In response to Jorpho, I should have indicated that I was quoting sliderider.
I was pretty sure that OS/2 would be unable to call any version of Windows other than 3.1 or 3.11. That's why I was like "wtf".

I suppose I can look up the prices on ebay just as easily. I guess I will have to watch to see what average prices are so I can spot a deal more easily.

As far as what I want to do with it, that's what I'm currently working out.
It probably would be easier to just run everything in dosbox. I suppose the technical challenge or nostalgia is the real reason. I'm sure not going to be able to use it to surf the internet, and while I might use an 8 bit system for word processing, I probably won't be likely to do that either.

snorg wrote: Found a cheap copy of OS/2 warp connect in a blue box online, if memory serves there was a version that required an […]
Show full quote

snorg wrote:
Found a cheap copy of OS/2 warp connect in a blue box online, if memory serves there was a version that required an existing windows install and a version that did not. I am pretty sure I don't still have my copy (of either OS/2 or win 3.11). Is this version likely to be the win 3.11 not required version?

<sliderider>
Windows was never a requirement for running OS/2. The red box version would use whatever version of Windows was already installed for compatibility purposes, but it was not necessary to have Windows to run OS/2 or it's apps. This might actually be the better one to have if it will call up Windows versions later than 3.11. You could potentially have 95 or 98 installed and the red version would call that one up. With the blue box you'd be stuck with Windows 3.11 compatibility. Windows 3.11 compatibility is pretty much meaningless now, so having it isn't a benefit anymore. All the Windows 3.x apps are useless. It's even a chore just to set up an internet connection on a Windows 3.x system and the primitive web browsers that will run under it are pathetic at best.

Jorpho wrote:

I cannot comprehend why you think this would be possible. (Of course, using Win32s with OS/2 / Win3.1 is feasible, but that's a […]
Show full quote

snorg wrote:

How can OS/2 call win95/win32 instead of win 3.1? Has anyone ever tried this? Something tells me it would not work too well, or at all. Would be interesting if it did.

I cannot comprehend why you think this would be possible. (Of course, using Win32s with OS/2 / Win3.1 is feasible, but that's a different matter.)

To get back to hardware: what should I expect to pay the following items:

That depends entirely on what is available to you. If you are planning to buy everything on eBay, you know the prices as well as anyone else.

If you could only build one or 2 retro systems, what would you choose? An 8088 system, or 286? 386/486 or pentium?

Why don't you decide what you want to do? If you're not sure what you would do with an 8-bit system, why should you build one? If you want to spend a great deal of time and money for the sake of a "nostalgia trip", that is your prerogative.

Why wouldn't it be possible? When you're in DOS and type WIN at the command prompt, it loads up whatever version of Windows you have installed doesn't it? It doesn't matter whether it's 3.1, 95, or 98, so why wouldn't the red version of OS/2 do the same thing when you tell it to go to Windows? The blue version has 3.1 built in, so you couldn't do it with that one but the red one uses whatever version of Windows it finds installed the same way DOS does.

snorg wrote:

It probably would be easier to just run everything in dosbox.

YES.

sliderider wrote:

Why wouldn't it be possible? When you're in DOS and type WIN at the command prompt, it loads up whatever version of Windows you have installed doesn't it? It doesn't matter whether it's 3.1, 95, or 98, so why wouldn't the red version of OS/2 do the same thing when you tell it to go to Windows? The blue version has 3.1 built in, so you couldn't do it with that one but the red one uses whatever version of Windows it finds installed the same way DOS does.

Fair enough. But by that logic, since it is possible to run Windows 3.1 from a Windows 95 command prompt, you ought to be able to run Windows 95 within Windows 95.

Well, I reckon the cheapest retro systems will be either based on standard Socket 7 (if you already have an AT case lying around), or an ATX Socket 7 or Super 7 , K6-2's are dirt cheap and veeery common 😉
Another very cheap option would be Slot 1.
Usually 486 is more expensive, but if you're willing to go with a "lesser" board (don't ever bother with PC Chips, unless you have tons of time as well as patience 😜) you could manage to get a 486 board running cheaper.
You might get lucky on a PCI 486 board and find one going for cheap, all the other items you should be able to get for very cheap (except for the AT case maybe).