Develop Bugs

To the mods: Urgent request

Please, please for the love of god write a post, and sticky it, about what multitasking and background scheduling is, and why most apps shouldn't be allowed to run in the background. I'm so sick of reading about users complaining about "the lack of multitasking" (Eeeeew! Now I said it, and I feel dirty! :S ) when what they really want is the ability to run annoying programs in the background that will allow them to complain about the poor battery life, how WP7 raped them economically etc etc...because they really don't know what they want.
Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

tiwas said:
I'm so sick of reading about users complaining about "the lack of multitasking" ... when what they really want is the ability to run annoying programs in the background that will allow them to complain about the poor battery life, how WP7 raped them economically etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most users?!
Most people want the ablility to continue being navigated to their destination while listening to streaming music (not thru Zune as their region does not allow it - like yours) or check their email or even make a phone-call to say they'll be late.
Or perhaps they want an Exchange task manager that will actually remind you of your tasks without having to keep the app open at all times, or maybe they would like their phone to automatically change "profiles" at certain times of the day (ie., very simplified; 8-12 ringer on, 12-13 on silent except certain numbers, 13-18 all on, 18-23 same as lunch, 23-8 all silent apart from alarms).
These are all, relatively common, things you cannot do without real multitasking.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! stop calling that multi-tasking! It's background scheduling!
And, yeah, I see your point, but apps like that should have special authorization to ensure they're not spinning in the background stealing processor cycles, downloading data, draining the battery etc...

tiwas said:
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! stop calling that multi-tasking! It's background scheduling!
And, yeah, I see your point, but apps like that should have special authorization to ensure they're not spinning in the background stealing processor cycles, downloading data, draining the battery etc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, no. The examples I gave were a mixture of actual multitasking and scheduling. Some could do with a simple "register this event for execution at this time" but others really do need the full app running in the background at "all" times.
I definitely agree though, not every Tom **** and Harry should be allowed to write fully multitasking apps - or rather, they should be allowed to, but their release in the marketplace should be limited to those certified by Microsoft. I.e., what I'm saying is that the OS should have been fully prepared for multitasking from the getgo, with developers having to use technical exceptions during app certification to be published. As is, I very much doubt we'll see multitasking until the first major update which will likely come hand in hand with much higher HW specs to make sure the OS is still silky smooth.

Running the app in the background at all times is still background scheduling...Multitasking is, in all fairness, what the OS uses to run threads in the background, but multitasking is fully supported by the OS. It's the lack of subscribing to background scheduling events that's causing "the problems".
At least we agree about letting everybody schedule whatever they feel like is a bad idea, and hopefully, at some point, MS will let developers use "advanced functions" that require "advanced testing" before letting them into marketplace. All the bits and pieces seem to be there, though, as OEMs can make background apps...

WP7 cannot multi-task at all, and attempting to infer that it does with garbage semantics is pretty lame.
How about the mods sticky a thread on users who don't know what they're talking about attempting to force their own lexicon on the rest of us and attempting to appear so intelligent and above us unintelligent sheep.
Thank you for showing us the light....
What some of us actually want out of WP7 is an actual ability to run more than one freaking application at once. Does that spell it out for you?
If I am using a 3rd party podcast app because the zune one sucks, I want to be able to then check my damn email without my podcast cutting out. If I am playing a game and I get a text, I want to be able to respond without having to reload the entire game.
Call this whatever the hell you want to call it, but WP7 cannot do it, Android and iOS can.
Get off your high horse and help development instead of attempting to condescend on the rest of us.

lol what a stupid post. It's 2011 and we can't have the ability for multiple applications to run at once? what is this world coming to.. and asking for a sticky because you *THINK* multitasking = slow apps? I got news for you, it's a discussion forum, if you don't like it don't read the thread.

orangekid said:
WP7 cannot multi-task at all, and attempting to infer that it does with garbage semantics is pretty lame.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh...want me to tell my programs to stop running more than one thread, then?
And what are you calling "bull**** semantics"?
1. The OS can multitask, and it allows special applications to run in the background (scheduling). Proof: you can listen to music while surfing the web, and accept calls while checking the calendar. Of COURSE it can multitask!
2. Programs can multitask. I can asynchronously call a web service and do stuff while I wait. I can also display a wait animation while processing stuff
So please try to keep your mouth closed when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Besides Microsoft stuff there is absolutely no multitasking. Is that better?

