You can have a 486 SX 25mhz with ISA video card, disable the L1 cache and it will behave like a 386.
But there are some benefits for a 386 computer. I got my 386SX 16 mhz for playing Test Drive III The Passion, LHX Attack Chopper with good sound and Sango Fighter, Traffic Department 2192(and others) in "slow motion".

The benefit of having a 386DX40 is you can skip all the lower 486 and have a DX4-120, Dx5-133 or 5x86 etc, then also you can have a 286-25 to skip all the low 386, then you can have a V20/30/40 Turbo XT of 10-12 Mhz to skip all the low 286s. Then since you've got a fast 486 you can skip the low pentiums, since then you've got fast P55, you can skip slow PII so you get a fast PII and can skip slow PIII, then you can get fast PIII and skip slow P4, and get a slow core 2 and skip fast P4 ... so it saves you from the agony of netburst if you plan it right. 🤣

There is kind of a time for 386 in 90-93ish, I'd say before doom, but the kind of games kept coming into 94, basically, 32bit, 4MB and VGA.

b0by007 wrote on 2024-12-09, 22:29:

You can have a 486 SX 25mhz with ISA video card, disable the L1 cache and it will behave like a 386.
But there are some benefits for a 386 computer. I got my 386SX 16 mhz for playing Test Drive III The Passion, LHX Attack Chopper with good sound and Sango Fighter, Traffic Department 2192(and others) in "slow motion".

I second this.

I think a 386SX-16 without motherboard cache is a fine alternative to an 286-12.
Who's actually faster or slower depends on factors such as wait states, though.

By contrast, a 386DX-40 is a good alternative to a 486DX/SX-25 or 486DX/SX-33.
Especially if it has enough motherboard cache.

The 40 MHz FSB is higher than the 33 MHz FSB of the 486, also.
So it can outperform it in certain situations, even, when chipset performance matters over CPU power.

Floating point use is another matter, of course.
But those running Quake or other FPU heavy games never were satisfied with then-current hardware anyway. They want the fastest there is.
A Pentium Pro or Pentium II might be minimum to them, not sure.

Edit: What also comes to mind is something else, which nolonger is relevant.
Back in early-mid 90s, the modern 386 mainboards were very robust and compact, while simultanously being very affordable.

Like those highly integrated Turbo XT systems in the years before, if you will (Juko XT, TD-20 etc).
https://www.dosdays.co.uk/topics/xt_mobos.php
https://forum.classic-computing.de/forum/inde … d-20-mainboard/

So if you had bought a motherboard with a 386DX or 486DLC, you both had 486 level performance and had some money left that you could spend on RAM expansion or a sound card/CD-ROM or a modem.

And that's something that's often being forgotten, I suppose.
Under Windows or OS/2 a humble 386/486DLC with extra memory expansion was providing better performance than a hot-rod 486 with little RAM.
Likewise, games using virtual memory (DOS4GW titles) might have run better if more physical memory was available.

So users of a 486DLC-40, the "fake 486™", had lost a bit of performance over a 486DX in favor of having more memory.
That is what the redhill article says, more or less. In some ways, that's also applicable to a 386DX-40, already, which was sufficiently quick in most applications of the day. Except for 3D games, of course.

"People used to come to us asking for a 486DX-33 with 4MB RAM and we'd send them away with a DLC-40 and 8MB RAM — a vastly better system for around the same price. "

https://www.redhill.net.au/c/c-4.php

Edit: Anyway, money doesn't mean much to me.
From a purely technical point of view, with proper RAM and cache expansion, the 486DX-33 can provide higher performance, of course.
Last but not least, the 486DX-33 is the little older brother of the 486DX2-66, the all time classic. 😉
Systems running with a 486DX-33 can accept a 486DX2-66 with no modification in most cases.
Both are running at 33 MHz FSB, also, which is very Vesa Local Bus friendly.

Edited.

Is it true the 386DX-40 were all non-Intel? I hadn't looked into it deeply, but a rumor was Intel only went up to the 33Mhz spec.

There was also some drama around those years, something about it was decided that Intel couldn't copyright numbers? That opened the door to 386/486 clones, and was why Intel didn't use 586 and came up with an actual name (Pentium)?

