Definitely, the mobile phone was created to allow you to use the phone network without being tethered to one spot. And it's a great idea. But that's not the only thing I want to do without being tethered to one spot. I do want to be able to use the internet and manage information while on the go, and I like being able to do so with a pocketable device; not everything requires a huge video screen. Some things don't require a screen at all! (I very much like the idea of having a web server in my pocket. And allowing computers to "tether" to a cell phone for internet service is certainly a popular ability these days...)

Before the N900, I used to do just that. (I tried to use my iPhone as a tiny computer, but that was fruitless...) Nowadays, I can edit my files in vi or log into another PC, without having to lug around a laptop all the time.

Ugh. Really? I don't see the tablet as anything more than a portable TV. They're just as inconvenient to carry around as a laptop, as hard to type on as a cell phone, and honestly can't do as much as either a laptop or a smart phone. The worst of both worlds...

@Copernicus

OK, that's good.. the things you're able to do.. that's what a mobile phone is for in today's modern world. Manage files, web server.. I agree with you. It's pretty amazing to be able to do all that, I'm not against that.. I'm all up for it.

However, the point of this thread was to talk about the "multi-tasking" features which Android introduced.. specifically, playing video while browsing internet and all that. I think that this feature is pretty useless for a mobile phone and is just a marketing hype.

My points about tablets and laptops and phones was only from a multi-tasking view.

Ok, yeah, I gotta admit you're absolutely right there.

What's on the first post looks more like gadgets than multitasking to me -- like old world Macs. You still need to code the floating "widgets" separately ; they cannot be normal applications. So exactly like DAs in old PalmOS.

In fact, both Android and iOS can do something better which is to run actual applications in windows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db2UbDEgzEA

But you are still limited to the usual design limitations of a mostly monotasking environment. You cannot open more than one window from the same application, so no composing of multiple emails, no multiple chat windows, no copying and pasting of word documents...

Garbage.

Wait. I thought the n900 was a tablet? A Nokia Internet Tablet? Does that mean it cant be phone?

Yes, by that definition it is a tablet. (Actually, I'm starting to get the feeling that, if the right definition is applied, any random object can be considered a tablet. )

But yeah, there are two distinct definitions of tablet running around here, one being the name Nokia gave to its internet tablet line, the other being the current crop of devices that are either iPads or iPad look-alikes. I guess I should be more careful to explicitly state which definition I'm using...

I can hardly understand why people are even discussing the term multitasking. The term can not suddenly be redefined because some companies want to use it as a buzzword in their commercials.
If you are backgrounding an application processwise to execute another, you are NOT multitasking the machine, you are rather multitasking the user (well, maybe that's what Mr. Jobs and other fluffy salespeople meant). Its just something you put in your sales pitch.

Its like putting putting beer on the table and call it whisky.

Get a grip here people!
Multitasking is strictly handled by a roundrobin prioritized scheduler, nothing else.
EDIT: As a sidenote, what I mean with prioritized is that the scheduler is able to preempt the execution of a process and let another run. If not, we are talking about what is usually called 'cooperative multitasking', which has its benefits of course when it comes to less complexity in regard to protection of memory and resources.

It all boils down to what audience of users and developers you are targeting, if we are talking about the numbskull java or objective-c developers who hardly have heard the words assembly, mutexes, semaphores or critical sections, you're better off with an OS that backgrounds and sandboxes the applications, with of course the limitation that on application level nothing is executing at the same time. Ok, maybe they can spawn some worker threads in their applications, but it still doesn't do it.

But, I for one like being able to, for instance ssh into my server, starting an application with x11 forwarding, do some video encoding while still be able listening to music, checking mail and make a phone call at the same time.
Please try doing that with a regular phone from the fruit company or a droid, I'd like to see that.

Multitasking for some people mean that you can start more than one application, switch to another while the previous one maintains its state data. That's not multitasking, no matter what you say.

You can do that on a droid, just make the sshd server keep a wakelock 24h a day. But since all the Andridiot power management is designed around "being able to suspend as soon as possible and as often as possible" your battery craps itself.

I have been happy with "multitasking" in SGS3, for 5 months now.

For example, yesterday I was listening FM radio, while surfing the net with Firefox, playing games (TinyVillage, ModernWar), browsing photos. Also I had sshd running in the background all the time. It just works. I know most of the apps are not running in the background, but I do not care as long the system is highly responsive and I can continue where I left the application last time.

When something really needs to be run in the background, forcing to have a special service thread/process makes sure the developers do not put any battery or RAM wasting code there.

The "real multitasking" makes mobile systems unresponsive sooner or later. Those systems are not suitable for "normal people" and therefore cannot succeed in the ecosystem war.

You know, most of the above also applies to Fremantle ;-) The underlying OS is more than capable, but the brilliant "UX designers" typically castrate it.