I think it would have to be implanted quite deep if you're relying on body temperature - I should think that the few mm under the skin can fall well below core temperature in many "normal" conditions (think skiing, etc. where you're out in sub-zero temperatures).
The problem with sig recognition is that your signature not only changes over time, but changes with the document you're signing the the materials you're signing with.
Signature analyser systems look at the _style_ and order of your pen strokes, not the exact shape of the finished signature. So it doesn't matter that your signature is different every time, you're still drawing it in the same way (just as handwriting analysis can match handwriting to a particular person even though the 2 samples of writing aren't exactly identical).
Admittedly signatures do change over time, but this isn't usually a sudden change (unless you had a medical condition that prevents you writing correctly, such as a stroke, etc). So each time your signature is verified, the system could be updated so the recorded signature pattern evolves in step with the actual signature.
Ok, so after someone has looked over my shoulder and seen my pin, instead of just mugging me for my card they'll take the trouble to cut my finger off too - great.
But signatures are worthless. The signature on my card and on my drivers license is far different from the way I actually sign things.
Signatures are not worthless - signature analyser systems look at the _style_ and order of your pen strokes, not the exact shape of the finished signature. So it doesn't matter that your signature is different every time, you're still drawing it in the same way (just as handwriting analysis can match handwriting to a particular person even though the 2 samples of writing aren't exactly identical).
This is why I'd be much more comforable with a card + thumb print + pin scenario.
I'm not happy with the idea of using my thumb print / iris scan / etc as part of the transaction - seems to me it would invite the criminals to chip off my thumb or scoop out my eye at the same time as swiping my wallet. I'd be much happier with something like electronic signature recognition - much harder to forge a signature than punch in a pin number and you're nolonger relying on someone to bother to check the signature manually.
The problem of this type of security is that it attempts to replace thought on the part of all involved.
People are stupid, and security measures must take this into account: 1. The original signature system didn't take this into account because the shop cashiers are stupid and don't check the signature. 2. The new chip & pin system doesn't take this into account because the card holders are stupid and don't protect their pin.
Admittedly (2) can be reduced by having well designed keypads that reduce the viewing angle to see the keys - most of the chip & pin pads I've seen are useless in this respect.
Anyone care to explain why they opted for using pin numbers instead of electronic signature recognition - I was under the impression that signature recognition is quite reliable (it's certainly been around for a while). Signatures are much harder for someone to reproduce than a PIN and this method would remove the need for the cachier to check the signature (which they don't do anyway).
Embedded chips that act like credit cards won't ever happen because too many evangelical christians would never go for something embedded chips.
I would never go for an embedded "credit card chip" either - having your wallet stolen is one thing, but having the part of your body with the chip in it swiped is quite another (I'm being serious - there has been at least 1 case I am aware of in which a carjacker cut off the car owner's finger for the fingerprint because it had a newfangled fingerprint scanner instead of a key to turn on the ignition! I for one would rather have my car stolen rather than losing my finger.)
Security is always a balancing act between usability and security. If you want the closest thing to total security then you'll disconnect your computer, lock it in a safe and never remove it. Of course that makes the computer useless. If the amount of time and effort you have to put into jumping through hoops outweighs the security benefits of the system then clearly you have your priorities screwed.
More importantly, if *I* paid for the computer and *I* paid for the software, why shouldn't *I* choose what I can do on *my* computer (within the law)?
but our copper lines are so outdated that most of the nation's DSL services, by definition, aren't fast enough to be considered 'broadband' (at least 3MBs, last time I checked but I could be wrong so please don't flame me).
Technically, most modems above about 600bps are "broadband" (in the true, uncorrupted sense of the word). Marketting dweebs corrupted the technical meaning of the term and the ITU-T have now officially classified broadband speeds as anything greater than the speed of a PRI (1.5Mbps in the US, 2Mbps in Europe). That said, the advertising standards agency here in the UK has ignored all definitions of broadband in the past and gave NTL a bollocking for using the term "broadband" in reference to 128Kbps cable modems (which use broadband modulation). The advertising standards agency meanwhile think it's fine for everyone else to market 512Kbps DSL lines as "broadband" despite them nowhere near meeting the ITU-T criteria.
barebones phone service only for the purpose of internet, and then use VoIP for actual calls.