I don't want any tower cases, it's why I stick with old laptops or slimline cases. Toshiba makes a compact 486 laptop, I haven't tried Quake on it yet. I'll give that a shot over the holiday break, curious if the video card is up for it.

voidstar wrote on 2024-12-10, 08:06:

Is it true the 386DX-40 were all non-Intel? I hadn't looked into it deeply, but a rumor was Intel only went up to the 33Mhz spec.

Yes. By the time AMD won the lawsuit and could produce 386 clones Intel already had 486 market ready. So on one hand AMD needed to somehow make a better offer with their 386, and on the other Intel was not really interested in cutting into their lower clocked 486 CPU profits.

AMD 386 used newer process, AFAIK Intel never did port their 386DX, even the chips manufactured for special clients in late '90 and early 2000. AMD also eventually modified the design to make it fully static and use less power at lower clocks, including the ability to stop the clock completly. Intel also released some static 386SL chips for laptops and industrial use, but these were all (?) 386SX based.

And then then there were IBM chips and C&T 38600 but these are not clones - one is licenced and somewhat different from original 386, the other is a copy but reverse engineered and has some issues due to that, mostly related to x87 pairing. These are quite rare and not really suitable for typical "gaming rig" of the era.

voidstar wrote on 2024-12-10, 08:06:

Is it true the 386DX-40 were all non-Intel? I hadn't looked into it deeply, but a rumor was Intel only went up to the 33Mhz spec.

Hi, yes, I think so. But I think you could overclock a 33 MHz i386 to 40 MHz just fine.

That being said, the am386DX and i386DX have same microcode and are nearly same chip.
That's because of the second-source agreement that intel had made with partners in the 8086/80286 days.

However, there might be a minor difference because AMD had used a static CMOS design for manufacturing.
If I understand correctly, then the AMD chips can be halted/resumed anytime and have no minimum operating frequency.

voidstar wrote on 2024-12-10, 08:06:

There was also some drama around those years, something about it was decided that Intel couldn't copyright numbers? That opened the door to 386/486 clones, and was why Intel didn't use 586 and came up with an actual name (Pentium)?

Hi, yes. Numbers can't be trademarks, understandably.
What's strange though is how intel managed to trademark "Pentium".
Because "Penta" is latin for five. So Pentium is Five-ium.
Similarily, it's strange how "Kinderschokolade" nowadays got a trademark for "Kinder" (children).
That's a word of a living language and belongs to the people, not acompany.

voidstar wrote on 2024-12-10, 08:06:

I don't want any tower cases, it's why I stick with old laptops or slimline cases. Toshiba makes a compact 486 laptop, I haven't tried Quake on it yet. I'll give that a shot over the holiday break, curious if the video card is up for it.

Good luck! 🙂🤞

PS: There also was the very rare Super386, which was available in both 33 and 40 MHz models.
There's no English language entry on Wikipedia, sadly.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chips_%26_Techn … logies_Super386
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0N-jgtNrEU

Would say it depends on what the rest of your retro computer park consists of, or if you simply want actual 386 hardware for some reason. To me, there aren't any obvious benefits of building an actual 386 computer, but then I'm also trying to keep the number of computers to a minimum.

Got a P233MMX that can be tuned to speeds very close to just about anything within 386 and 486 territory, and a SBC based 486DX33 that I just couldn't leave to become E-waste, that can go even slower if needed.

Interesting thing about the 486 is that it's from well within Pentium times, and came with a dead 3.3V 100MHz AMD DX4. The SBC can't supply 5V, so running the DX33 heavily undervolted at 3.45VDC. Despite this, it's strangely enough the most stable retro computer I've ever worked with - it's never crashed so far - and is as easy to set up and manage as any Pentium computer. Also, when it comes to noise, it does fine with a single 80mm case fan running on very low rpm, it's virtually inaudible. Using a CF card in an IDE adapter as HDD.

Kept a build log of the above when I brought it back to life if there's any interest btw.

It's a piece of history as well, owning any particalur era of PC.

MikeSG wrote on 2024-12-10, 11:11:

It's a piece of history as well, owning any particalur era of PC.

True! That's also an aspect of the story I like.
386 PCs were developer's PCs in mid-late 80s and early 90s. The work-horses, so to say.
They were necessary to run certain compilers/IDEs, memoy-managers or OSes like Unix and OS/2.
Working with a 386 PC gives you an idea how developers had experienced their games.
Experiencing the quirks of a 386 PC makes you understand why certain decisions had been made.

