You can refer to this section in the Wikipedia article on Windows 95: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95#System_requirements
As per the official system requirements, the minimum to run Windows 95 is any 80386 DX CPU with at least 4 MB of RAM and, I would say, at least 100 MB of HDD space (otherwise, where are you going to install your other applications?). You can run Windows 95 on a 386 SX CPU but, be prepared for sub optimal performance.

Personally, I wouldn't install Windows 95a (or prior) on anything less than a 486 DX-33 with at least 8 MB of RAM.
If you can get your hands on a Cyrix 486 DLC based CPU, then you can "cheat" a bit by gaining some extra performance, since the Cyrix DLC CPU's plugs on a 386 motherboard (although, some motherboards had compatibility issues with the Cyrix CPU's). The Cyrix 486 DLC-40 is almost on par with an Intel 486 DX-33 (in terms of integer performance).

There are some benchmark tests here on Vogons that compares the different CPU performances (including 386 DX-33 & 386 DX-40 CPU's) but, the AMD 386 DX-40 is marginally faster than your Intel 386 DX-33.

I don't recall every trying to install Windows 95 on any of the 386 PC's that we owned (my father had a 386 DX-40). For multitask use, a 486 CPU is preferable.
However, you might just entice me to try it out (I just happen to have both an AMD 386 SX-20 and an AMD 386 DX-40 lying around).

Last year I tried it on my 386DX-40 with 32MB memory, Compact Flash card and Cirrus Logic 5429 2MB ISA video accelerator. In this configuration Win95 runs quite fast. I could try with slower 386 cpus sometime...

jesolo:
40MHz is 21% faster then 33MHz (AMD or Intel doesn't matter as they are 100% the same).

From what I've seen, a 386DX-40, fast disk and 16MB ram, 256kb L2 and (not the fastest but still) good ATi 1MB isa card, W95 seems to run nice if it's a more technical test you're trying (but I would not downgrade 1Mhz or 1Mb of this config cause every bit of power is needed here).

If I remember correctly Windows 95 would install 1 of 2 possible kernels depending on how much RAM was installed. I believe 1 was for 4MB and the other was for more than 8MB. So I would load it with at least 8MB, more like 16MB.

kixs wrote:

jesolo: 40MHz is 21% faster then 33MHz (AMD or Intel doesn't matter as they are 100% the same).

In theory, yes (if you only look at raw CPU performance).
However, "real world" performance between the two CPU's could differ by a larger or smaller margin, depending on factors such as cache, memory speed, amount of memory, motherboard chipset, graphics card, hard drive and the IDE controller (to name but a few).
For example, a 386 DX-33 with 8 MB of RAM will probably perform much better under Windows 95 than a 386 DX-40 with only 4 MB of RAM.

jesolo wrote:

In theory, yes (if you only look at raw CPU performance). However, "real world" performance between the two CPU's could differ b […]
Show full quote

kixs wrote:

jesolo: 40MHz is 21% faster then 33MHz (AMD or Intel doesn't matter as they are 100% the same).

In theory, yes (if you only look at raw CPU performance).
However, "real world" performance between the two CPU's could differ by a larger or smaller margin, depending on factors such as cache, memory speed, amount of memory, motherboard chipset, graphics card, hard drive and the IDE controller (to name but a few).
For example, a 386 DX-33 with 8 MB of RAM will probably perform much better under Windows 95 than a 386 DX-40 with only 4 MB of RAM.

Once the applications are loaded that raw power would be helpful. I think that with a 386 family computer everything is needed at top and still it would have no easy work to perform well.

Here's a video on YouTube of someone supposedly running Win95 on a Toshiba T5200 with 100MB hard drive, which AFAIK only has a 20MHz 386. I say "supposedly" because the person recording the video doesn't move the mouse or interact with anything on the screen while recording, so for all we know it could just be a static screenshot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNI1RhmUU-o

I have a T5200 with 8MB RAM, but mine only has a 40MB hard drive, which I think may be too small for even a minimal install of Win95...is it?

practical useable on 386 ?
I did run a DRx2 50Mhz with 25Mhz BUS and a 25Mhz DX25 386 on Windows 95B.
With 8Mb Ram it did run well, as long i didnt load modern Software on it.
Jasc Paint Shop Pro and such Stuff did run ok.