The problem is that BT's "bare bones" package isn't that bare-bones - it's still a reasonably pricey monthly charge and has "inclusive minutes", so once you're forced to pay that then VoIP isn't actually that cost effective. I guess if I had relatives abroad then it'd be cost effective to use a SIPPSTN gateway to call them, but then the UK VoIP gateways would still not be getting any of the market share because I'd be using a foreign gateway to get the best rate.
Thats not entirely accurate. British Telecom have an add-on to Yahoo messenger that allows calls to landlines and cellphones.
Infact it's a completely false statement - there are a good number of SIPPSTN gateways all over the Internet. And what's more - they use industry standard protocols instead of closed propriatory systems, so they can all interoperate.
The only advantages Skype have are: 1. Marketting (they seem to be rather better at this than everyone else... hopefully Google will do a good job of marketting it's SIP stuff when it's ready) 2. Calls through NAT (which I understand works by routing calls between 2 NATted clients through a random non-NATted end user. I guess that explains the sometimes dubious call quality and as someone who doesn't use NAT I'd be sincerely annoyed at having my bandwidth used by random other people in a way that doesn't benefit me. In the end this only really benefits Skype themselves since they can skimp on their infrastructure by making a minority group of end-users provide a chunk of infrastructure - SIP works through NAT just as well by using STUN but requires the "service provider" to provide infrastructure to route the calls through (calls between non-NATted clients can be done entirely peer-to-peer).
With any luck, (2) will become a moot point if more people use IPv6 - infact Microsoft could help out here by improving their half-arsed IPv6 stack and shipping Vista with it turned on by default.
I'm not going to worry about somebody trying to dominate all VoIP when it can't even serve as an (American, at least) alternative to landline or cellular telephone.
Here in the UK, "naked DSL" (DSL without the POTS connection) is not available - I think until BT are forced to implement naked DSL at a reasonable price the VoIPPSTN gateways won't be able to seriously compete. I mean, how many people are going to be interested in a VoIP service (especially one which probably costs the same as BT for the actual calls) when they are already _forced_ to pay for a normal BT POTS service in order to get a DSL connection (even when your DSL contract isn't with BT).
If I remember correctly, about a third of Opera's revenue comes from licensing their mobile version of Opera to PDA and mobile phone makers.
I never understood this: Symbian UIQ ships with the world's crappist browser, Sony Ericson officially recommend installing Opera... so my question is, why the hell don't they rip out the crumby default browser from the ROM and ship the devices with Opera pre-installed?
e.g. it was the first mainstream browser with native support for SVG, for Aural CSS, etc.
As a web developer I can tell you that Opera's rendering engine is far more buggy than FireFox, Safari, etc. - sad but true, the 2 browsers I can almost guarantee will have problems rendering a W3C complient site are IE and Opera and I then have to spend time working around their bugs. By contrast, FireFox and Safari do have bugs but they are usually very minor off-by-1 alignmnet errors, etc. What's worse, many of Opera's bugs seem to be exactly the opposite of IE's bugs, making it impossible to make a site work properly in both at the same time (without some nasty browser detection).
I don't think Opera support XSLT yet (certainly didn't prior to version 8), which is a real shame coz XSLT is a really good idea and even IE5 had XSLT support.:(
You do realise that it takes about a minute to strip down the interface to practically nothing, right? Like this!
Yes, but why isn't it like that as default - that's the first thing a new user sees when they fire it up and certainly for me it made me want to immediately shut it down again and go back to firefox (although unfortunately I couldn't do that since the only reason I was using the thing was to test how badly it rendered a (XHTML strict) website I was designing).
Oh, another annoyance is that it defaults to pretending it's IE (by sending a fake UA string), which IMHO is very very broken.
There's an extension that converts the 'tabs' into a real MDI, where you can lay different documents side by side, for instance? I never found it.
I never figured out *why* anyone would want an MDI in any application - it's like a mini windowing environment inside a window, where's the advantage over just opening separate windows on your desktop?
This is nothing more than the usual opera fan pouring his heart out about how wonderful the interface to opera is. I cant stand the tab implimentation in firefox, it's borked!
I can't stand the rendering implementation in Opera, it's borked (yes seriously it has a lot more bugs than firefox - I'd go so far to say that the only browser worse is IE).
That aside, the first thing I notice about Opera is that the interface takes up so much more screen space than any other browser.
Opera has a session manager ; when you close it, you can have it load excatly where you left off. All the tabs you had open are all waiting for you when you re-open the browser.