Of course, some may argue that the 286 PCs were also there and allowed development, that's true.
But in reality, a high-end 286 wasn't as common as a low-end 386DX.
Developers who were serious about development had a 386, thus, simply.

Windows 3.0, for example, ran on an 8088 PC already. But none of the advanced software development tools did.
Turbo Pascal for Windows 1.x, Quick C for Windows v1.0, Turbo C for Windows, Visual Basic 1 to 4 etc.
They all needed Protected-Mode Windows, probably because of memory management.

To make matters worse, the old MS SDK from the 1980s was a real memory, hog, also, making
Windows/386, OS/2 (supports family API programs!) or an DOS VM on Unix a requirement in practice.

Ironically, Windows 3.0 was so limited in terms of APIs and features that 32-Bit Extenders
such as Watcom's Win386 were a necessity for serious development development.

That was before Windows 3.1 was out and gave the 286 a second chance, essentially.
In the Windows 3.1 days (and Windows 3.0 MME days), most 286 PCs had VGA graphics and had been running at 12 or 16 MHz already.
That's when people realized that 32-Bit code is favorable, but not a must have all the time.

Previously, with Windows 3.0, this was still different. The urge to abandon 16-Bit code and DOS was much stronger in late 80s, still,
before QEMM, EMM386 and all those beloved DOS Extenders were around.

Edit: This is what a C programming book ('92/'93) that my father owns says about requirements for software development on MS Windows 3.x:
Minimum: AT 80386 with 25 MHz, 2 or 4 MB main memory, 80 MB HDD (< 28ms access time), VGA graphics
"Optimum": AT/EISA 80386 with 33 MHz, 4 MB main memory, 120 MB HDD (< 18ms access time), Super VGA graphics
High-end (high comfort): AT/EISA 80486 with 33 or 50 MHz, 8MB of main memory or more, 200 MB SCSI or ESDI HDD (< 18ms access time), Super VGA graphics

What is a bit hard to see nowadays, because the current paradigm has been with us 25 years or so, is that market segmentation entry level, low/mid/high end wasn't done solely in one core design generation, like it is now, it was spanning generations. So in 1990, 486 was the i7, 386DX-i5, 386SX-i3, what was left of 286 and lower production was Celeron-ish still being made into new machines by 3rd tier budget OEMs. Then in 1991, intel put the 486SX in to be top of the "i5"s, and it performed as good as the "i7"s for integer, still set you back over $250 at release though so not really a budget chip right then. AMD opened the floodgates with their 386 production though and your mass market 32 bit PC got affordable to have in the home, so anyone for a boring business box in the home? Takers there were, but they needed to put some pizzazz on this, Multimedia!!!! 1992 we saw a lot of announcements and buzz about multimedia PCs, Intel was dropping the DX2 though, so that was now the i7, the DX/SX were i5/i3, that left the 386 at entry level, the affordable choice, and the new MPC rev 1 standard was inclusive of 386, so 386 were gussied up with multimedia trimmings and whisked out the door toward the end of 92...

The cynics would say this was a clearance of 386 stock... yeah it more or less was, Compaq started a 486 price war mid 92 and prices were dropping...1993 saw major OEMs having an entirely 486 range, their 386 at clearance dealers. Cheapy OEMs were still selling new 386. With the big boys now having the 486SX25 at the bottom of the range, and the Pentium P60 releasing, "strangely" the MPC standard was upgraded to MPC2, MPC level 2 and wouldn't you know it, a 486sx25 was just enough to qualify. So by the end of 93, budget mass market from the majors, was all 486sx. I think that marks the point where the 386 was "over" as a main OEM mass market entry level system in the US, though they remained useful for a couple of years, and other markets held up the low end entry flag for a couple more years.

So "peak 386" was probably about 90-91, while 486 was still an exorbitantly priced fantasy land CPU only enjoyed by servers, architects and engineers. Though in the home it was probably a 92-93 peak encouraged by prices low enough to get with a single bonus or tax refund for the regular Joe.

