Absolute bearable minimums? For my standards:

DOS: My accounting calculator could probably run it without too much problem.
Win 3.x: A 286 with 2 MB RAM is bearable enough. Can't really effectively utilize high memory amounts.
Win 95: 486SX/33 with 8 MB RAM
Win 98: Low-end Pentium with 12 MB RAM
Win ME: Never bothered with it. Don't ever want to use it either.
Win NT4: Low-end Pentium with 16 MB RAM
Win 2000: Low-end Pentium II with 64 MB RAM
Win XP 32-bit: Pee3 1 GHz with at least 384 MB RAM
Win XP x64: Low-end 64-bit AMD Sempron with at least 512 MB RAM suffices
Vi$ta 32-bit: Only had this for a couple minutes on my old laptop. Then I installed XP. 1 GB RAM certainly crawls on it, even for moderate amounts of work.
Vi$ta x64: Same as Win 7 x64 (see below). Trashed this as soon as I got Win 7 x64.
Win 7 32-bit: I don't even bother with it. My Core 2 Duo-based laptop for some reason came pre-installed with this.
Win 7 x64: Pee4 3.0 GHz (with EM64T) or Athlon 64 3000+ with 2 GB RAM (minimum). Anything less and I'll install XP instead.

sliderider wrote:

What do you want? Fast or quiet? ANYTHING spinning at 10k or 15k RPM is going to make noise. In light of how slow and clunky vintage IDE hard drives are, I'd rather put a SCSI drive in a vintage rig even if it is louder.

I want quiet. Fast, although an important factor, is of lesser importance to me as I always pick matching components for building a rig.

Example:If I build a rig with, say, 2000-ish components, I wouldn't mind using a very slow 2005-ish harddrive in it as it will still be comparatively fast for the hardware I use it with.
Harddrives that are noisy are never used, a fast noisy harddrive is fast which makes it very usable, but the noise makes me want to hit it with the biggest hammer I can afford. To me, theres no point in something that's an excellent product, but at the same time is a product I will never use.

I don't mind the grinding noise harddrives make when reading/writing, it's the constant whine that annoys me. It gives me tinnitus and is just plain awful to sit next to.

Pippy P. Poopypants wrote:

Absolute bearable minimums? For my standards: […]
Show full quote

Absolute bearable minimums? For my standards:

DOS: My accounting calculator could probably run it without too much problem.
Win 3.x: A 286 with 2 MB RAM is bearable enough. Can't really effectively utilize high memory amounts.
Win 95: 486SX/33 with 8 MB RAM
Win 98: Low-end Pentium with 12 MB RAM
Win ME: Never bothered with it. Don't ever want to use it either.
Win NT4: Low-end Pentium with 16 MB RAM
Win 2000: Low-end Pentium II with 64 MB RAM
Win XP 32-bit: Pee3 1 GHz with at least 384 MB RAM
Win XP x64: Low-end 64-bit AMD Sempron with at least 512 MB RAM suffices
Vi$ta 32-bit: Only had this for a couple minutes on my old laptop. Then I installed XP. 1 GB RAM certainly crawls on it, even for moderate amounts of work.
Vi$ta x64: Same as Win 7 x64 (see below). Trashed this as soon as I got Win 7 x64.
Win 7 32-bit: I don't even bother with it. My Core 2 Duo-based laptop for some reason came pre-installed with this.
Win 7 x64: Pee4 3.0 GHz (with EM64T) or Athlon 64 3000+ with 2 GB RAM (minimum). Anything less and I'll install XP instead.

And what would your preferred minimum specs be?
I wouldn't even bother installing 2k on a rig with just 64 megs of memory, just to name something 😉

Well, this is my OS requeriments imo

Windows 95 - 486 class CPU, 8-16 MB RAM
Windows 98 - 486 DX4 or Pentium, 24 MB or more RAM
Windows ME - Never really tried it
Windows 2000 - Pentium MMX/AMD K6, 128 MB RAM
Windows XP - Pentium II/III, 192 MB RAM
Windows Vista - Pentium 4, 1 GB RAM
Windows 7 - Same as Vista
Windows 8/8.1 - NX bit cappable CPU and 1-2 GB RAM
Windows 10 - Same as 8

Windows 3.1 - The slowest machine I've ever seriously used this on was a 486 33MHz with 20MB of RAM, unless you count my grandmother's PS/2 which I do not remember the specs for in the slightest. I'm not even sure if that machine ran 3.0 or 3.1, but it had Minesweeper and Solitaire without the other Windows Entertainment Pack games, so I suspect 3.1. This would've been almost 20 years ago. Anyway, I also spent a good amount of time running 3.1 on a 486 DX2 66MHz, but with only 8MB of RAM, and that was a pain until I snagged a copy of RAM Doubler. By my estimation, I'd say a 386 with 16MB would be a good baseline.

Windows 95 - Pentium classic with 24MB RAM, 1GB hard drive. That's what my very first machine had. You could probably get away with a little less ram and hard drive space, or even a high-end 486 CPU.

Windows 98SE - Pentium 233MMX with 32MB of RAM, but preferably a Pentium II with 64MB of RAM. At LEAST a 2GB hard drive in either case.

Windows 2000 - Pentium II, 256MB of RAM, ~10GB hard drive ideally. A Pentium III is even better.

