Win98SE is barely period correct for a P233MMX in the first place; the OS will run fine, but games from 1999 will crawl on a system with that 1997 CPU, regardless of the VGA card.

The Vanta is a 1999 low-end card, the Virge DX a 1997 mid-range one - but the difference two years makes beats the market position hands down. Unless you want to "enjoy" native S3D, the Vanta will win hands down in everything, and nVidia has excellent DOS compatibility too. Where a low-end card might fail is analog image quality, but Creative generally made good cards and S3 Virge cards were infamous for poor 'washed-out' image except on the very best cards, which this doesn't look like. So pretty much regardless of what you want to do, the Vanta probably does it best.

But don't expect miracles. P233MMX is a fine Win95-era CPU, but games released at same time as Windows 98 are things like Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena. Even at 640x480@16b you'll not have fun with titles like that. Tomb Raider or Quake 1 would be more par for the course.

Full period-correctness would be P233MMX, Virge DX and Win95 OSR2.5, for a good Win98SE experience I prefer a fast P3, but for period-correct 1999 you could pair the Vanta with a Celeron Mendocino. That was pretty much my system in 1999 (well, I had a TNT2 M64 instead of Vanta)

Yeah, out of those two options, the Vanta would much better than the Virge DX. Dinob pretty much summed up all my thoughts nicely.

I will say, the Virge DX is a great card for a DOS system (excellent compatibility), I paired one with a Cyrix PR166+ under DOS 6.22 and it absolutely fits that role much better than it would under Windows 98.

P233MMX is a fine Win95-era CPU

In the mid-90s when we had Windows 95 (RTM) at home,
many if not most people here in my neighborhood still had used existing 386/486 PCs from Windows 3.1 era.
486 PCs with VESA Local Bus were still high-end PCs everyone wanted to have.

A Pentium PC, any model, was considered a workstation class or server class machine. Or a hot-rod PC for multimedia, like video editing.
- Comparable to what an Apple Silicon Macintosh (Mx Mac) is today..

Laptop users at the time still had 40 MHz 486 processors and 4 MB of RAM, 120MB HDD or so.
And they tried running Windows 95 on it (4 MB RAM was too little).

A P233MMX.. That's what I hadn't seen until Windows XP.
My first XP machine was a P166MMX, with 64MB of RAM and 2GB SCSI HDD.

At home, in 2000, Windows 98SE ran on a Pentium III 733 MHz PC.
But that was my dad's work PC/the family PC. It was among the fastest available in 2000.
It replaced the aging 386DX-40 running Windows 95 (had 16 MB of RAM).

Personally, on my desk, I had just used a 286-12 running Windows 3.1 before. With multimedia hardware (handy scanner, PAS16, CD drive) - I used it like it was a small 386.
DOS 6.22 and 3,1 was still being officially supported by Microsoft, I had gotten the Year 2000 Update CD.

In mid-late 2000, I had replaced it by a Pentium 75 running Windows 98SE, I think.
It rather was a PC assembled from spare parts, I have to admit.
This was before I moved to XP, ob obviously.

This isn't meant as criticism, at all. It's just mindblowing, rather.
I heard of people who got a 486DX2-66 PC in 1997. New, by mail order.
The Pentium 133 MHz (non MMX) PC I use for testing purposes has a 1997 date code in the chassis (a stamp on the bottom).

So it was just freshly assembled in 1997, a year before Windows 98FE came out.
How can it not be a period-correct Windows 98 PC then? 🤷‍♂️

Personally, I always felt that Windows 95 RTM was 386/486 territory. And smaller than 100 MHz 586 territory, too, maybe.
And that Windows 98/98SE was optimal for 586/MMX and Pentium II/III, thanks to its updated system files which supported newer technology.

In 1997, the non-MMX processors, the Pentium 120 to 150 processors were still selling well, I think.
I mean sure, technically, the Pentium II was invented same year, as well.
But how big was it market share at the time? 🤷‍♂️

I remember that many shareware CDs or CD-ROM collections from that time (1996/1997) didn't even mention a Pentium.
The requirements on the booklet were MS-DOS 5, MS Windows 3.1/95, 4 MB of RAM, Sound Blaster, VGA/SVGA and a 386/486.