tiwas said:
Oh...want me to tell my programs to stop running more than one thread, then?
And what are you calling "bull**** semantics"?
1. The OS can multitask, and it allows special applications to run in the background (scheduling). Proof: you can listen to music while surfing the web, and accept calls while checking the calendar. Of COURSE it can multitask!
2. Programs can multitask. I can asynchronously call a web service and do stuff while I wait. I can also display a wait animation while processing stuff
So please try to keep your mouth closed when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
once again you prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. Being able to launch a couple of crappy MS apps and then open IE is not multi-tasking in any practical form. What you reference is about the only time it can background anything.
What if I want to use a non-MS app that does not suck and do anything else? Not going to happen. This is a real issue. I cannot use any other music player or podcast player or music streaming app and open IE or text or email or anything, I cannot text or email while playing a game if I don't want the game to reload.
Claiming that WP7 can multi-task is like saying it has a comparable app store to iOS, it's complete garbage.
vetvito said:
Besides Microsoft stuff there is absolutely no multitasking. Is that better?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol, beat me to it, and more concise

Yes, it actually IS! Now we don't have all the problems from WM6.5, which is proof that even professional developers have problems setting up their programs correctly.
And still - it's called scheduling.
Multi-tasking (which even an old 8086 can do): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
Multi-threading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multithreading_(computer_architecture)
Scheduling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduling_(computing)
Now PLEASE read and understand...

orangekid said:
once again you prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. Being able to launch a couple of crappy MS apps and then open IE is not multi-tasking in any practical form. What you reference is about the only time it can background anything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
FFS! You're just proving you have no reading comprehension. I'm talking about threads in a program, not tombstoning an app.
orangekid said:
What if I want to use a non-MS app that does not suck and do anything else? Not going to happen. This is a real issue. I cannot use any other music player or podcast player or music streaming app and open IE or text or email or anything, I cannot text or email while playing a game if I don't want the game to reload.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why do you think that? We're on a beta OS, and MS is still ironing things out. The OS *can* multitask, they're just not exposing it to 3rd party developers (yet), which I think is an excellent idea.
orangekid said:
Claiming that WP7 can multi-task is like saying it has a comparable app store to iOS, it's complete garbage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For crying out loud. Now you're literally comparing apples to oranges, and you're not even able to see in how many ways the comparison fails.
Go read up on the links I posted, then TRY to control your adhd while reading my initial post. Then I *might* consider your postings anything but a complete waste of perfectly good bits...

wrong again, my friend.
If the OS "can" multi-task but only does it to the crapware that comes on the phone, then it essentially can't multi-task.
And the OS would have to be modified to to be able to actually multi-task and not just keep playing zune when you press the home key.
Once again you're trying to play the semantics game bill clinton...
when people here say they want multi-tasking, they are talking about apps that actually matter, third freaking party apps, and the OS cannot do it, this is a problem to a lot of users.
I don't care if the OS is in beta stage, are you saying we should wait 5 years to buy a WP7 phone?

This is quality - good we can have a constructive discussion! LOL.
For me the point is the phone doesn't do what I want it to, Android and the iPhone do appear to so if we can get Multi-schedule-task-switching like the other OS's in the next update I'll be happy.
Maybe those who can't help but get too excited by terminology could spend some time writing an app that replaces offending words to their preferred alternatives when viewing the forums?

orangekid said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man, you're stupid. From what you're saying, I can call you an illiterate just because you choose not to read what people write. I can, like I just did, call you stupid because you choose not to think (at least I hope it's a choice).
It's there. MS can let anyone they chose access it. You're not on the list. More companies might get on it eventually, but until then it's special access. That does NOT mean the OS cannot multitask or schedule.
But...since you don't even know the difference between multitasking, multithreading, and scheduling and the effects they have in a program or a program launching other programs (like an OS) you really should just stay quiet. You might learn something...

