How to STOP autloading of apps?

[droiduzr2]

How do you keep apps from starting?
I noticed things such as the alarm clock, moxier, and a few other programs will just load themselves.

Yes, I have the task killer. I find it annoying plus it kills the battery and slows the phone down having programs loading up without you selecting them.

Can we keep them from loading in the first place?

 

[Frisco]

Some apps have a configuration menu arrived at via the menu key on your device once you've opened the app.

You can also get to those that run as services by going into menu > settings > applications > running services and selecting each one you want to stop running. However, unless you're rooted and disable or remove those services, they'll restart the next time you power down and boot back up.

You can also go into the applications manager and select apps that you don't want running and press "force stop." You'll discover that some of them will not stop, using that method.

I don't like to use a task killer because sometimes they can cause things to be worse by killing tasks that need to be running and those tasks will continually be killed and restarted as a loop, causing a huge drain on resources including the battery life; it would be better to just leave those tasks alone. There are some "autorun killer" apps out there, but be careful with those as well.

I mentioned rooting. That gives the user a lot more control over the apps and services that run in the background, so being educated about it and removing or killing the right things is the challenge; we don't want to cause force closes because we've changed something that was annoying but which was needed by the system in some way.

If it's apps such as things related to syncing, such as Facebook, Twitter and various email applications, then it's as simple as configuring them to not sync at all in the background and just going in manually when you feel like checking on things for that app and sync then. That is a bit more work, but it can go a long way in conserving battery life.

Here's a good read about Android applications:

http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/fundamentals.html

 

[droiduzr2]

Thanks for the info.

You would think they would ask you on a pre configure install screen.
Perhaps the Developers need to form a GREEN movement because the more apps running drains the battery faster thus requiring frequent recharging.

call the movement GREENConfig or G-Config
I would think manufacturers would favor this method because it makes their product appear to have a longer battery life and less prone to crashes etc...

The Android platform and I-crapod reminds me of the evolution of Windows.
Have we forgotten the past already?

 

[Demache]

Stuff sitting idle in the memory does not use more battery. Its just there in hopes that if you use it, it will start faster. Granted, if its syncing and doing stuff over your internet connection, its not sitting idle, and is using more battery.

Though, I've noticed on higher end phones, they will load far more apps. Probably because they have tons more RAM. My Eris currently has 9 things running with 50 MB free. Compared to my friend's Droid 2, which is somewhere near 25, and still has 50 more MB of memory free than I do. Its ridiculous.

 

[droiduzr2]

Stuff sitting idle in the memory does not use more battery. Its just there in hopes that if you use it, it will start faster. Granted, if its syncing and doing stuff over your internet connection, its not sitting idle, and is using more battery.

Though, I've noticed on higher end phones, they will load far more apps. Probably because they have tons more RAM. My Eris currently has 9 things running with 50 MB free. Compared to my friend's Droid 2, which is somewhere near 25, and still has 50 more MB of memory free than I do. Its ridiculous.

Not true.
For those apps to load they require CPU cycles hence more battery power being used and since some will keep trying to or will connect to the "web" they are using power.

Your phone will also run slower as more apps sit in memory.
So when you try to bring up your phone book it will take a while to scroll or when you text because you essentially have less horsepower to draw upon.

So all around it's a net loss.

It's LAZY design and execution. If you stand back and think about what I am saying you will see that we would have much more effective equipment and companies can make greater FACTUAL claims for speed, battery life, etc...

But hey-- it's the same crap just a different package.

Try thi, turn your phone off and back on. Make sure you time how long it takes once you hit the on switch to the time that you can ACTUALLY dial your first #. One would think the new generation of phones will do this faster but they wont.

btw- nothing I wrote is a persona l attack. I just get a bit frustrated seeing something that has such great potential turn into a boat anchor.

These Android phones are VERY powerful tools but it seems we have a Porsche that does not go past 3rd gear.
Why would anyone buy an I-crap? Never mind George Carlin knocked

 

[faugusztin]

It's not that easy. You installed those apps, so you requested their functionality. Now, if that applications includes sync ability, then it is ok for 99% of users (except the ones like you) to have the defaults, to sync once in a while for example for the widget (Facebook), or for a notification about new stuff (Email, RSS Reader) or about specific time related item (Calendar, Alarm Clock). You can't all that without application being loaded. But it's not the whole application - just the needed parts. Most times it's just the service running, not the activities and other stuff.