Anyway, that's a more nuanced view of the 386es place in the early 90s, to oppose the "reddit expert" type view that i486 released in 1989 and Fairy Godmother Intel waved her magic wand and instantly 100 million people had them.

Hi, the revised MPC-1 level spec was about a 386, the short-lived original MPC-1 spec mentioned a 286..
The move to 386 was likely because of 32-Bit code and optimizations that come with it. Which made sense for multimedia, I must admit.

"Eleven hardware manufacturers have agreed to use a common logo on their computers
to indicate the PCs meet a minimum standard for multimedia applications.
The new MPC logo will mean the computer systems include at least a 286 processor,
2 megabytes of memory, a 30 megabyte hard drive, a CD-ROM drive and a VGA card.
Manufacturers intending to use this new MPC logo include heavyweights like AT&T, Tandy and Zenith."

https://youtu.be/SyTiOCqfH8I?t=1482

The unsucessful Tandy VIS ran on a 12 Mhz 286, too.
"Intel 80286 processor on a local bus (not ISA) running at 12 MHz. 0-wait states. Equivalent PC performance somewhere around that of a 386SX at 16 or 20 MHz."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandy_Video_Information_System

Edit: I've got a soft spot for the 286, but I'm not worshipping it here.
While the 286 was capable of lightweight multimedia (such as Kodak Photo CD, handy scanners, audio editing), it probably didn't meet the expectations of multimedia fans.
Anyway, I'm just glad the 286 had once been part of an multimedia specification. It deserved it.

Edit: Some more.

How to buy a multimedia PC
An MPC system must meet some minimum specifications. Nothing less than an IBM PC or compatible, 386SX-based machine with at least two megabytes of RAM will do. (An earlier MPC standard specified at least a 10MHz-286 machine.)
http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue13 … y_a_multime.php

A Brief History of Computing -Complete Timeline
The MPC level 1 specification originally required a 80286/12 MHz PC, but this was later increased to a 80386SX/16 MHz computer as an 80286 was realised to be inadequate.
http://www.adrc.com/ckr/computer_history.html

Edit: I'm speaking under correction, but it feels like my home country was a bit like a third-world country in terms of computing.
Users and businesses were rather conservative, slow, stubborn, I feel. Progress had always being questioned hard. We were at least about 2 years behind the US, I think?

So it makes sense that a 286 (or 386) was seen as "good enough" for a longer time period, maybe - which it also was at its heart, strictly speaking.
Except to video game fans and professionals, I mean. They had a more dire need for performance.

OS/2 Warp 3 also has had a short story of success here, which might have increased people's interest in a 386/486 PC.
They'd have been better off with a 486DLC-40 with 8 MB of RAM, though, as redhill had mentioned.
Unfortunately, a 486DX with 4MB of RAM was a joke.

Edit:

Anyway, that's a more nuanced view of the 386es place in the early 90s, to oppose the "reddit expert" type view that i486 released in 1989 and Fairy Godmother Intel waved her magic wand and instantly 100 million people had them.

YMDD! 😂

BitWrangler wrote on 2024-12-10, 13:56:

Anyway, that's a more nuanced view of the 386es place in the early 90s, to oppose the "reddit expert" type view that i486 released in 1989 and Fairy Godmother Intel waved her magic wand and instantly 100 million people had them.

That's a fair view, it took some years after a CPU release for a full system product to form. That was true even of the 8088, being already 2 years old when the 5150 PC was announced.

By 1989 I still had the Tandy 1000SX, an almost-8Mhz 8088 with a simple to program 3-voice audio chip and basically EGA ("TGA"). The original Tandy 1000 was a bit lacking, but the SX and similar revised models were a good value.

I skipped 286 and 386 altogether, which is maybe why I had some interest in looking back into that era. I jumped straight to a 486DX4100 maybe around 1994.

I came across the following article in Jan 1992 InfoWorld, still advertising the full range of 286-386-486 systems. Some argue the 386 is when the full capability of prior minicomputers finally came to home users (since MMU was developed in the 1960s). So from this they argue the 8-bits were a set back (toys, glorified hand-calculators), the industry really started to move with the 386 (and that is basically when the inflection point happened). In 1990, I still knew many homes that didn't bother having a computer (no need) - but that wasn't the case by the mid 1990s. I don't fully agree with that, just since I also know some folks who ran small businesses using 64KB 8-bit systems.

