I voted for everything except 2 and 4. The others refer to DOS's basic maintenance functions.
What is DOS, what counts as DOS — I feel this is getting more and more a bit blurry now. My understanding is that a DOS system should have the following 5 properties: a simple boot and startup environment, character mode or a character-based graphical mode, the ability to handle disks and files, freely combinable programs, and a certain degree of compatibility with Windows systems (this point could be considered for revision).
Most of my computers no longer have floppy drives, but I think the basic DOS standard should still be a floppy-based operating system. Only this way can DOS's compactness be reflected, especially by fully bringing out its capabilities within the size of a 1.44M floppy disk, and only then can the depth of the technology be shown. If you do not impose a size limit, the system will become a hodgepodge, messy and impractical, and people will treat it as garbage. That is harmful to the survival and development of DOS, so there is no need to develop a pure DOS CD system.
USB support is the direction DOS should develop in. In this area, DOS boot standards and simple operating tools should be developed, so that just like DOS supports floppy disks, DOS can naturally support USB, and it should have very strong compatibility. But even if USB storage can have very large capacity, DOS itself should not rush to become bigger and bigger. It would be best to still stick to the 1.44M standard in technical development.
A LOGO is just a screen that flashes by for a moment. Making it has no technical content, yet it takes up a lot of space and has the nature of garbage, so it should be removed from the system.
What is DOS, what counts as DOS — I feel this is getting more and more a bit blurry now. My understanding is that a DOS system should have the following 5 properties: a simple boot and startup environment, character mode or a character-based graphical mode, the ability to handle disks and files, freely combinable programs, and a certain degree of compatibility with Windows systems (this point could be considered for revision).
Most of my computers no longer have floppy drives, but I think the basic DOS standard should still be a floppy-based operating system. Only this way can DOS's compactness be reflected, especially by fully bringing out its capabilities within the size of a 1.44M floppy disk, and only then can the depth of the technology be shown. If you do not impose a size limit, the system will become a hodgepodge, messy and impractical, and people will treat it as garbage. That is harmful to the survival and development of DOS, so there is no need to develop a pure DOS CD system.
USB support is the direction DOS should develop in. In this area, DOS boot standards and simple operating tools should be developed, so that just like DOS supports floppy disks, DOS can naturally support USB, and it should have very strong compatibility. But even if USB storage can have very large capacity, DOS itself should not rush to become bigger and bigger. It would be best to still stick to the 1.44M standard in technical development.
A LOGO is just a screen that flashes by for a moment. Making it has no technical content, yet it takes up a lot of space and has the nature of garbage, so it should be removed from the system.