If you don't like the defaults, change them. But don't try to impose your view as the only one - it's actually you who is minority and defaults work for most of the people (most people wants to be waken up by alarm clock, notified about new mails/posts on facebook/RSS feeds, notified about upcoming event in calendar, etc).

You also miss the point by thinking that those apps run 24/7. No, they dont. For example alarm clock - it autoloads, checks it's alarm table and sets start of "wake" activity at specified time according to the table. And until that time, unless you load the app, it does absolutely nothing. The only one who does something is the system itself which checks if the time to start the activity is now, and if yes, then start activity, otherwise do nothing. Same applies to the syncing - apps set next sync time, and then just sit there and do nothing. So seeing a icon up there in notification area doesn't mean those apps run. Most times, it means exactly the opposite - the only thing running is the "icon" and the system waiting to reach the next moment with activity to run.

 

[takeshi]

Not true.
For those apps to load they require CPU cycles hence more battery power being used and since some will keep trying to or will connect to the "web" they are using power.

Your phone will also run slower as more apps sit in memory.
So when you try to bring up your phone book it will take a while to scroll or when you text because you essentially have less horsepower to draw upon.

So all around it's a net loss.

It's LAZY design and execution. If you stand back and think about what I am saying you will see that we would have much more effective equipment and companies can make greater FACTUAL claims for speed, battery life, etc...

As usual, read up on how Android works rather than assuming that you know. This line of discussion is repeated endlessly on every Android forum site by Android noobs and there's no point in reinventing the wheel yet again. There are resources out there to address battery life issues, performance issues, etc. You'll be better off if you start with an understanding of Android, multitasking, background apps, etc.

 

[Roze]

Not true.
For those apps to load they require CPU cycles hence more battery power being used and since some will keep trying to or will connect to the "web" they are using power.

Your phone will also run slower as more apps sit in memory.
So when you try to bring up your phone book it will take a while to scroll or when you text because you essentially have less horsepower to draw upon.

So all around it's a net loss.

It's LAZY design and execution. If you stand back and think about what I am saying you will see that we would have much more effective equipment and companies can make greater FACTUAL claims for speed, battery life, etc...

But hey-- it's the same crap just a different package.

I just want to correct you on this, so that new members that read your post don't think that there's an issue with the Android OS.

If the app is ACTIVE, then yes, it will use rescources (memory and battery). If an app is Idle (inactive) it just sits in the CPU waiting for the user to use it again. It only uses the memory (and no battery is being used up). This is how Android operates to SAVE battery life. It is easier to load an app that is idle than load the app from start (less resource is being used). If memory is low, the OS will end the app that have been idle for extended period (OS sees it as user will not be using the app) to reclaim that memory for active/needed app.

Components might also be shut down by the system when they are no longer being used or when Android must reclaim memory for more active components.

Source: Application Fundamentals | Android Developers

Activity lifecycle



An activity has essentially three states:

• It is active or running when it is in the foreground of the screen (at the top of the activity stack for the current task). This is the activity that is the focus for the user's actions.

• It is paused if it has lost focus but is still visible to the user. That is, another activity lies on top of it and that activity either is transparent or doesn't cover the full screen, so some of the paused activity can show through. A paused activity is completely alive (it maintains all state and member information and remains attached to the window manager), but can be killed by the system in extreme low memory situations.

• It is stopped if it is completely obscured by another activity. It still retains all state and member information. However, it is no longer visible to the user so its window is hidden and it will often be killed by the system when memory is needed elsewhere.

If an activity is paused or stopped, the system can drop it from memory either by asking it to finish (calling its finish() method), or simply killing its process. When it is displayed again to the user, it must be completely restarted and restored to its previous state.

Source: Application Fundamentals | Android Developers

 

[droiduzr2]

It's not that easy. You installed those apps, so you requested their functionality. Now, if that applications includes sync ability, then it is ok for 99% of users (except the ones like you) to have the defaults, to sync once in a while for example for the widget (Facebook), or for a notification about new stuff (Email, RSS Reader) or about specific time related item (Calendar, Alarm Clock). You can't all that without application being loaded. But it's not the whole application - just the needed parts. Most times it's just the service running, not the activities and other stuff.

