet (i.e. your battery). Some people eat and some don't. The ones that eat consume the battery. The others just sit quietly; they don't. Sometimes new folks come into the room and grab a bite at the buffet. If there aren't any available chairs, the o/s grabs a tiny bite at the buffet and ushers some of those sitting around out the door to provide an empty chair.

Unless your room has a glutton who keeps jumping up and getting another helping at the buffet without doing anything else, you don't need a task killer.

I'm not even going to bother being polite about this because I'm getting tired of people chiming in when they don't know what they are talking about. So, point being, you don't know what you're talking about. Every task you add to memory exponentially increases the amount of electricity required by memory to keep it there. ANY task in memory is draining battery. It uses the same amount of battery from memory whether it's using CPU cycles or not. It's kind of ridiculous that people actually believe memory doesn't require electricity to function.

Polite or not, the marginal amount of electricity to maintain a few kilobytes of code in memory compared to running an app is infinitesimal. The electricity you're talking about is maintaining memory whether it is filled or not. The notion that "every task you add to memory exponentially increases the amount of electricity required" suggests you don't understand the word "exponentially."

Oh really? Go ahead and open 20 browser windows and watch how fast your battery dies.

 

[KevinJ]

Well, some people don't think Android has to worry...

Apple's iPhone OS 4.0 No Threat to Android - PCWorld

 

[iPirate]

android 2.1's multi-tasking is already like that. If you aren't downloading something your program just sits in memory and does not use cpu cycles. Linux is very good at doing this.

Do we have to kill task? Some people say yes, but some people say no need to kill any tasks. :motdroidhoriz:

As Steve Jobs said "If you see a Task Manager they've done something wrong"

There is NO NEED for Task Killer type apps on Android based devices.

If our devices said Blackberry on them then I would agree : )

Steve Jobs thinks its users should sit there and look at a spinning color wheel instead of being given the option to kill a task. I am very happy to have the option to kill tasks in windows and I have used macs where I sit for several minutes waiting.

For iphone vs android, android DOESN'T NEED task killing but is open enough to let users kill tasks (kind of dangerous). iphone is so locked up you can't kill tasks, and I'm not sure what they called their task bar where you see running tasks, but it sounds like a task manager to me.