The only exception that comes to mind was that demo of The Heart of Darkness from the time.
There was that demo CD in the cornflakes box in late 90s..
I remember it, because there was an outrage because it wasn't made clear it's just a demo.
The press speaker said something like "did you really believe you get a full version for free in a cereal box!?".
Or something along these lines, my memory is a bit sketchy about it. Sorry. 😅

This was the first time I really thought about the importance or necessity of Pentium PCs.
While the demo ran on a 486DX2-66, a Pentium was being "strongly recommended"!

Mobygames.com has the minimum specs for the retail version (from 1998).
For Windows 98, it talks about a Pentium PC (any) with 16 MB of RAM.
Edit: It also mentions Windows NT 4 on a Pentium 75.
Edit: VLB graphics cards are being mentioned, too, in one sentence with DirectX. Funny! 😉

https://www.mobygames.com/game/262/heart-of-d … 3/cover-746514/

I know, this sounds odd. But by late 90s, I still had an aged Super Nintendo as my main gaming console.

I agree with what some others are saying here. A 233 MMX can run Windows 98SE just fine, but don't expect it to run games that came out at the same time.

It's important to remember that period-correct hardware will get period-correct frame rates at period-correct graphics settings. What this meant in 1999 was 30-40fps at 800x600 or 1024x768 for a higher end system.

In 1998 games were shooting more for 20-30fps at 800x600 with 3D acceleration.

In 1997 - which is the time period that the CPU is from - games were shooting for 20-30fps at 640x480 or lower with or without 3D acceleration.

If you want to play games from 1999 in a way that is somewhat enjoyable by 2025 standards, you'll probably want to build a system from 2000-2001 at the earliest.

To put it into perspective, on my Windows 98SE test system I run a Pentium III 850Mhz and 256MB SDRAM. If I run fairly intensive games from 1999 (Descent 3, Need For Speed: High Stakes), a Voodoo 3 3000 or TNT 2 Ultra is mostly playable but absolute not smooth at 1024x768 at medium-ish settings. Both are noticeably much much smoother at 800x600. This is on a basic 60Hz LCD, so the smoothness is likely the difference between an inconsistent 25-35ish fps and a more consistent 45-60fps. Either of those cards will be 50-80% faster then a Vanta at least, and the CPU is probably 3-4x as fast as a 233 MMX.

... All that said: If you want to throw the Virge DX in there to play non-3D accelerated games or DOS games up to 1997 or so, the system will probably handle those fine. Running games that support 3D acceleration in software mode will probably not be too pleasant however. For more performance in 3D accelerated games (read: actually being able to play them without graphical problems), the Vanta should run games on that system up to 1997 or even less intensive ones from 1998 if you aren't too picky.

I honestly don't know how much 98SE would slow the system down compared to 95, so I would just use it with 98\98SE unless someone can show that games will run far better on 95... but keep in mind the limitations and don't ask too much of it.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-03-27, 05:37:

I honestly don't know how much 98SE would slow the system down compared to 95, so I would just use it with 98\98SE unless someone can show that games will run far better on 95... but keep in mind the limitations and don't ask too much of it.

Hi, I'm not sure if that's helpful but I vaguely remember when I was assembling a PC for my sister. It was in early 2000s, I think.
Among the games I copied over was SRB2 and some other harmless games.
The game ran somewhat smoother on Windows 95 than on Windows 98SE, I remember.
About 10 FPS more on Windows 95.. But it was a DirectDraw game, I think. It had OpenGL mode, too.

I suppose that 98Lite (uses Win95 explorer on Win98) or a stripped-down Windows 98SE might come close to Windows 95.
Because that would be better than running real Windows 95.
Back then, I had to install lots of updates to make Windows 95 run on par with Windows 98SE.
And in the end, stability wasn't close to Windows 98SE.

PS: Where the performance differences between 95 and 98 become very obvious are 486 PCs, I think.
From what I remember, Windows 98SE crawled on 486DX2-66 processors.
Maybe that's different with faster/more modern 486 cores, not sure.
I remember running Windows 98SE on a 486 Compaq Prolinea..
I used Windows 98SE over 95 RTM because it had all the required drivers, including those for Compaq Business Audio.

I might be bias because I remember the S3 Virge 3D in an old Windows system I had a long time ago trying to play Resident Evil.
It was after that I started using a Playstation.

It wasnt until years later I found out it was not the video card but the whole computer that wasnt up for playing the same but you live and learn.