Umm, yes, firefox will do that too...
I'm not sure Opera even supports XSLT yet does it? (something that even IE has supported since version 5!)
But when MS includes features for free, everybody bitches and sues them, because they're evil greedy monopolists trying to undercut their competition.
Certainly for me, the problem with MS giving away stuff for free to undercut the competition is that they end up bundling it with Windows. At least if people ahve to go out and download something the competition have a chance, but when it's already there as standard, who's going to bother? (Note: this would be less of a problem if MS bundled the competition's software with Windows as well... kinda like most Linux distributors do infact).
Everything inside your PC case is low voltage, with the exception of the primary side of your UL listed power supply.
At no point did I suggest the user could receive a shock - my examples concentrated on overheating issues. And I can tell you that a failed fan in a PSU can make the PSU _very_ hot - if something flamable was near it I can see a potential fire hazard.
If the hardware can burn, shock, or do anything hazardous, it is up to the hardware to mitigate that problem
Not true at all - software _can_ make modern hardware damage itself:
- Most modern PCs have software controlled voltage regulators (you can tune them in the BIOS) so a nasty piece of software _could_ max out the voltage on the regulators, leads to the hardware overheating - no idea about the potential fire hazard, most stuff inside PCs is failry non-combustable so I'd guess the chances of a fire are pretty small
- Most modern PCs have the processor speed under software control (i.e. you can go to the BIOS and overclock your CPU). Again, overheating problem
- Some PCs have software controlled fans - turn off your CPU fan from software and you'll have a problem... I'd guess turning off your PSU fan could create a reasonable fire hazard.
- Many GPUs can be overclocked or overvoltaged from software
I'm sure there are many other ways of breaking hardware from software in potentially dangerous ways.
Most people, given the choice, want to pay a reasonable price for a legit copy of something. However, currently the pirated material is often "better" than the legit version (for some values of "better").
For example, the distribution mechanism for illegal movies is better:
- You don't have to drive to get to see the movie
- You don't have rediculously overpriced food pushed at you
- You don't have to put up with 30 minutes of adverts before watching the show you paid an overpriced fee to see (goes back to the "reasonable price" thing above)
- Not so much an issue these days but it used to be that a lot of movies were released here in the UK long after they hit the US - I can't see how they can complain too much about people getting impatient to see something they've hyped up (still applies to TV though).
- You don't get accused of being a copyright infringer when you're infringing copyright, whereas you do if you go to the cinema or buy a DVD.
And yes, I fully agree with you about music - almost all the CDs I buy these days have been (partly at least) downloaded first so I could hear if what I was buying was worth it - the only people who lose out from that are the crap acts who aren't worth buying.
I can't say I see too many people being noisy in cinemas here in the UK, but the food certainly is overpriced (no, I don't buy any). However, the things that bug me most about the cinema are:
- After I've _paid_ quite a lot to get in, I have to sit through 30 minutes of adverts... and no, you can't just turn up 30 minutes late because then you get a crap seat. - On busy screenings you often get a crap seat anyway due to the cinemas' "cram them in" policy - they don't seem to get that sitting 5 feet from the screen is not a fun experience. - They have the _nerve_ to accuse me of stealing and threatening me about what might happen if I'm caught... Hey - if I wanted to infringe the movie's copyright I would've downloaded it instead of going to the cinema!
Of course, as an added bonus to The Bilg, it killed off Geoworks Ensemble and similar projects.
Can't say that was a good thing at the time - I had been using GEOS since the Commodore 64 version and was using PC/GEOS on the PC since upgrading from the C64 to a 286. A truely excellent piece of software compared to Windows 2.
I never saw versions of windows less than 3.0 to be able to comment.
My 286 arrived with Windows 2 installed on it... I can remember using it for all of about 10 minutes before deciding it was a steaming pile of crap and wiped it. Settled on using GeoWorks instead when I needed a GUI, which was way ahead of Windows - even supported long file names!). For all non-GUI stuff, DOS was the tool of choice and I used to run multiple DOSes under DesQview on my 486.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it would have to be implanted quite deep if you're relying on body temperature - I should think that the few mm under the skin can fall well below core temperature in many "normal" conditions (think skiing, etc. where you're out in sub-zero temperatures).
The problem with sig recognition is that your signature not only changes over time, but changes with the document you're signing the the materials you're signing with.
