because its too much to list?

honestly any fast 486 with 16mb of ram and a video card with 1mb of video should work.

I mean just the bare minimum support to make it run (so VGA card, PIT, PIC, 386DX CPU or higher, PS/2 mouse and/or keyboard). So the basics of an IBM PC with a 386DX or higher CPU and a VGA graphics card. Is there anything more needed to boot? Or will it run with this hardware (emulated)?

386DX with 4 MB RAM will work... painfully slow, but it works. No need for a PS/2 mouse, serial will (of course) do.

This should be in Marvin instead of the Windows games forum.

Actually from the intent of the question it should be in PC emulation.
Since we are talking about emulation anyway, the exact emulated hardware shouldn't have a large impact on performance (exceptions: bus master DMA, cycle-exact emulation in eg. PCem, not enough RAM - though more RAM is not more difficult to emulate).

Those are the official reqs for Win95
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/138349
Regarding the cpu, practically it won't complain installing and "running" on any 386 (even SX's), although a more suitable word would be "walking".

Runs quite nicely on 386DX-40, 32MB ram, 1GB CF card and Cirrus Logic 5429 2MB ISA.

I mean, if I would take a motherboard with only IBM PC components, as given by the IBM specs (except for more RAM and a better CPU), enough RAM, a 386DX CPU and 8042 controller with mouse and keyboard connected to it, will Windows 95 run? Or will DOS run and Windows 95 crash because some required components are missing?

If no one ever built an IBM PC that was missing arbitrary components, then Microsoft probably never tested Windows 95 on a system that was missing arbitrary components. Things might work – or you might hit some obscure compatibility bug when the hardware starts behaving in a way that the programmers never anticipated. This is generally unexplored territory.

Windows 95 on a 386DX 40 MHz

I would recommend at least a 486DX-33 or higher. Installing on a 386DX, as stated in earlier posts, is going to be very slow and is actually not optimal for any productive use.
Also, although 4 MB RAM is the absolute stated minimum, Windows 95 will (in some cases) refuse to boot if you install any Networking or similar components. Therefore, go for at least 8 MB RAM. This will also ensure a bit more acceptable performance. Windows 95 is quite happy with 32 MB of RAM.
You obviously need a hard drive with +/- 100 MB free space, unlike MS-DOS, which you can boot straight from a floppy disk.
You can install Windows 95 without a mouse but, like other desktop GUI operating systems, it was designed to operate more efficiently with a mouse.
Lastly, if you are installing Windows 95 OSR2.5 (with the Windows Desktop Update) OR, Internet Explorer 4.0 with the Windows Desktop update on top of any older Windows 95 version, then you require a faster 486 CPU for acceptable performance (at least a 486DX2-66 with 16MB of RAM).

*Moved to pc emulation*

As for the answer: Just try it with your emulator. You will find out pretty quickly if something is missing 😜

superfury wrote:

I mean, if I would take a motherboard with only IBM PC components, as given by the IBM specs (except for more RAM and a better CPU), enough RAM, a 386DX CPU and 8042 controller with mouse and keyboard connected to it, will Windows 95 run? Or will DOS run and Windows 95 crash because some required components are missing?

IBM PC -> IBM AT (changes in architecture where quite big. Since all 386+ machines are based on AT architecture it is safe to assume that Win95 doesn't support PC architecture.)

Minimal install for DOSBox/95 gaming

Any 386 will do. Software-wise, you can't tell the difference between an SX and a DX. The SX is just slower because of the 16-bit bus. But it has the exact same functionality. So it's just any 386, not specifically DX.

idspispopd wrote:

superfury wrote:

I mean, if I would take a motherboard with only IBM PC components, as given by the IBM specs (except for more RAM and a better CPU), enough RAM, a 386DX CPU and 8042 controller with mouse and keyboard connected to it, will Windows 95 run? Or will DOS run and Windows 95 crash because some required components are missing?

IBM PC -> IBM AT (changes in architecture where quite big. Since all 386+ machines are based on AT architecture it is safe to assume that Win95 doesn't support PC architecture.)

It's purely theoretical anyway. You need a 386+ to run Windows 95, because it needs to support 32-bit protected mode.
And you won't find any 386+ motherboard/chipset that is just bare IBM PC specs anyway. They need a 386-specific chipset (technically the 386SX usually ran on a 286/386SX chipset), which will be a superset of AT.

Edit: Come to think of it, it's not THAT theoretical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Inboard_386
I wonder if anyone ever tried to run Win95 on that 😀

Scali wrote:

Edit: Come to think of it, it's not THAT theoretical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Inboard_386
I wonder if anyone ever tried to run Win95 on that 😀

Theoretically, it should be possible but, only if you have the minimum required 4 MB of RAM installed.

I was just going to ask, would an XT-class machine with the right expansion cards be able to run Win95?

Real mode support has been dropped since Windows 3.1, so I'd bet on a definitive "no" even though I didn't search for any substantial proof to support my answer.

konc wrote:

Real mode support has been dropped since Windows 3.1, so I'd bet on a definitive "no" even though I didn't search for any substantial proof to support my answer.

But we just linked to an 8-bit ISA expansion card with a 386 CPU on it, enabling it to run 32-bit software.
The only question is: what else does Windows 95 need besides a 386+ CPU?
The AT standard adds an extra interrupt controller and extra DMA controller... But would Win95 really need those?
Perhaps other small things in the chipset that we've taken for granted on real 386+ systems, that aren't in a real PC/XT, and can't be added via some 8-bit ISA card either?

The wiki page does mention this: "Windows 3.0 and 3.1 (Inboard 386/AT model only)."
So I assume that means Windows 3.x already didn't work on an XT with Inboard 386. Which means the chances of Win9x running are slim.
I would like to know what exactly would be causing it not to work, and whether or not there'd be a way around it. I mean, perhaps with some alternative/modified chipset drivers, it may be possible to get it to work. You already have the CPU and the memory, so it must be something minor.

Edit:
A quick search revealed this: http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showt … ard-386-PC-quot
Apparently there *was* a special version of Windows 3.0 which came with drivers that made it work on a PC/XT.