In Win95 I would put the S3 Virge 3D in it and see how it goes. There aint many places it will fit well, an early Win95 machine might be one of them.

I have a P233MMX system that runs win98SE just fine but as already stated, don't expect smooth gameplay with later Win98 games. This PC also has a Virge DX card but it's a Diamond Stealth 3D 2000 4MB so no washed-out screen.
I built this system for Tomb Raider 1 and some other early 3dfx stuff: it has a Monster 3D Voodoo 1 card.

Thanks for all your thoughts and perspectives!

The Vanta will go with this setup. I don't intend to play any late 90's games such as Quake 3 Arena, so I think it should be fine.
The exception is The Longest Journey (also released in -99). I tried it out quickly, and it seemed to be running ok but it did set the cutscene level to low (its recommendation for high was PII).

I have another build in progress as well, and I will put the S3 Virge card there along with Win95 and P166MMX (and a Voodoo 1).

Thanks again!

I've also got a 233 mxx with a Virge VX and Voodoo 1 but its basically set up for DOS 6.22/Win 3.1 games and Win95 , it would stuggle with circa 1999 and later stuff.
That said if you dont care about S3D support for native S3 games then you'd better off with the Vanta since for all the 3D games that the system can run with a mmx build it should be less bottlenecked by the gpu.

[dang i realized i should have read the top comment because my comment redundantly said the same thing , but yeah pretty much what dionb said]
And anyways most of the virge s3d games wont run that amazingly anyways , the only one worth playing would maybe be destruction derby's S3d version since mostly every other game has a better performing glide version.

d00mo wrote on 2025-03-27, 07:07:

Thanks for all your thoughts and perspectives! […]
Show full quote

Thanks for all your thoughts and perspectives!

The Vanta will go with this setup. I don't intend to play any late 90's games such as Quake 3 Arena, so I think it should be fine.
The exception is The Longest Journey (also released in -99). I tried it out quickly, and it seemed to be running ok but it did set the cutscene level to low (its recommendation for high was PII).

I have another build in progress as well, and I will put the S3 Virge card there along with Win95 and P166MMX (and a Voodoo 1).

Thanks again!

Yep that sounds sensible.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-03-27, 05:37:

I agree with what some others are saying here. A 233 MMX can run Windows 98SE just fine, but don't expect it to run games that c […]
Show full quote

I agree with what some others are saying here. A 233 MMX can run Windows 98SE just fine, but don't expect it to run games that came out at the same time.

It's important to remember that period-correct hardware will get period-correct frame rates at period-correct graphics settings. What this meant in 1999 was 30-40fps at 800x600 or 1024x768 for a higher end system.

In 1998 games were shooting more for 20-30fps at 800x600 with 3D acceleration.

In 1997 - which is the time period that the CPU is from - games were shooting for 20-30fps at 640x480 or lower with or without 3D acceleration.

If you want to play games from 1999 in a way that is somewhat enjoyable by 2025 standards, you'll probably want to build a system from 2000-2001 at the earliest.

The last paragraph caught my eyes, because that's something I haven't really thought of.

I tend to assume that people who are into vintage computing focus on re-creating the environment of a given time.

Such as old furniture, CRT monitors, ridiculous big active speaker boxes and the performance of a given time.

Personally, when I saw Descent (DOS) or Star Wing (Star Fox, SNES, overclocked SuperFX chip) running at higher frame rate, I wasn't happy.
The movement nolonger was smooth as it used to be, but erratic/jerky.

Same was the case with certain racing games and flight sims.
If the framerate was "too good", it nolonger made fun to me.

Playing MS Flight Simulator from the 80s in slow motion was less of a pain that watching it at unthrottled speed.

That's one of the reasons I like slower ISA VGA cards, by the way.
They contain some sort of natural frame rate limiter,
while a modern processor itself can run the game engine without being the bottleneck to its computations.

A Pentium II with an ET-4000AX and a Voodoo 1 or 2 might be an interesting combination, thus. 😀

Edit: That being said, I always went by the rule of thumb to have some headroom.
I consider the "recommended requirements" as the true minimum requirements.
Having a PC that has some extra memory as reserve and a processor that's 25% to 50% faster than it is required shouldn't hurt, thus.

Edit: I'm just thinking out loud, I don’t mean to educate anybody here.
It's just my point of view. It's well possible that I'm wrong, as well.