Signature analyser systems look at the _style_ and order of your pen strokes, not the exact shape of the finished signature. So it doesn't matter that your signature is different every time, you're still drawing it in the same way (just as handwriting analysis can match handwriting to a particular person even though the 2 samples of writing aren't exactly identical).
Admittedly signatures do change over time, but this isn't usually a sudden change (unless you had a medical condition that prevents you writing correctly, such as a stroke, etc). So each time your signature is verified, the system could be updated so the recorded signature pattern evolves in step with the actual signature.
Ah but without the pin it'd be useless.
Ok, so after someone has looked over my shoulder and seen my pin, instead of just mugging me for my card they'll take the trouble to cut my finger off too - great.
But signatures are worthless. The signature on my card and on my drivers license is far different from the way I actually sign things.
Signatures are not worthless - signature analyser systems look at the _style_ and order of your pen strokes, not the exact shape of the finished signature. So it doesn't matter that your signature is different every time, you're still drawing it in the same way (just as handwriting analysis can match handwriting to a particular person even though the 2 samples of writing aren't exactly identical).
This is why I'd be much more comforable with a card + thumb print + pin scenario.
I'm not happy with the idea of using my thumb print / iris scan / etc as part of the transaction - seems to me it would invite the criminals to chip off my thumb or scoop out my eye at the same time as swiping my wallet. I'd be much happier with something like electronic signature recognition - much harder to forge a signature than punch in a pin number and you're nolonger relying on someone to bother to check the signature manually.
The problem of this type of security is that it attempts to replace thought on the part of all involved.
People are stupid, and security measures must take this into account:
1. The original signature system didn't take this into account because the shop cashiers are stupid and don't check the signature.
2. The new chip & pin system doesn't take this into account because the card holders are stupid and don't protect their pin.
Admittedly (2) can be reduced by having well designed keypads that reduce the viewing angle to see the keys - most of the chip & pin pads I've seen are useless in this respect.
Anyone care to explain why they opted for using pin numbers instead of electronic signature recognition - I was under the impression that signature recognition is quite reliable (it's certainly been around for a while). Signatures are much harder for someone to reproduce than a PIN and this method would remove the need for the cachier to check the signature (which they don't do anyway).
They were taking DNA samples in real time from people for access control.
:)
I suggest taking a 2 - 3 litre blood sample per transaction for DNA testing
Wrong. In the UK if the merchant users chip and PIN and the transaction is fraudulent, the cost is born by the card company, no the merchant.
I could be wrong, but I thought in this case the card owner could be liable because they obviously didn't protect their PIN well enough.
Embedded chips that act like credit cards won't ever happen because too many evangelical christians would never go for something embedded chips.
I would never go for an embedded "credit card chip" either - having your wallet stolen is one thing, but having the part of your body with the chip in it swiped is quite another (I'm being serious - there has been at least 1 case I am aware of in which a carjacker cut off the car owner's finger for the fingerprint because it had a newfangled fingerprint scanner instead of a key to turn on the ignition! I for one would rather have my car stolen rather than losing my finger.)
Security is always a balancing act between usability and security. If you want the closest thing to total security then you'll disconnect your computer, lock it in a safe and never remove it. Of course that makes the computer useless. If the amount of time and effort you have to put into jumping through hoops outweighs the security benefits of the system then clearly you have your priorities screwed.
More importantly, if *I* paid for the computer and *I* paid for the software, why shouldn't *I* choose what I can do on *my* computer (within the law)?
but our copper lines are so outdated that most of the nation's DSL services, by definition, aren't fast enough to be considered 'broadband' (at least 3MBs, last time I checked but I could be wrong so please don't flame me).
Technically, most modems above about 600bps are "broadband" (in the true, uncorrupted sense of the word). Marketting dweebs corrupted the technical meaning of the term and the ITU-T have now officially classified broadband speeds as anything greater than the speed of a PRI (1.5Mbps in the US, 2Mbps in Europe). That said, the advertising standards agency here in the UK has ignored all definitions of broadband in the past and gave NTL a bollocking for using the term "broadband" in reference to 128Kbps cable modems (which use broadband modulation). The advertising standards agency meanwhile think it's fine for everyone else to market 512Kbps DSL lines as "broadband" despite them nowhere near meeting the ITU-T criteria.
barebones phone service only for the purpose of internet, and then use VoIP for actual calls.