I found an older blog post with an "answer" to the above question also including some price charts and additional information from around 1991
https://andreas-mausch.de/blog/2020-09-07-highscreen-386/

Wow, a pull out hard-drive? And that nice segmented LED speed indicator. And I forgot about those hand scanners - the 4 or 5 inch width was odd, but it was neat for the time. GIF did exist by then thanks for CompuServe, but I also remember an PCX format.

I have been thinking about this recently, as I was on a quest to build a spread of PCs to enable me to play every PC game from 1985-2010. However, I have come to the conclusion, perhaps incorrectly, that a 386 is not required. I think if you want to play most pre-1995 games at acceptable speeds you need the following:

- 8088 processor that can switch between 4.77Mhz and 10Mhz
- 286 PC
- Pentium MMX (can cover from early 386 up to Pentium MMX speeds)

Beyond the Pentium, the Video card and Sound card compatability is more of an issue than the CPU. Though, of course, you need to have it fast enough to not be a bottleneck to the graphics card. But it becomes a whole lot complicated, and there's a lot more options.

Having said that though, I don't have a 286. So my jump is from 8088 to the Pentium MMX. My 8088 is a Pocket 8086 laptop, where I swapped the CPU to a 10Mhz 8088. So it isn't period correct. But, so far, I have been able to play all XT-class games on it that I have tried.

Have to say though that, for me, the XT-class games are rather too simple for my taste. My gaming in the early 80s was on the BBC Micro. A far better gaming experience than the PC of the time.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-11, 07:59:

I have been thinking about this recently, as I was on a quest to build a spread of PCs to enable me to play every PC game from 1985-2010. However, I have come to the conclusion, perhaps incorrectly, that a 386 is not required.

In the end it really depends what matters to you. It's, a hobby after all. It should be enjoyable.

Long story short, though, if you build, say, a 386 PC then it's not just about CPU performance. It's also about creating an atmosphere to dive into.

See, there are certain aspects of each era that were iconic.
That's why why we feel nostalgic for certain things.

If you've going to build an PC/XT system, you might also be interested to have that 80s look and feel (the real one or the one that's being hyped in media).

Like for example, having an old boxy Genius ball mouse, an square IBM Joystick, a 12" monitor, matrix printer, Model F keyboard, a vintage g-blaster serving as your loudspeaker for your AdLib card and so on.

Maybe 80s magazines on your desk, a Rubrick's cube, old comics, 80s posters, a traditional desk lamp with an incandescent lamp. Such things.

Such a setup might be different to your 386/486/.. system in the other part of the room, maybe.
You're now using a more modern mouse, Model M keyboard, bigger monitor (VGA, 13-14"), beige PC stereo speakers, Gravis gamepad, etc.
Maybe a lava lamp on your desk.. A beige gameboy for decoration. An 'I want to believe' poster on the wall. ;)

Same goes for your 586 or Pentium II build, which now has an SVGA monitor (15" and up), optical mouse, a 56k modem, a Microsoft Sidewinder joystick, modern USB keyboard and so on.

In short, different generations of PCs are a bit like different types of home computers.
You wouldn't want to have, say, the Amiga 500 corner in your room looking exactly same as the place of your ordinary PC that's your daily driver.
That would not only be boring, but also wouldn't bring back those feelings of your past.

But that's just my opinion, of course. People are different and that's okay. Each to his/her own. ^^

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-11, 07:59:

Have to say though that, for me, the XT-class games are rather too simple for my taste.

Hi, you're thinking of booter games such as Frogger or AlleyCat, Karateka and the pixelated Sierra AGI games ?

Well, there are a lot of cool games from the 80s and early 90s!
You can try simulations and adventures, for example. It's addicting.

There's much more aside of the mainstream! The 80s were full of wonderful, obscure games!
Some of which look really cool on an IBM CGA card and a composite monitor!

If you don't have an NTSC monitor or if your CGA card has monochrome ouput on Cinch/RCA connector,
you can still use a black/white TV via an external HF modulator box. The picture gets softened that way.

If the XT has VGA, the Spanish utility VERDE can help.
It can make CGA games run in shades of green or disable line-doubling.
Maybe useful for certain owners of an LCD monitor.