The s3 Virge is often called a 3D decelerator, though the DX is improved from the original

I find Win 98 wins fine on a 233MMX. I haven't compared it to Win95 though. The advantage of 98 is the USB support for easy transfer of files.

As others have said the 233MMX is very limited as far as Win98 gaming is concerned. Anything past 1997 is really too much for it. Pentium II, which came out at about the same time was far more powerful

Matth79 wrote on 2025-03-27, 14:34:

The s3 Virge is often called a 3D decelerator, though the DX is improved from the original

That's true for faster PCs.

On a Pentium 133 MHz (non-MMX), the S3 Virge 325 can still render stuff that the CPU alone isn't capable of.

Here's a video from one of my experiments:

Accelerated by Virge 325: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujfl3fwb2aE
P133 CPU alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiKq0x4HHaw

The other Final Reality videos here.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-03-27, 05:07:

In the mid-90s when we had Windows 95 (RTM) at home, many if not most people here in my neighborhood still had used existing 386 […]
Show full quote

P233MMX is a fine Win95-era CPU

In the mid-90s when we had Windows 95 (RTM) at home,
many if not most people here in my neighborhood still had used existing 386/486 PCs from Windows 3.1 era.
486 PCs with VESA Local Bus were still high-end PCs everyone wanted to have.

I know - I was running a Pentium 60 until end of 1999. I just wasn't masochistic enough to try to run Windows 95 let lone Windows 98 on it. It positively flew with Windows 3.1, so that's what I ran until I managed to scrape together enough money for something faster.

This isn't meant as criticism, at all. It's just mindblowing, rather. I heard of people who got a 486DX2-66 PC in 1997. New, by […]
Show full quote

This isn't meant as criticism, at all. It's just mindblowing, rather.
I heard of people who got a 486DX2-66 PC in 1997. New, by mail order.
The Pentium 133 MHz (non MMX) PC I use for testing purposes has a 1997 date code in the chassis (a stamp on the bottom).

So it was just freshly assembled in 1997, a year before Windows 98FE came out.
How can it not be a period-correct Windows 98 PC then? 🤷‍♂️

A year made a massive difference in the late 1990s, and we're talking Win98SE here, which is from late 1999, so two years later. That's the difference between a P233MMX and a P3-800, between a Virge DX and a GeForce256. Or if you're not fortunate enough to buy the fastest of the fastest, it's the difference between an old P54C or 6x86 and say a Celeron Mendocino or K6-2 CXT, or an early P2. That's still enormous.

But whatever hardware you have, there's nothing forcing you to run the newest possible OS on it and suffer the consequences. For me at least 'period correct' is running software on them that was current when first released - as they did that pretty well.

Personally, I always felt that Windows 95 RTM was 386/486 territory. And smaller than 100 MHz 586 territory, too, maybe.
And that Windows 98/98SE was optimal for 586/MMX and Pentium II/III, thanks to its updated system files which supported newer technology.

That's the kind of masochism I mean...

I had the unfortunate 'pleasure' of having to work with Windows 95 on 486DX33 systems with too little RAM at uni in 1997-1998. It ran. It could run all necessary application software. But it was painfully slow, slow to boot, slow to run software, slow to load and save data. And it was Win95 RTM, so they crashed pretty frequently too, which required an even more painful reboot. It was almost always faster to stand in line for the high-end P90 systems - even if it took an hour, you saved more time when actually using them.

Mobygames.com has the minimum specs for the retail version (from 1998). For Windows 98, it talks about a Pentium PC (any) with 1 […]
Show full quote

Mobygames.com has the minimum specs for the retail version (from 1998).
For Windows 98, it talks about a Pentium PC (any) with 16 MB of RAM.
Edit: It also mentions Windows NT 4 on a Pentium 75.
Edit: VLB graphics cards are being mentioned, too, in one sentence with DirectX. Funny! 😉

https://www.mobygames.com/game/262/heart-of-d … 3/cover-746514/

I know, this sounds odd. But by late 90s, I still had an aged Super Nintendo as my main gaming console.