The problem is that BT's "bare bones" package isn't that bare-bones - it's still a reasonably pricey monthly charge and has "inclusive minutes", so once you're forced to pay that then VoIP isn't actually that cost effective. I guess if I had relatives abroad then it'd be cost effective to use a SIPPSTN gateway to call them, but then the UK VoIP gateways would still not be getting any of the market share because I'd be using a foreign gateway to get the best rate.
Thats not entirely accurate. British Telecom have an add-on to Yahoo messenger that allows calls to landlines and cellphones.
Infact it's a completely false statement - there are a good number of SIPPSTN gateways all over the Internet. And what's more - they use industry standard protocols instead of closed propriatory systems, so they can all interoperate.
The only advantages Skype have are:
1. Marketting (they seem to be rather better at this than everyone else... hopefully Google will do a good job of marketting it's SIP stuff when it's ready)
2. Calls through NAT (which I understand works by routing calls between 2 NATted clients through a random non-NATted end user. I guess that explains the sometimes dubious call quality and as someone who doesn't use NAT I'd be sincerely annoyed at having my bandwidth used by random other people in a way that doesn't benefit me. In the end this only really benefits Skype themselves since they can skimp on their infrastructure by making a minority group of end-users provide a chunk of infrastructure - SIP works through NAT just as well by using STUN but requires the "service provider" to provide infrastructure to route the calls through (calls between non-NATted clients can be done entirely peer-to-peer).
With any luck, (2) will become a moot point if more people use IPv6 - infact Microsoft could help out here by improving their half-arsed IPv6 stack and shipping Vista with it turned on by default.
I'm not going to worry about somebody trying to dominate all VoIP when it can't even serve as an (American, at least) alternative to landline or cellular telephone.
Here in the UK, "naked DSL" (DSL without the POTS connection) is not available - I think until BT are forced to implement naked DSL at a reasonable price the VoIPPSTN gateways won't be able to seriously compete. I mean, how many people are going to be interested in a VoIP service (especially one which probably costs the same as BT for the actual calls) when they are already _forced_ to pay for a normal BT POTS service in order to get a DSL connection (even when your DSL contract isn't with BT).
If I remember correctly, about a third of Opera's revenue comes from licensing their mobile version of Opera to PDA and mobile phone makers.
:(
I never understood this: Symbian UIQ ships with the world's crappist browser, Sony Ericson officially recommend installing Opera... so my question is, why the hell don't they rip out the crumby default browser from the ROM and ship the devices with Opera pre-installed?
e.g. it was the first mainstream browser with native support for SVG, for Aural CSS, etc.
As a web developer I can tell you that Opera's rendering engine is far more buggy than FireFox, Safari, etc. - sad but true, the 2 browsers I can almost guarantee will have problems rendering a W3C complient site are IE and Opera and I then have to spend time working around their bugs. By contrast, FireFox and Safari do have bugs but they are usually very minor off-by-1 alignmnet errors, etc. What's worse, many of Opera's bugs seem to be exactly the opposite of IE's bugs, making it impossible to make a site work properly in both at the same time (without some nasty browser detection).
I don't think Opera support XSLT yet (certainly didn't prior to version 8), which is a real shame coz XSLT is a really good idea and even IE5 had XSLT support.
You do realise that it takes about a minute to strip down the interface to practically nothing, right? Like this!
Yes, but why isn't it like that as default - that's the first thing a new user sees when they fire it up and certainly for me it made me want to immediately shut it down again and go back to firefox (although unfortunately I couldn't do that since the only reason I was using the thing was to test how badly it rendered a (XHTML strict) website I was designing).
Oh, another annoyance is that it defaults to pretending it's IE (by sending a fake UA string), which IMHO is very very broken.
There's an extension that converts the 'tabs' into a real MDI, where you can lay different documents side by side, for instance? I never found it.
I never figured out *why* anyone would want an MDI in any application - it's like a mini windowing environment inside a window, where's the advantage over just opening separate windows on your desktop?
This is nothing more than the usual opera fan pouring his heart out about how wonderful the interface to opera is. I cant stand the tab implimentation in firefox, it's borked!
I can't stand the rendering implementation in Opera, it's borked (yes seriously it has a lot more bugs than firefox - I'd go so far to say that the only browser worse is IE).
That aside, the first thing I notice about Opera is that the interface takes up so much more screen space than any other browser.