If you don't like the defaults, change them. But don't try to impose your view as the only one - it's actually you who is minority and defaults work for most of the people (most people wants to be waken up by alarm clock, notified about new mails/posts on facebook/RSS feeds, notified about upcoming event in calendar, etc).

You also miss the point by thinking that those apps run 24/7. No, they dont. For example alarm clock - it autoloads, checks it's alarm table and sets start of "wake" activity at specified time according to the table. And until that time, unless you load the app, it does absolutely nothing. The only one who does something is the system itself which checks if the time to start the activity is now, and if yes, then start activity, otherwise do nothing. Same applies to the syncing - apps set next sync time, and then just sit there and do nothing. So seeing a icon up there in notification area doesn't mean those apps run. Most times, it means exactly the opposite - the only thing running is the "icon" and the system waiting to reach the next moment with activity to run.

See bold
So is that the same kind of mentality and explanation for the Sony discs that reported on you and crashes your computer? Is this the same mindset that makes Windows bloated that it took them until Windows 7 to realize that duh...we do not need to load every single thing on startup.

If I do not have an alarm set why would the alarm clock program need to load itself and as you say keep checking a table considering there is no alarm scheduled?

Clearly there is a significant problem because there are people that spent lots of time developing app killer progs and there are lots of people installing app killer progs etc...

One of the biggest complaints against smartphones is battery life.
Do you not see a correlation of bloated OS and programming of apps that create this "issue"?

I have a great deal of respect for Developers that make the effort to doing something right the first time or trying to improve something for the better after.

Just a suggestion but perhaps you should not start a sentence with "It's not that easy" because it sets a negative tone for your position. Read what you wrote, nothing tells me/us how to make this better but instead suck it up because that's the way it is.

btw- Some of those programs do NOT have a setting for me to disable them.

 

[faugusztin]

The problem is that you complain, while knowing nothing about how Android works. There is nothing to solve, as there is no problem you are complaining about. You complain about some background apps, while the battery usage of background apps is less than minimal. The background apps are nowhere near to the paradigm of background apps running in Windows. You should think about them more like scheduled tasks.

Android has 4 types of (sub)programs:

• Activities - they are the visual part of application. If you click on icon, you start an activity. These are not the things you complain about, yet take up most of the application run time and battery usage. Activities run only when you use the app itself.
• Services - these are the background parts of the application, but these don't have to run 24/7, just when needed. Of course if you have a web server or music player service, then it has to run all the time. But things like sync service is usually triggerd by the Android OS itself at specified time, until that moment there is nothing using CPU cycles and nothing using battery.
• Broadcast receivers - the best description is in the documentation - "A broadcast receiver is a component that does nothing but receive and react to broadcast announcements". Does nothing, except when called by broadcat announcement. So most time does nothing, use no CPU cycles and no battery.
• Content providers - sort of "database access" component. Again, unless someone requires the data (usually the Activity), it uses CPU and no battery.

And that's it. All Android components. In short, you complain about something you have absolutely no knowledge of, you think it wastes extreme amount of battery while even a 0,1% battery usage is more than they usually waste for this tasks...

App killers are not here because of battery (app killers actually shorten the battery time), but because of small RAM in earlier Android phones. It's a big difference to have 512MB RAM (current phones), 256MB RAM (previous gen. phones) or 192MB RAM (HTC G1).

One of the biggest complain is battery life ? Well, then those complainers selected the wrong device. You want to have a big display and WiFi and GPS and browsing, playing music, emailing,... whole day while having a small form factor = limited battery power (usually around 1300mAH) ? All while having a powerfull processor (because you don't want slow apps, right) ?
We are not at that level of technology yet. Check out your phone battery usage, usually 50-70% off your battery is used up for these basic things, not applications, not "background apps" - just the damn display and the damn wifi and the damn GPS you need.

 

[droiduzr2]

The problem is that you complain, while knowing nothing about how Android works. There is nothing to solve, as there is no problem you are complaining about. You complain about some background apps, while the battery usage of background apps is less than minimal. The background apps are nowhere near to the paradigm of background apps running in Windows. You should think about them more like scheduled tasks.