Most games I play today are 1993-1996-era, so nothing strange about a SNES back then 😉

But minimum specs: yes, games will run, but even at lowest settings they will be slow as hell. And yes, that's exactly how I experienced them back in the late 1990s on my old P60. That's something I have exactly no nostalgia for.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-03-27, 05:07:

In the mid-90s when we had Windows 95 (RTM) at home,
many if not most people here in my neighborhood still had used existing 386/486 PCs from Windows 3.1 era.
486 PCs with VESA Local Bus were still high-end PCs everyone wanted to have.

Not true where I live in my experience, although 486s probably still sold decently in 1995. I got current, but not top end Pentium (90MHz which I OCd to 120MHz, Intel Zappa MB, 16MB, 850MB HDD, 4xCDROM, S3 868, SB16) in autumn 1995. All my friends who were into PCs were also shifting from 386 or 486 systems to Pentiums those days.

The reason is that with the Win95 release Pentium sales skyrocketed and prices went down really fast. In autumn 95 typical mid range Pentium didn't cost more than a good 486 one or two years earlier. Pentium was extremely expenive when it was released, but when 1995 progressed and Win95 came out, it wasn't that anymore. Sure, you could get a 486DX4-100 "budget" system with significantly less, but no one I knew back in the day actually wanted or bought those. Pentiums were all the rage and if you didn't go with the top end CPU (I think it was 133MHz in mid 1995), installed buttload of memory or large HDD, they were completely reasonably priced for average joe and typical pentiu systems provided adequate perofrmance for 3 years until P2s and equvalent CPUs were released. Unlike 486 systems.

I personally can't imagine using Win95 with 486, the experience is just awful. I have tested it couple of times with my retro PCs, but it is exactly the same I couple of times witnessed 30 years ago and why I decided that I Pentium will be powering my next system. Which I bought quite soon after Win95 release.

dionb wrote on 2025-03-27, 19:22:

Personally, I always felt that Windows 95 RTM was 386/486 territory. And smaller than 100 MHz 586 territory, too, maybe.
And that Windows 98/98SE was optimal for 586/MMX and Pentium II/III, thanks to its updated system files which supported newer technology.

That's the kind of masochism I mean...

I understand. I always found that Windows 95 RTM ran most stable on classic hardware, though.:
Vanilla PC/AT compatibles without Plug&Play, PCI bus and ACPI/APIC or APM.

That's why I think of 386/486 PCs when it comes to Windows 95 RTM.
Given enough RAM, it ran fine. The games not so much, obviously.

I mean, the 586 processor itself would be fine - if it's hosted on a 486 mainboard, evennthe better!
A Pentium OverDrive adds a bit of extra instructions, cache and better pipelining, but doesn't change the platform.

That's something that always worries me a tiny bit when running vintage DOS applications on Pentium PCs.
They're nolonger clean or pure PC/ATs, but an extension - one that's not tailored torwards DOS.
They have additions like Protected-Mode BIOS extensions and advanced timers.
- PS/2 series being excepted, maybe. It was a sibling to PC/AT architecture but a thing of its own (dead end).
It uses ISA or MCA bus and no intel-centric Plug&Play.
So a PS/2 with a Pentium processor might actually be fine for Windows 95 RTM. Just guessing, though.

But back to Pentium PCs/non-plain AT derivatives..
I mean stuff that usually doesn't hurt for just being "there", but which feels a little bit out of place or tacked-on.

Like a second processor on a Pentium Pro motherboard, when using a single processor OS.
It's stuff that didn't exist in 486 days when 486DX-40 or 486DX2-66 was the king.

It's like an TIGA card or AWE32 card in an 8088 PC.
It doesn't hurt being there, but feels a bit out of place and can't be utilized to its fullest by the system.

And there's ACPI which uses IRQ9 for its purpose, which may conflict with the IRQ cascade,
the EGA/VGA Vertical Retrace Interrupt on IRQ2/9, the MPU-401 on IRQ 2/9 or ethernet cards on IRQ 2/9..

So the Pentium processor itself isn't the "issue", even, but the overly extended 586 era motherboard architecture.
ATX standard also arrived with the Pentium soon after..

That's why I always felt that Pentium PCs are sort of alien to Windows 95 RTM.
The original Windows 95 was heavily being using Windows 3.1 code base, which predated all of this.
And Windows 3.1 in turn didn't even know of basic IDE drives.

The default Protected-Mode driver in Windows 3.1 (FastDisk) does act as if it was 1984 and thinks it talks to an WD1003 MFM/RLL controller.
The way it reacts on register changes and respones predates even ESDI!
It doesn't know about the IDE identify commands that tells the computer about drive geometry or HDD model.

