I used Windows XP with a Celeron 1.3 GHz back in the early 00's. I thought it was great. I'd pair it with a nice graphics card, though. Almost any GPU will improve the graphics performance over the integrated Intel graphics.

I never had a 1 GHz Pentium III, but you probably won't go wrong with Windows 98 SE on that computer.

IMO those machines are way too new for 3.1. At Win95's release 486s and original Pentiums were common Go ahead and experiment if you want. But you would also just try running the included progman.exe that's bundled in 9x installations. That'll give you a taste of that old interface without needing to run real 3.1 and dealing with drivers and the system running too fast, etc.

With either system, I'd go with Win98 SE, or maybe even try out ME if you aren't going to be using pure DOS mode.

For storage in my DOS and Win9x systems, I personally finalized on SD2IDE adapters. I have 3D-printed mounts to put them at the back of the PC for easy swapping. And low-size SD cards are dirt cheap. Being able to power down, eject, and slot in a different card, and power back up into a different OS makes life easy. You can also put the cards into a USB SD reader to transfer files with a modern PC with ease.

You easily can double or triple boot them.
DOS 6.22
Windows 98 SE
Windows 2000 or XP

I concur with mulit-booting for more fun. I use a SATA to IDE adapter with my older computers. I connect that to an external SATA enclosure, and just swap SATA SSDs when I want to use a different OS.

I think Ill be running Windows 98SE on a GX270.

So you think those two PCs are to powerful for 3.1 and or 95c?

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-08-05, 22:46:

I think Ill be running Windows 98SE on a GX270.

So you think those two PCs are to powerful for 3.1 and or 95c?

I think Windows 95 would be cool to play around on with this hardware. The unofficial "OSR2 SP1" seems to add quite a lot in terms of patches and support, and I noticed a slowdown on the PC I tried it on (486 50MHz, so it was slow to begin with, hah), so much faster hardware like you have here could be a nice system for fully patched Windows 95. Win 3.1 should work especially if you have drivers, but for me personally I'd rather run it on older hardware, like a 486, where it fits the CPU and era well. Nothing wrong with playing around with different OSs just for fun's sake though.

I think Windows 98 SE is the gold standard for learning and playing around with Windows 9x though, especially if you haven't already explored it much.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-08-05, 22:46:

I think Ill be running Windows 98SE on a GX270.

So you think those two PCs are to powerful for 3.1 and or 95c?

Yeah, those processors were released in the early 2000s which puts them in roughly in the Windows 98 or Windows ME era.

Windows 3.1 is really suited for a 486 era machine, and Windows 95 is best on a Pentium MMX.

There's nothing stopping you from experimenting with any OS you want. But if you're looking for a more authentic Windows 3.1 or 95 experience, you're better off with older hardware.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-08-05, 22:46:

I think Ill be running Windows 98SE on a GX270.

So you think those two PCs are to powerful for 3.1 and or 95c?

I got Windows 95 running on a Core 2 Duo recently, so your computers aren't too fast.

I've run Windows 3.1 on a Core i7, as well.

The hardest trick to both is finding OS drivers for accelerated graphics, audio, and networking. The processor and memory don't really matter that much for the base OS if you apply the right patches.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-08-05, 11:23:

I would like to have a play with 3.1 again (first OS for me) but will it run on either of those two machines?

Before you put the effort into getting it to run on those, keep in mind that once you get one of these up and running, they tend to multiply, and you'll likely end up with a 486DX4-100 system (perfect for a speedy Windows 3.x machine) anyway 😁

Is the Creative Labs 3Dfx Voodoo 2 12MB CT6670 a half length PCI card or is it longer?

fosterwj03 wrote on 2023-08-06, 03:23:

I got Windows 95 running on a Core 2 Duo recently, so your computers aren't too fast. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-08-05, 22:46:

I think Ill be running Windows 98SE on a GX270.

So you think those two PCs are to powerful for 3.1 and or 95c?

I got Windows 95 running on a Core 2 Duo recently, so your computers aren't too fast.

I've run Windows 3.1 on a Core i7, as well.

The hardest trick to both is finding OS drivers for accelerated graphics, audio, and networking. The processor and memory don't really matter that much for the base OS if you apply the right patches.

Reminds me of some stories in the papers a few years ago about a guy who run his diesel engined car on used cooking oil.

It worked but erm...

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2023-08-06, 11:21:

Reminds me of some stories in the papers a few years ago about a guy who run his diesel engined car on used cooking oil.

It worked but erm...

Actually, it was pretty awesome! I wrote about it in the following post:

Re: Newest CPU and GPU for Windows 95?

I also agree with the previous post, retro computers tend to multiply.