Windows XP - Pentium IV, 1GB RAM <u>minimum.</u> Ideally, a Core 2 Duo with 2-3GB of RAM. Whatever the case, a 40GB drive should suffice for most purposes, with 80GB being preferable.

Windows Vista - I haven't used Vista all that much, but I'd estimate a Core 2 Duo with 4GB of RAM, at least. A decent video card for Aero (~256-512MB) would be good too. Also, I'd probably use at least a 60GB hard drive.

Windows 7 - I've installed it on less, but I'd say a Core 2 Duo with 4GB is my baseline here as well. 256-512MB video card, 60GB hard drive, same as Vista basically.

Windows 8.1 - Same as 7 and Vista, but preferably on something made within the last four years for optimal driver support.

Windows 95 - Pentium Class, 32mb of ram, Video Card that does 24bit @ 1280x1024

Windows 98SE - Pentium II/K6, 32mb of ram, Video card 24bit 12x10

Windows ME - Pentium III/Athlon 128mb of ram, 3d accelorator, usb ports, 12x10 graphics 32bit

Windows 2000 - Same as ME except 512mb of ram

Windows XP - Athlon XP/Pentium 4, 1gb Ram, DX9 graphics Widescreen support

My rough estimates for "minimum recommended" specs (as in way over actual minimum, not quite over the top, just enough that it no longer feels sluggish):

Windows 3.1: 386DX or later with at least 4MB RAM. I've used it comfortably on a Cyrix 486SLC which is somewhere in between a 386DX and 486SX.

Windows 95: 486DX2/66 and above is my guess? And at least 16MB RAM.

Windows 98: Pentium 166 or later with at least 64MB RAM.

Windows 2000/Me: Pentium II 266 or later with at least 128MB RAM.

Windows XP: Don't really know. I would guess a Pentium III 866 or later with 256MB RAM?

Here are my recommendations for a comfortable, trouble-free Windows experience.

3.11 - 386DX-25, 8MB RAM, 2D accelerator

95B - 486DX2-66, 32MB RAM, VLB or PCI accelerator with 4MB

98SE - Pentium MMX, 64MB RAM, PCI or AGP accelerator with at least 16MB and D3D6 support. And Glide support, either from the main card or through a second video card, is a must. Because who really uses Win9x for anything else?

ME - Virtualbox.

2000 SP4 - Any PII or K6-2, 192MB RAM, AGP video with at least D3D7 support

XP SP3 - PIII Coppermine-500, 512MB RAM, AGP video with D3D9 support

Win7 SP1 - Pentium D or Athlon X2, 2GB/3GB RAM (32/64 bit), PCI-E video or IGP with D3D10 and WDDM1.1 support

Win10 - Same as above, except video card/IGP should support D3D11 and WDDM2.0

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Here are my recommendations for a comfortable, trouble-free Windows experience. […]
Show full quote

Here are my recommendations for a comfortable, trouble-free Windows experience.

3.11 - 386DX-25, 8MB RAM, 2D accelerator

95B - 486DX2-66, 32MB RAM, VLB or PCI accelerator with 4MB

98SE - Pentium MMX, 64MB RAM, PCI or AGP accelerator with at least 16MB and D3D6 support. And Glide support, either from the main card or through a second video card, is a must. Because who really uses Win9x for anything else?

ME - Virtualbox.

2000 SP4 - Any PII or K6-2, 192MB RAM, AGP video with at least D3D7 support

XP SP3 - PIII Coppermine-500, 512MB RAM, AGP video with D3D9 support

Win7 SP1 - Pentium D or Athlon X2, 2GB/3GB RAM (32/64 bit), PCI-E video or IGP with D3D10 and WDDM1.1 support

Win10 - Same as above, except video card/IGP should support D3D11 and WDDM2.0

My experiences with 9x in Virtualbox have been poor, but you recommend it for WinME. Does WinME work better than 98SE in Virtualbox?

My minimum is a 486 as long as it has an FPU. Prefer 75Mhz or better.

DOS - A potato. Baked, preferably. With a side of butter.
Windows 3.x - 386DX-25, 4MB RAM
NT 3.x - 386DX-40, 16MB RAM
Win95 depends a bit... Gold/A - 486SX-33/386DX-40, 8MB RAM, 300MB HDD
OSR2 - 486DX2-66, 12MB RAM, 1GB HDD
OSR2.5 - Pentium 75, 32MB RAM, 2GB HDD
NT 4 - Pentium 75, 32MB RAM, 2GB HDD
98FE - Pentium 90, 32MB RAM, 6GB HDD
98SE - Pentium 120, 32MB RAM, 6GB HDD
2000 - Pentium II 300, 128MB RAM, 10GB HDD
Me - Pentium II 300, 128MB RAM, 10GB HDD
XP - Pentium III 500, 512MB RAM, 20GB HDD
Vista - not even considering going there
7 - Pentium 4 2.66GHz w/ HT, 2GB RAM, 40GB HDD, GeForce FX 5200/Radeon 9250
7 x64 - Pentium D 3GHz, 4GB RAM, 40GB HDD, GeForce 6200/Radeon X850
Minimums have no meaning after 7 because 8+ have baked in arbitrary requirements that would disqualify hardware I'd consider low-end but worth considering.