gc48067 said:
This is quality - good we can have a constructive discussion! LOL.
For me the point is the phone doesn't do what I want it to, Android and the iPhone do appear to so if we can get Multi-schedule-task-switching like the other OS's in the next update I'll be happy.
Maybe those who can't help but get too excited by terminology could spend some time writing an app that replaces offending words to their preferred alternatives when viewing the forums?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I wasn't the one who grabbed the ball and ran with it Forrest Gump style. I wanted to get the facts about multitasking/scheduling out so people could start asking the right questions instead of asking questions that doesn't make sense because they're plain wrong.
I *do* see the point in getting scheduling, and I would love to have some hand picked scheduling programs myself. Most programs don't use it, but some do - like streaming. There should be a stringent verification process and it shouldn't be available to everyone.
Like Mr Moron pointed out, he wanted his apps to tombstone correctly so he could continue from where he left off (sorry, orangekid, but you *are* stupid). That is a clear example of when NOT to run a program in the background. He's angry at MS because the game developers doesn't tombstone correctly so he can continue from where he left off. That's the *exact* reason why I don't want everybody to have access to background scheduling, as people would start yelling at MS for all the crashes and Samsung for making phones with crappy battery life - even though the fault is somewhere else.
Regarding the app you're talking about, you want me to use regular expressions to transform sentences like "orangekid, you're an f-ing ass-O" to "orangekid, you're an f-ing donkey-hole"? (sorry...couldn't help myself )

gc48067 said:
This is quality - good we can have a constructive discussion! LOL.
For me the point is the phone doesn't do what I want it to, Android and the iPhone do appear to so if we can get Multi-schedule-task-switching like the other OS's in the next update I'll be happy.
Maybe those who can't help but get too excited by terminology could spend some time writing an app that replaces offending words to their preferred alternatives when viewing the forums?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good points.
@tiwas, your original point is for people not to think that WP7 cannot mulit-task because it can run only Zune in the background. You then attempt to refine and back up your point by claiming multi-threading and scheduling and all this garbage, when it has been pointed out that when people in this forum say they want multi-tasking, they basically want to run an app other than Zune and continue the app running while doing other things, which WP7 cannot do, yet iOS and Android can.
Throw all the terminology you want into the mix and the above still holds true.
Your "urgent request" will not be considered by any mods because they have not been smoking crack today as far as I know.

tiwas said:
Regarding the app you're talking about, you want me to use regular expressions to transform sentences like "orangekid, you're an f-ing ass-O" to "orangekid, you're an f-ing donkey-hole"? (sorry...couldn't help myself )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
paragon of eloquence. simply amazing.

orangekid said:
Good points.
@tiwas, your original point is for people not to think that WP7 cannot mulit-task because it can run only Zune in the background. You then attempt to refine and back up your point by claiming multi-threading and scheduling and all this garbage, when it has been pointed out that when people in this forum say they want multi-tasking, they basically want to run an app other than Zune and continue the app running while doing other things, which WP7 cannot do, yet iOS and Android can.
Throw all the terminology you want into the mix and the above still holds true.
Your "urgent request" will not be considered by any mods because they have not been smoking crack today as far as I know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're a moron. Even more, you're a moron who cannot read.

tiwas said:
You're a moron. Even more, you're a moron who cannot read.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
when one cannot reason with logic they can be counted upon to resort to imbecilic and puerile insults.
Furthermore, my moronism and illiteracy are the byproducts of having to read posts such as the one quoted above which studies have shown reduce the general intelligence quotient of forum readers by an estimated 20%.

Bad ad sites make this site look bad

ad4.netshelter.net
Takes forever to load, and no XDA content loads while waiting.
This is poor web design.
Please revise XDA so that site content loads BEFORE advertiser content.

MintJulep said:
ad4.netshelter.net
Takes forever to load, and no XDA content loads while waiting.
This is poor web design.
Please revise XDA so that site content loads BEFORE advertiser content.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are there any ads in particular that are taking a particularly long time to load? Please provide a screenshot if so. We hate ads that slow down the site too!

Theres a lot more flash that usual. Small price to pay, I figure. Im not exactly on the top donations list. Quality versus quantity is the point, I think.

No specific ads
The XDA page header loads.
Then beige nothingness for about 30 seconds or so while "connecting to ad4.netshelter.net".
I assume something eventually times out, and the rest of the page loads.

MintJulep said:
The XDA page header loads.
Then beige nothingness for about 30 seconds or so while "connecting to ad4.netshelter.net".
I assume something eventually times out, and the rest of the page loads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thirty seconds is very long! Where are you located? Also, please benchmark your bandwidth at speedtest.net and paste the graphic result here.