And Windows 95 RTM laregly built upon such ancient technology, I think.
On a Pentium, it almost runs in some sort of emulation mode or compatibility mode. Unintentionally, I mean.

While it already has support for Plug&Play and PCI bus and IDE bus mastering controllers, it's still a bit half-baked, I think.
Things like DMA mode (single and multi-word DMA for IDE drives) don't work reliable yet, if memory serves.

Not sure how to express. I think Windows 95 RTM still has that Windows 3.1 personality side that uses ini files, and classic drivers/DLLs.
It too may make certain assumptions on reserved debug registers available on 386/486 only, not sure.

In a nutshell, Windows 95 RTM was basically derived from Windows 3.1 386 Enhanced-Mode,
which in turn was coded for the very original i386 processor and its instructions code and flaws.

Things like internal CPU caches weren’t being considered, maybe, because the 386 didn't have one yet.
All these little things may affect the design and behavior of Windows 95 RTM.
The scheduler and context-switching might be sub optimal when running on a 486 or 586 class processor.

Later versions of Windows 95 were likely adapted to handly modern technology and to take care of all these little details, by contrast.
Old Windows 3.1 era code might have been modified with Pentium in mind by that time.
I mean, Windows 95C or OSR 2.x in general is quite close to Windows 98FE already, I would say.
It is closer to it than it is to Windows 3.1, at least.

dionb wrote on 2025-03-27, 19:22:

I know, this sounds odd. But by late 90s, I still had an aged Super Nintendo as my main gaming console.

Most games I play today are 1993-1996-era, so nothing strange about a SNES back then 😉

But minimum specs: yes, games will run, but even at lowest settings they will be slow as hell. And yes, that's exactly how I experienced them back in the late 1990s on my old P60. That's something I have exactly no nostalgia for.

Glad to hear 😃, by mid-late 90s the SNES was still known by all my friends but somehow the N64 got all the attention.

Meanwhile, I didn't really noticed that the Super Nintendo could possibly be superseded eventually.

Just like how to prior generations the Atari 2600, C64 or NES were considered "normal" appliances in any house hold. Like a VCR or cassette recorder.

So I continued to play Super Nintendo classics after school or listened to music, while playing some GnuChess on my Windows 3.1 PC (286) on my desk.
- It also had other games, of course. Solar Vengeance 2, Comet Busters, Space Exploration Alpha, EmPipe, WormWorld, Warpath!, WinTrek..

And DOS games. Such as D/Generation, Jetpack, Digger (variant of Boulder Dash), In Search of Dr. Riptide etc.
The whole shareware stuff. Adventures, too.

But the point is, that I mainly played the desktop games on Windows for relaxation rather than to "get stuff out of my system", like some people would put it.
For playing commercial games, I had the Super Nintendo, after all.

That's why the shock was the bigger when my dad got his Pentium III 733 MHz in 2000 (Win98SE). Edit: To make things even more intense, the Expo 2000 took place in my home country, which was about tehnology and living in the future. 😮
He decided to "get down to cases" by trying to get the latest model at the time.
It replaced the aging Windows 95 RTM PC, a 386DX-40 with 16 MB of RAM, two IDE HDDs and a QIC streamer (SCSI)..

That being said, I had used fast PCs before. I knew Windows NT 4, OS/2 etc.
It's just that we didn't have such a beast at home. My father wasn't into video games.
Except for playing on arcade cabs, maybe. It's from the time he had a little pizza house for a short time.

He also had a few boxed games, such as Larry 1 and MS Flight Sim.
But not so much because he found it "hot" 😏, but rather to impress friends and customers.
It obviously was useful for demonstration purposes, when he worked as programmer and PC seller/PC repair man (he ran a small IT office).

Anyway, that's why we never had contact with gaming PCs at home but rather worked with lower clocked PCs with large HDDs/some extra RAM.
Windows, being the memory hog it is, thus ran quite okay most of the time.

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-03-27, 20:28:

I personally can't imagine using Win95 with 486, the experience is just awful. I have tested it couple of times with my retro PCs, but it is exactly the same I couple of times witnessed 30 years ago and why I decided that I Pentium will be powering my next system. Which I bought quite soon after Win95 release.