Its no Fun with 8Mb RAM if you really want to Start working with more then 1 Programm.

jesolo wrote:

In theory, yes (if you only look at raw CPU performance). However, "real world" performance between the two CPU's could differ b […]
Show full quote

kixs wrote:

jesolo: 40MHz is 21% faster then 33MHz (AMD or Intel doesn't matter as they are 100% the same).

In theory, yes (if you only look at raw CPU performance).
However, "real world" performance between the two CPU's could differ by a larger or smaller margin, depending on factors such as cache, memory speed, amount of memory, motherboard chipset, graphics card, hard drive and the IDE controller (to name but a few).
For example, a 386 DX-33 with 8 MB of RAM will probably perform much better under Windows 95 than a 386 DX-40 with only 4 MB of RAM.

I always like to compare apples to apples. So every other component stays the same. You just switch between DX-33 and DX-40. As usually there should be enough memory installed so there is no or just minimal virtual memory usage. Hard disk was always the slowest computer part. That's why I only use CF cards for my retro computers.

So then how much slower would the SX40 be in comparison to the DX40? And would it even be an acceptable choice to run Win95 on the SX40? I remember reading the 16-bit memory bus did have a performance penalty.

386SX-33 is like 386DX-25. So in theory SX-40 should be around DX-30.

Uh, I don't think an SX33 is like a DX25 with L2 cache. SX systems very rarely had L2 cache (though they do exist, and I have one). I would guess an SX40 with no cache might be more like a DX25.

I would also like to repeat that anything less than a 486DX-33 would be like watching a kettle boil. For 95 to start to be useful you really need a DX4-100. No harm in trying though. I just installed Windows 2000 on a 5x86.

SX33 performs like DX25. I have one 386SX-33 (no cache) and all the benchmarks are more or less around 386DX-25 with cache.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Uh, I don't think an SX33 is like a DX25 with L2 cache. SX systems very rarely had L2 cache (though they do exist, and I have one). I would guess an SX40 with no cache might be more like a DX25.

I would also like to repeat that anything less than a 486DX-33 would be like watching a kettle boil. For 95 to start to be useful you really need a DX4-100. No harm in trying though. I just installed Windows 2000 on a 5x86.

I tried the DX4-100 16kb-WT (but no L2 cache) in W95 and I had the same feeling about it. Anything could be tried for a technical test but to be useful as multitasking platform I think this processor begin to be fast enough.

Relating to Windows 95 and a 386 I thought you all might enjoy reading this description of some of the hacky assembly workarounds that went into Windows 95 to get it to work:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2 … 2/10114521.aspx

jakethompson1 wrote:

Relating to Windows 95 and a 386 I thought you all might enjoy reading this description of some of the hacky assembly workarounds that went into Windows 95 to get it to work:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2 … 2/10114521.aspx

interesting read, thanks for sharing.

I did it run on 386SX 16Mhz with 8Mb Ram, and it run fine.

I had to compress the hard drive with DriveSpace then copy a pre-existing install from another computer while simultaneously deleting unnecessary files, but I ultimately was able to get Win95 vanilla running on my Toshiba T5200 portable with a 386DX-20, 8MB RAM and 40MB hard drive. It's slow as molasses, but granted the performance hit from DriveSpace can be partially blamed. I imagine it would be a bit faster if I had a drive large enough to not require compression. As it is right now, it's at the absolute bottom of what I would call "useable", but of course the lack of disk space makes it virtually impossible to install any additional software, which does significantly affect that usability. I did this primarily to see if it was even possible, and don't plan on having Win95 on there permanently.