I'm also experiencing this! I'm located in the Netherlands with Ziggo as provider. Sometimes about 30 seconds is correct. I'm also getting this a lot with media.xda-developers.com and pubads.g.doubleclick.net.
This is not always the case btw. Also it's not my internet connection because every other site loads just fine. Also the connection is 120/10 Mbit.

I'm using an Android tablet to access the forums and the Best Buy adds are making the site extremely annoying to use. I have to click on the add since I don't have flash automatically loading them, then I have to click on the "x" to close the add. It didn't use to be this bad but now it is happening on almost every page.

Yeah, Im getting tired of the ads all over the site. I am REEEEEAAALLLYY tired of the ones that are popping up from the bottom and block the forum until I click on the X to close. Now some dont even have that close option.
Right now its that stupid best buy buy back program ad.
As a donator I think they really need to go XDA.
You can disable the shockwave flash object in your internet settings, but then you still have this stupid box with a red X that floats around the middle of the page because it cant load.
If the mods need it, here is the (shortened) link for that ad....http://dcom.me/cD9wm

We hear you guys and are working on getting the annoying Best Buy ads disabled. It's a constant battle between paying the bills and not annoying users. We do our best to err on the side of not annoying the users, but sometimes we make mistakes. Thanks for understanding.

I don't mind ads, but the best buy ad at the bottom of the page is horrible. It actually keeps the area at the bottom of the screen from being "clickable", even when you close the ad.

skullvet said:
I don't mind ads, but the best buy ad at the bottom of the page is horrible. It actually keeps the area at the bottom of the screen from being "clickable", even when you close the ad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
I understand the ads, and I'll click on them every once and awhile to help out, but that best buy one is very aggravating.

i agree with this! i feel as if we could make the ads on this site load alot more conveniently.

I notice that the Best Buy ad at the bottom is gone, thank you!

I don't mind the ads but that Best Buy ad was seriously driving me insane! lol Thank you!

Best Buy ad should be officially removed. Let me know if it anyone sees it.
Thx!

svetius said:
Best Buy ad should be officially removed. Let me know if it anyone sees it.
Thx!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much. I understand the adds, you have to make money. That add at the bottom made it to hard to use the site, and i actually installed an adblocker just for it today. Now i have disabled it.

svetius said:
Best Buy ad should be officially removed. Let me know if it anyone sees it.
Thx!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much! All is well again.

A prime example of the damage that one bad ad and/or one slow ad delivery server can cause. I wonder how many people downloaded AdFree or AdBlock Plus or added a line into their hosts file tonight all because of a lousy Best Buy ad and a slow server halting progress on the page.
Is there any procedure in place for vetting new ads before they are served to this site? I get that the idea of an ad server is to exist in the background so that publishers can focus on the content, but is there any way to specify formats, types, and other parameters of the ads served here? If NetShelter was serving that Best Buy ad to all its tech publishers, there were probably a lot of pissed off users tonight across the network.

ZachPA said:
A prime example of the damage that one bad ad and/or one slow ad delivery server can cause. I wonder how many people downloaded AdFree or AdBlock Plus or added a line into their hosts file tonight all because of a lousy Best Buy ad and a slow server halting progress on the page.
Is there any procedure in place for vetting new ads before they are served to this site? I get that the idea of an ad server is to exist in the background so that publishers can focus on the content, but is there any way to specify formats, types, and other parameters of the ads served here? If NetShelter was serving that Best Buy ad to all its tech publishers, there were probably a lot of pissed off users tonight across the network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Often it's hard to control the adverts you see on a site.
I use ad blockers on a number of sites, but more for giving me a "stripped down" experience on slow loading sites...
There is usually little control over what adverts you show, since it is the ad agency that does the placement of the adverts, and you use code that "includes" whatever advert they choose.
When it comes down to it, if needed, the code can simply be removed, which is what I believe was done in this case.
I have only worked with ad solutions that give me fixed control over the parameters and appearance of the adverts, so I don't know how this one worked.

I use AdBlock Plus and ad blocker add on for Firefox. They work great and block 99% of pop ups.

Ads with Sound...?

