go try some dos/4gw games. the 386 doesn't make much difference from 286 in 16bit performance, its advantages are merely 32bit instructions, addressing larger memory in protected mode, and higher clock.

How about Links386?

The amount of software you can run in the 386 increases mostly because you'll be able to use EMM386 (or similar), not because of the speed. Speed should be pretty similar, if not even worse depending on the 286's performance.

I own both, a 386SX 16 and a 286 16Mhz and the 286 16Mhz cleary wins the 16bit Race 😀
Its about 20-25% faster. (in my Case..)

The 386SX's does just better because of Virtual 86 Mode.
So in 32bit Software its just faster, because the 286 can't do it 😀

I had a 386SX-20 and lowered to 16Mhz without Turbo and I remember suffering in Wolf3D and Stunts quiet a lot on framerate. But I understand these were not 386 oriented games. Stunts even if old was a game it seems to never end to scale up with processors. The better cpu, the better experience. 😁

I picked up a Tandy 2500 with a 386SX-20. Looking forwards to terrible performance.

keenerb wrote:

I picked up a Tandy 2500 with a 386SX-20. Looking forwards to terrible performance.

Looking forward as a happy masochist too? 😀 I bought this system out of my rapid stemming curiosity in such things....

clueless1 wrote:

How about Links386?

Links386 looks just like MS Golf for some reason.

konc wrote:

The amount of software you can run in the 386 increases mostly because you'll be able to use EMM386 (or similar), not because of the speed. Speed should be pretty similar, if not even worse depending on the 286's performance.

I wonder, should I stick to Windows 3.0 for faster performance? I believe it supports EMM386 the same way, yes? How much less was software support for 3.0? I guess it does not matter much since my 386 is only 16MHz..

I was also planning on trying DOS 5.0 with my Win 3.0 for period correctness.

konc wrote:

The amount of software you can run in the 386 increases mostly because you'll be able to use EMM386 (or similar), not because of the speed. Speed should be pretty similar, if not even worse depending on the 286's performance.

Yup, it is said the 386SX needs additional logic to drive the ISA bus.

computergeek92 wrote:

I wonder, should I stick to Windows 3.0 for faster performance? I believe it supports EMM386 the same way, yes? How much less was software support for 3.0? I guess it does not matter much since my 386 is only 16MHz..

I was also planning on trying DOS 5.0 with my Win 3.0 for period correctness.

As far as I know, Windows 3.0 was written in pure C. Unlike Windows 3.1, which was said to be overhauled by hand optimized ASM code.
Don't know whether this is entirely true or not, but it would have made sense. Windows 3.0 was such a big success, after all.
If you want to stay period correct, but need something better than Win 3.0, you could also give Windows 3.0 MME a try. It even comes with two (!) control panels. 😀

The reason I ask this is because based on what I read on Computer History from Red Hill Tech is:

"Even with 4MB or 8MB RAM, you wouldn't want to run Windows 3.1 on a 386SX-16 though. The SX-33s and DX-40s that followed soon after were vastly faster."

I value my computers having good performance and using an OS that suit the hardware best. That's why I considered trying Windows 3.0.

I'm going to run Geoworks Ensemble 2.0 on my SX/20, or GEM Desktop.

Jo22 wrote:

Yup, it is said the 386SX needs additional logic to drive the ISA bus. […]
Show full quote

konc wrote:

The amount of software you can run in the 386 increases mostly because you'll be able to use EMM386 (or similar), not because of the speed. Speed should be pretty similar, if not even worse depending on the 286's performance.

Yup, it is said the 386SX needs additional logic to drive the ISA bus.

computergeek92 wrote:

I wonder, should I stick to Windows 3.0 for faster performance? I believe it supports EMM386 the same way, yes? How much less was software support for 3.0? I guess it does not matter much since my 386 is only 16MHz..

I was also planning on trying DOS 5.0 with my Win 3.0 for period correctness.

As far as I know, Windows 3.0 was written in pure C. Unlike Windows 3.1, which was said to be overhauled by hand optimized ASM code.
Don't know whether this is entirely true or not, but it would have made sense. Windows 3.0 was such a big success, after all.
If you want to stay period correct, but need something better than Win 3.0, you could also give Windows 3.0 MME a try. It even comes with two (!) control panels. 😀

What else do you know about Windows 3.0 MME? Is it simply "Microsoft Plus" in terms?

computergeek92 wrote:

I value my computers having good performance and using an OS that suit the hardware best. That's why I considered trying Windows 3.0.

If you want performance out of a 386, just don't get this SX/16, or any SX. It won't really allow you to jump into the 386 era software, performing well.
But there are many views/opinions on this depending on how you see this PC and what you expect from it. I would get it for example and 100% enjoy what it can do, just because it's a PC I used to have. If you're only after a fast 386, move on.

]

computergeek92 wrote:

What else do you know about Windows 3.0 MME? Is it simply "Microsoft Plus" in terms?

Hi, yes, you could say so. However, Windows 3.0 with Multimedia Extensions was also truely a special edition.
It was made available to OEMs like Tandy to support all kinds of (then new) multimedia applications.
Like computer-controlled LaserDisc players, encyclopaedias with built-in videos/sounds or educational software (apparently this was a big thing back then).
Because of its multimedia nature, it was also the first Windows to be released on a CD-ROM:
Windows 3.0 MME (aka Windows /M) was released about a year before Windows 3.1 and contained several new programs,
like Media Player, several new screen savers and a new help system from Win 3.1 alpha/beta versions.
It also came with new and interesting colour graphics drivers which never made it into 3.1..
Oh, and the "386 enhanced" icon now included the ability to manage swap files (no FastDisk, though).
Some Windows 3.0 games also made use of the new audio capabilities, which were later included in Windows 3.1.
One of these games was "Stellar Explorer", a freeware game.

If you want to learn more about it, have a look at the GUI Gallery.

There are also a few threads/videos about it on the web (1,2,3,4,5)

Here's something a bit more general about Win 3.0..
Nostalgia at Windows 3.0 turning 20 (2010)
Windows 3.0 (virtuallyfun)
Windows 3.0 DR 1.14, from February 1989 (OS/2 Museum)
Retro development with aclock
Windows 3.0, The Computer Chronicles
Windows 3.0 (Byte Magazine)

konc wrote:

computergeek92 wrote:

I value my computers having good performance and using an OS that suit the hardware best. That's why I considered trying Windows 3.0.

If you want performance out of a 386, just don't get this SX/16, or any SX. It won't really allow you to jump into the 386 era software, performing well.
But there are many views/opinions on this depending on how you see this PC and what you expect from it. I would get it for example and 100% enjoy what it can do, just because it's a PC I used to have. If you're only after a fast 386, move on.

A SX 16 is what it is. I think no one expects top-notch 386 performance when one is building a system around a SX 16 CPU. The CPU does its job well. From my experience it is just a tad slower (when seated on a proper chipset like the NEAT SX from C&T) than a 286 at 16MHz, but gives the user the benefit of a lot easier memory management and also executes code a 286 can't handle. I think the SX 16 is a really great alternative to a more and more rare 286 16.

computergeek92 wrote:

Links386 looks just like MS Golf for some reason.

Access developed both. MSGolf is LinksWin16 in other words 😀