Opera has a session manager ; when you close it, you can have it load excatly where you left off. All the tabs you had open are all waiting for you when you re-open the browser.
Umm, yes, firefox will do that too...
I'm not sure Opera even supports XSLT yet does it? (something that even IE has supported since version 5!)
But when MS includes features for free, everybody bitches and sues them, because they're evil greedy monopolists trying to undercut their competition.
Certainly for me, the problem with MS giving away stuff for free to undercut the competition is that they end up bundling it with Windows. At least if people ahve to go out and download something the competition have a chance, but when it's already there as standard, who's going to bother? (Note: this would be less of a problem if MS bundled the competition's software with Windows as well... kinda like most Linux distributors do infact).
Everything inside your PC case is low voltage, with the exception of the primary side of your UL listed power supply.
At no point did I suggest the user could receive a shock - my examples concentrated on overheating issues. And I can tell you that a failed fan in a PSU can make the PSU _very_ hot - if something flamable was near it I can see a potential fire hazard.
If the hardware can burn, shock, or do anything hazardous, it is up to the hardware to mitigate that problem
Not true at all - software _can_ make modern hardware damage itself:
- Most modern PCs have software controlled voltage regulators (you can tune them in the BIOS) so a nasty piece of software _could_ max out the voltage on the regulators, leads to the hardware overheating - no idea about the potential fire hazard, most stuff inside PCs is failry non-combustable so I'd guess the chances of a fire are pretty small
- Most modern PCs have the processor speed under software control (i.e. you can go to the BIOS and overclock your CPU). Again, overheating problem
- Some PCs have software controlled fans - turn off your CPU fan from software and you'll have a problem... I'd guess turning off your PSU fan could create a reasonable fire hazard.
- Many GPUs can be overclocked or overvoltaged from software
I'm sure there are many other ways of breaking hardware from software in potentially dangerous ways.
Eeew, you mean you put stuff other than hot water and coffee grounds in your coffee?!?
Well, I've said this before:
Most people, given the choice, want to pay a reasonable price for a legit copy of something. However, currently the pirated material is often "better" than the legit version (for some values of "better").
For example, the distribution mechanism for illegal movies is better:
- You don't have to drive to get to see the movie
- You don't have rediculously overpriced food pushed at you
- You don't have to put up with 30 minutes of adverts before watching the show you paid an overpriced fee to see (goes back to the "reasonable price" thing above)
- Not so much an issue these days but it used to be that a lot of movies were released here in the UK long after they hit the US - I can't see how they can complain too much about people getting impatient to see something they've hyped up (still applies to TV though).
- You don't get accused of being a copyright infringer when you're infringing copyright, whereas you do if you go to the cinema or buy a DVD.
And yes, I fully agree with you about music - almost all the CDs I buy these days have been (partly at least) downloaded first so I could hear if what I was buying was worth it - the only people who lose out from that are the crap acts who aren't worth buying.
I can't say I see too many people being noisy in cinemas here in the UK, but the food certainly is overpriced (no, I don't buy any). However, the things that bug me most about the cinema are:
- After I've _paid_ quite a lot to get in, I have to sit through 30 minutes of adverts... and no, you can't just turn up 30 minutes late because then you get a crap seat.
- On busy screenings you often get a crap seat anyway due to the cinemas' "cram them in" policy - they don't seem to get that sitting 5 feet from the screen is not a fun experience.
- They have the _nerve_ to accuse me of stealing and threatening me about what might happen if I'm caught... Hey - if I wanted to infringe the movie's copyright I would've downloaded it instead of going to the cinema!
$100.000 for flying from LA to Sydney in approx 4 hours?
Plus a 4 hour checkin and a body-cavity search at customs...
Of course, as an added bonus to The Bilg, it killed off Geoworks Ensemble and similar projects.
Can't say that was a good thing at the time - I had been using GEOS since the Commodore 64 version and was using PC/GEOS on the PC since upgrading from the C64 to a 286. A truely excellent piece of software compared to Windows 2.
I never saw versions of windows less than 3.0 to be able to comment.
My 286 arrived with Windows 2 installed on it... I can remember using it for all of about 10 minutes before deciding it was a steaming pile of crap and wiped it. Settled on using GeoWorks instead when I needed a GUI, which was way ahead of Windows - even supported long file names!). For all non-GUI stuff, DOS was the tool of choice and I used to run multiple DOSes under DesQview on my 486.