Android has 4 types of (sub)programs:

• Activities - they are the visual part of application. If you click on icon, you start an activity. These are not the things you complain about, yet take up most of the application run time and battery usage. Activities run only when you use the app itself.
• Services - these are the background parts of the application, but these don't have to run 24/7, just when needed. Of course if you have a web server or music player service, then it has to run all the time. But things like sync service is usually triggerd by the Android OS itself at specified time, until that moment there is nothing using CPU cycles and nothing using battery.
• Broadcast receivers - the best description is in the documentation - "A broadcast receiver is a component that does nothing but receive and react to broadcast announcements". Does nothing, except when called by broadcat announcement. So most time does nothing, use no CPU cycles and no battery.
• Content providers - sort of "database access" component. Again, unless someone requires the data (usually the Activity), it uses CPU and no battery.

And that's it. All Android components. In short, you complain about something you have absolutely no knowledge of, you think it wastes extreme amount of battery while even a 0,1% battery usage is more than they usually waste for this tasks...

App killers are not here because of battery (app killers actually shorten the battery time), but because of small RAM in earlier Android phones. It's a big difference to have 512MB RAM (current phones), 256MB RAM (previous gen. phones) or 192MB RAM (HTC G1).

One of the biggest complain is battery life ? Well, then those complainers selected the wrong device. You want to have a big display and WiFi and GPS and browsing, playing music, emailing,... whole day while having a small form factor = limited battery power (usually around 1300mAH) ? All while having a powerfull processor (because you don't want slow apps, right) ?
We are not at that level of technology yet. Check out your phone battery usage, usually 50-70% off your battery is used up for these basic things, not applications, not "background apps" - just the damn display and the damn wifi and the damn GPS you need.

Why do you sound so ANGRY?

 

[Demache]

You must have one of those newer Android phones. Mine is old enough that it doesn't just keep preloading all my apps. Google Voice, Handcent SMS, the HTC keyboard, Messages, and Remote Notifier (for sending phone notifications to PC) are the only things that run in the background on mine. It won't load things like Clock and such without reason. There are some cached apps also, but they aren't doing anything.

 

[faugusztin]

Why do you sound so ANGRY?

I'm not angry at all. Just using the words you will maybe finally understand.

 

[AndroidSPCS]

I'm angry birds!!!!

 

[trueblue71]

I agree with droiduzr2. I think it's a poor oversight in the Android OS. Why do I always only have 52M of memory available on my Droid X when I have 512MB total? I'm not running anything in the background except for what Android launches. Before Froyo when Task Managers actually killed the tasks, I would sometimes manually kill a bunch of unnecessary processes to make the memory go up to 120 or 150MB and right away there was a huge speed increase. Less stuttering and smoother movements all around. So while those apps are idle, they are slowing the phone down.

Also, in terms of how the OS works: why always have only 50MB available and then always have to worry about what to close when another app wants to open? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just have the space available and take the memory when it needs it instead of all this swapping?

 

[AndroidSPCS]

I agree with droiduzr2. I think it's a poor oversight in the Android OS. Why do I always only have 52M of memory available on my Droid X when I have 512MB total? I'm not running anything in the background except for what Android launches. Before Froyo when Task Managers actually killed the tasks, I would sometimes manually kill a bunch of unnecessary processes to make the memory go up to 120 or 150MB and right away there was a huge speed increase. Less stuttering and smoother movements all around. So while those apps are idle, they are slowing the phone down.

Also, in terms of how the OS works: why always have only 50MB available and then always have to worry about what to close when another app wants to open? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just have the space available and take the memory when it needs it instead of all this swapping?

Nope. If it's not causing issues I wouldn't worry about.

It's not how Linux / Android works, so you're worried about something that is irrelevant.

 

[droiduzr2]

I agree with droiduzr2. I think it's a poor oversight in the Android OS. Why do I always only have 52M of memory available on my Droid X when I have 512MB total? I'm not running anything in the background except for what Android launches. Before Froyo when Task Managers actually killed the tasks, I would sometimes manually kill a bunch of unnecessary processes to make the memory go up to 120 or 150MB and right away there was a huge speed increase. Less stuttering and smoother movements all around. So while those apps are idle, they are slowing the phone down.

Also, in terms of how the OS works: why always have only 50MB available and then always have to worry about what to close when another app wants to open? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just have the space available and take the memory when it needs it instead of all this swapping?

Maybe it's just our phones that seem to share the same problem with memory running low and the phone being sluggish.

Yeah that's probably it. I will create a turbo charge app.
Would you like a copy?