Simulators:
- The Colony, MS Flight Simulator II and 4, Star Flight, SimCity, SimAnt, Wasteland, Xenomorph

IF:
- Infocom text-adventures, Sierra's early graphic adventure games (Hi-Res Adventures), Zork

IF (in 320x200 CGA graphics):
Fooblitzky, Oo-Topos, Telarium games (Dragonworld, Fahrenheit 451, Rendezvous with Rama, Nine Princes in Amber etc)

IF with graphics:
- Legend Entertainment games (Gateway, Spellcasting etc), Magnetic Scrolls games (Wonderland and re-makes of older games that use the new GUI).
They're from the 90s, but they can be run on 4,77 MHz PCs still.
It's borderline in terms of performance, but it's not painful. They also support plain AdLib.

That's just a tiny selection, of course. More in this thread: The year is 1990 and you still have a PC/XT and can't upgrade. Which games are you playing?

Edit: There's a huge amount of DOS freeware/shareware titles, also!
A lot of obscure text-adventures, too. Some also are available for OS/2.

Some games also exist for Amiga or Atari ST, though the PC DOS versions are usually being more.. raw. And eerie.

Infocom games on Amiga look nice, though, I think.
That lone text window in white/blue is relaxing somehow. Has a bit of a "liminal spaces" kind of feeling.

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-11, 07:59:

My gaming in the early 80s was on the BBC Micro. A far better gaming experience than the PC of the time.

A BBC machine? Reminds me of the BBC Master 512, which could run DOS games.
CGA palette was strange, though, due to the BBC Master graphics hardware.
Still cool, though, what this UK machines could do.

Edit:@all My apologies for the many replies, I know I've talked too much already but I wanted to respond to this one. I'm more quite now.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-11, 11:41:

In the end it really depends what matters to you. It's, a hobby after all. It should be enjoyable.

Long story short, though, if you build, say, a 386 PC then it's not just about CPU performance. It's also about creating an atmosphere to dive into.

Yes, I get that. I mostly have nostalgia for my old 286 PC (no longer have) and for the Win9x period PCs. The main reason I don't have a 286 is that I realised that most of the games I played on it work on my slowed MMX machine. I think I wouldnt use the 286 enough to justify the space it would take and the cost of obtaining one.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-11, 11:41:

Hi, you're thinking of booter games such as Frogger or AlleyCat, Karateka and the pixelated Sierra AGI games ? […]
Show full quote

Hi, you're thinking of booter games such as Frogger or AlleyCat, Karateka and the pixelated Sierra AGI games ?

Well, there are a lot of cool games from the 80s and early 90s!
You can try simulations and adventures, for example. It's addicting.

There's much more aside of the mainstream! The 80s were full of wonderful, obscure games!

Yes, thats quite a list there. Yes, maybe I have not tried the right games. Though I think another thing I am not so keen on is the default 4 color CGA pallet. It is kind of hard on the eyes. Though some games like Sopwith are great.

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-11, 11:41:

A BBC machine? Reminds me of the BBC Master 512, which could run DOS games.
CGA palette was strange, though, due to the BBC Master graphics hardware.
Still cool, though, what this UK machines could do.

I have never heard of running DOS on the Beeb. I Wonder how that could work. Anyhow, for me I think the main things about the BBC that I prefer over the XT is that it seems to have better colour support and better audio capabilities. I have been quite shocked at the horrible noises coming out of my Pocket 8086 PC speaker when playing some XT games. Possibly some of that is the fault of the device though. Maybe they sound better on period correct hardware.

voidstar wrote on 2024-12-11, 00:25:

The attachment infoworld1992.jpg is no longer available

My first PC was the 386sx-20 with a 32kb cache like you pictured. I had exactly those specifications except with only 2MB of ram. It would keep up with the DX-20 & DX-25 systems that didn't have a RAM cache.

But in 1991? What advantages did it have? 386 owners could run fractint and PKzip a lot faster than the 286 owners. Few had enough ram to take advantage of the 386 enhanced mode in windows 3.1 and only that IBM research project on campus was using OS/2. In 1991 only our Novell server had 4MB Ram.
Seemed like it wasn't until like 1994 that 4MB was common and by then the performance crowd had long been on 486's. By the time that Windows 95 came out, 386's were too slow to be enjoyable.