Please consider not allowing people to place ads with sound. I will have to stop visiting this site from work. I understand that you need to make money but I think you will find that this will actually lower your # of impressions and therefore reducing the amount of money earned.
Thanks,
cj

chrisjaffe said:
Please consider not allowing people to place ads with sound. I will have to stop visiting this site from work. I understand that you need to make money but I think you will find that this will actually lower your # of impressions and therefore reducing the amount of money earned.
Thanks,
cj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm with this too, I always have at least 100 tabs open in my browser with a few tabs being XDA and every once in a while I will randomly get ads that automatically start playing. It would be fine if they had a play button but not when they start without a users consent.

Video ads - please remove them!

All these video ads on the forum are really annoying me (and I'm sure a lot of other people). Yes, I know the site needs to make some money to keep it online, but isn't there a less annoying alternative? they kind of make browsing the forum more of a chore, than a passtime - constantly having to mute the ad at the top of the page, scroll down as fast as possible and then mute the one at the bottom.
Please, someone!
KILL ZE ADS!

If running IE9, enable tracking protection (and add fanboys lists).
If running Chrome/FF, install AdBlock, and enable fanboys lists.
Advert problem solved.

I agree, adverts should be removed, its really annoying when your browsing through then suddenly this tic tac toe sh!t comes up. What's worse,the audio adverts.
sent from my x8

Yes, at least a way to disable the Audio on the video adverts would be appreciated!
Annoying watching TV on the pc and having another advert startup with sound over the top of what I'm trying to watch!
EDIT: Like as soon as I posted this FFS!

jeremyshaw said:
If running IE9, enable tracking protection (and add fanboys lists).
If running Chrome/FF, install AdBlock, and enable fanboys lists.
Advert problem solved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll try this thanks. I suppose I can just Google fan boy?
FoxHound PsychoMantis V2 on GT-i9100 via Tapatalk

+1 for Chrome and Adblock Plus, i don't have any problem with them

I don't know about the fanboy filter...
I don't see ads on any sites I visit.
Firefox 12.0 / Abblock Plus 2.0.3 with Element Hiding Helper 1.2.2.
Under Firefox click the menu tab > Add-ons > Get Add-ons > use the search bar to find adblock plus...
I am always amazed to read that people are annoyed by adverts on a site I visit. My first reaction is "They have ads here?" Then I chuckle to myself as I have never had a hint of my browser fighting them off. Out of sight, out of mind.
Peaceful browsing all.

I also use FireFox with AdBlock Plus to kill ads. The problem I have is that there are various sites (almost exclusively forums like linuxminut, /. and XDA) where I actually want to allow the adverts as I know they make money from it to support themselves, and thereby keep the sites I truly value running.
Unfortunately, due to the spread of video/audio ads I am finding I am less able to do that - they are such a waste of bandwidth and the audio ones just do my head in something chronic.
Maybe XDA should consider taking a stand by not using video/audio ads - thereby allowing those of us who actually choose to support the site the ability to do so.

Reason I use the fanboy list instead of the default easylist, is, iirc, that list sold out before; fanboys was created to counter it.
Sent from my LG-P930 using Tapatalk 2

Your ads are freaking ridiculous

FFS, I've gone to porn websites with fewer invasive ads. I usually have adblock on, but today I'm on a computer while I'm at a library and one of your 50 flash ads on the home page kept re-centering the screen on it, so I couldn't scroll to view forums.
With ABP off, this website feels like it's a piece of crap run only to make money and serve no other purpose. Seriously, get rid of a few of the innumerable flash ads and replace them with static pictures or something. I can't imagine how many people get turned away when they see that crap.

TheNetwork said:
FFS, I've gone to porn websites with fewer invasive ads. I usually have adblock on, but today I'm on a computer while I'm at a library and one of your 50 flash ads on the home page kept re-centering the screen on it, so I couldn't scroll to view forums.
With ABP off, this website feels like it's a piece of crap run only to make money and serve no other purpose. Seriously, get rid of a few of the innumerable flash ads and replace them with static pictures or something. I can't imagine how many people get turned away when they see that crap.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Youknow, there's a thread about this? It's even stickied in THIS VERY FORUM.
We don't like bad ads either, but sadly, the way advertising networks work, we actually need to know about said ads.
Report ads you find bad here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1696660 (ads like popups, autoplaying sound etc)
I'm closing this thread, feel free to PM me if there is anything