We ran it on a 386DX-40, with a motherboard that had 40 MHz bus.
It ran fine with 16 MB of RAM, though the HDD was constantly "being probed". The HDD light did light up almost per every second.

It was my dad's office PC, for programming and going online with a Trust Communicator modem (33k6 I think).
To be fair, a lot of the software was Windows 3.1 software, also. That was normal at the time, when 95 was young.
He had that ancient 20" fixed-frequency monitor, hooked to a Trident ISA card, via VGA to BNC cable.

Looking back, I think that Windows 95 still wasn't entirely happy with 16 MB of RAM.
Real minimum was 32 MB, rather. At that point, it might have stopped swapping to disk. Edit: Which is kinda funny/ironic, since whole installation takes up about 40MB of HDD space! 🥲
- Gratefully, Windows 98S eventually had gotten better memory-managment.

Alas, who had the means to install that amount on a 386 motherboard?
1 and 4 MB 30 pin SIMMs were still widely used at the time, but 8 MB SIMMs? 😥
The 386 board was a very compact model with AMI BIOS and just 4 SIMM slots, if memory serves, rather than 8. And 128 KB of cache, I believe.

Anyway, the 386 itself processor wasn't at fault, I think.
Once loaded, all programs were very responsive, no freezes.
I think I merely saw a bluescreen about 3-4 times on that PC over the years.

Of course, 486 notebook users with 4 MB of RAM might say otherwise.
I remember how Win95 RTM was being used on such systems in mid-90s.
And that wasn't the worst, even. A friend, a class mate, had showed me a 386SL based laptop with floppy drive running Windows 95 on 4 MB of RAM.
On such systems, the poor 2,5" HDD was dying (rattling sound) trying to run Windows 95.
To me, that was the real masochism.

Edit:

CharlieFoxtrot wrote on 2025-03-27, 20:28:

Jo22 wrote on 2025-03-27, 05:07:

In the mid-90s when we had Windows 95 (RTM) at home,
many if not most people here in my neighborhood still had used existing 386/486 PCs from Windows 3.1 era.
486 PCs with VESA Local Bus were still high-end PCs everyone wanted to have.

Not true where I live in my experience, although 486s probably still sold decently in 1995. I got current, but not top end Pentium (90MHz which I OCd to 120MHz, Intel Zappa MB, 16MB, 850MB HDD, 4xCDROM, S3 868, SB16) in autumn 1995. All my friends who were into PCs were also shifting from 386 or 486 systems to Pentiums those days.

Hi, I think that's because you and your friends were not normal people.

..as computer users, I mean. You were into video games, I mean. 😉
- At the time, the term "computer freak" was still in use by laymen!

The people I knew were not really video game fans.
Except for those of my age. But they had played on a Nintendo or Mega Drive, rather.
The family PC wasn't theirs in most cases. If they had a PC, it was "the old one".

Same goes for TVs. Some kids in the 90s here had owned small 1970s/1980s colour TVs with a lone aerial jack. Or worse, a camping TV.
To connect their NES to, so the TV in the living room remained free for the parents.

Bear with me, we were young at the time.
Not yet 17+ teenagers with a holyday job and an own income.
That's why it all reads so odd, I suppose. 😅

Today, TVs are so cheap that even 9 years old have their 48" TV in bed room, with their playstation.
But back in the 80s and early 90s, it was a bit different. Kids got the clunky e-waste.

I was so happy to have a Commodore 1702 video monitor and an old VHS player (mono, top loader; not VCR).
Back then this wasn't luxuray anymore, but also not to be taken for granted.

Often I think my friends and me sorta grew up "between the generations".
At one hand we still remember cassettes and datasettes/homecomputers and 5,25" floppies,
while on other hand CDs and pagers/cellphones weren't special anymore.

-
Here's a description of PCs for 1995, for the UK.
It's a different country, but the situation was similar in my place.

A 486DX2-66 was a "budget"/standard PC. With VLB graphics it was a bit above that, even.

A Pentium 60 to 120, or a 486DX4-100 was considered a "Premium" PC.
Or a hot-rod PC, in other words. But that's not what I was thinking of.

Mortals were still happy about a fast 486 with VLB graphics card, a soundcard/CD-drive and VLB IDE controller..

Edit: Sorry for the long reply, also. I love exchanging experience and discussing things, but got a bit carried away. I'll try to be quieter now again.