So while 386's were primed to take advantage of the upcoming 32bit revolution, by the time it arrived, they were too slow to take advantage of it.

Sort of like 64bit software and the early Athlon 64's. Odds are your computer was too slow and ram limited to use the early buggy 64 bit operating systems, and by the time Windows 7 hit the market, you were kicked off the boat for CPU bugs.

Now if you have one of these 386's, then you really got a collector's item.

https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/ques … 86-multiply-bug

I tried putting Windows 95 on an old PS/2 model 70 in our compatibility lab back in the day and got rejected for the 386 multiply bug. Wish I could go back and save that guy.

Hi, on non-PCs such as Atari Mega ST series it was normal to have 2 and 4 MB of RAM as standard. In late 80s (1987).
The 1 MB low-cost version wasn't out before 1990.

Some sophisticated games for Windows 3.0 did recommend expansion, too.
They have Sound Blaster support, but pre-date Windows 3.0 MME and Windows 3.1.

"Battles" wanted to have 4 MB minimum, but said it should be more.
Re: Adventures with Windows 3.0

"ATC: Air Traffic Controller" (TRACON for Windows) had recommended 4 MB of RAM, a 486DX-33 and a 1024x768 pixel Super VGA resolution and a 20" monitor. In 1991.
Re: Hardware by Year Build Guide

Sorry for quoting myself, I just do that to prove I'm not making things up right now.

Edit: There's something else that comes to my mind.
On a 386 or higher, Windows 3.x (3.1 ?) does automatically run in Standard-Mode if the RAM is 2 MB or less.
It needs to be forced to Enhanced Mode via WIN /3.

That's because Standard-Mode needs less RAM that 386 Enhanced-Mode and is quicker, too.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t support virtual memory, relativating the advantage.

On my 286, I really needed 4 MB in order to run certain applications. Otherwise I got an "out of memory" warning. 🙁

RetroPCCupboard wrote on 2024-12-11, 12:26:

Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-11, 11:41:

A BBC machine? Reminds me of the BBC Master 512, which could run DOS games.
CGA palette was strange, though, due to the BBC Master graphics hardware.
Still cool, though, what this UK machines could do.

I have never heard of running DOS on the Beeb. I Wonder how that could work. Anyhow, for me I think the main things about the BBC that I prefer over the XT is that it seems to have better colour support and better audio capabilities. I have been quite shocked at the horrible noises coming out of my Pocket 8086 PC speaker when playing some XT games. Possibly some of that is the fault of the device though. Maybe they sound better on period correct hardware.

Hi, but it's true. It was a co-processor board with 80186 that interfaced with the tube.
Software was DOS Plus with GEM. A mouse was supported, too.
https://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/C … /Master512.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kkm20VjHMU

Btw, there are other PC emulators for other 80s computers.
For Apple II there's the AD8088 Processor Card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_processor_cards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiHK0lphiQE

The Sinclair QL can run DOS software with CGA graphics, too.
Via software emulation apparently (PC Conqueror, Solution)..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAFDhM7WziE

BitWrangler wrote on 2024-12-10, 13:56:

Anyway, that's a more nuanced view of the 386es place in the early 90s, to oppose the "reddit expert" type view that i486 released in 1989 and Fairy Godmother Intel waved her magic wand and instantly 100 million people had them.

What did catch on early on was VGA ('87), though. Many VGA (SVGA) cards were available in early 1988.
Early birds such as ATI V.I.P. by mid-late 1987, even. EGA cards such as ATI EGA Wonder could do emulate VGA modes 11h and 12h (with default VGA palette, same as EGA).

That's because the PC users were thirsty for a proper graphics standard that could combine all the benefits of the prior standards. Especially colour and hi-res text.

That's why VGA was even popular among users (computer fans) who still had used an PC/XT in late 80s or early 90s.
There were these compact baseline models with 8-Bit connector, 256KB of RAM. PVGA1A Basic, ATI VGA Wonder, OAK-37c (some versions)..

Anyway, it just came to mind. Also because of the Amiga videos I was watching on YouTube this night.
The Amiga community doesn't like the idea that VGA did catch on so early, I think.
If it's according to them, I suppose, then EGA was all we had and VGA wasn't widely available prior 1990/1991. ;)