> It would go on to run Windows 3.0, Windows 95, early Linux

That feels like a stretch :) Maybe it indeed ran on it, but Pentium was available when Windows 95 was released and it was probably far more likely to be sold along with such new Pentium multimedia machines, than someone getting it for their old 386. But Windows 3.11 was its exact match!

As somebody that was around at the time, this is not at all a stretch.

First, Linux was created FOR the 386. Linus Torvalds had one and wanted to unlock its power.

As you say, Windows 3.0 is certainly no stretch.

That leaves only Windows 95. The minimum spec at launch was a 386 with 4 MB of RAM. Realistically, you needed 8 MB to do anything.

Here is an article from 1993 saying that manufactures are beginning to drop the 386 from their product lines. That is, this is when people stopped being able to buy 386 machines brand new.

https://books.google.com/books/about/InfoWorld.html?id=2zsEA...

The 486 was the dominant chip in 1993 but there were still a lot of 386 machines being sold to that point when.

When Windows 95 shipped, people would certainly have been trying to run it on those machines.

When Windows 95 was released, people famously lined up to buy it like they were getting tickets to a rock concert. It was not just sold with new hardware. Back then, it was normal for people to pay money to buy a new operating system to run on hardware they already owned.

Of course Windows 95 certainly helped sell Pentiums. Pentium would have dominated new sales but a typical PC in service in 1995 would have been a 486 and there were still plenty of 386 machines in use.

A lot of (older than me) enthusiasts I knew got an MSDN subscription even though they weren't really developing apps for Windows. This gave them a steady stream of OS releases on CD-ROMs, officially for testing their fictional apps. So, they were often upgrading one or more systems many times rather than buying new machines with a bundled new OS.

Personally, yeah, I had Windows 3.0/3.11 on a 386. I think I may have also put an early Windows NT (beta?) release on it, borrowing someone's MSDN discs. Not sure I had got value from it except seeing the "pipes" software OpenGL screensaver. Around '93-94, I started using Linux, and after that it was mostly upgrading hardware in my Linux Box(en) of Theseus.

I remember my college roommate blowing his budget upgrading to a 180 MHz Pentium Pro, and he put Windows 95 on it. I think that was the first time I heard the "Start me up!" sound from an actual computer instead of a TV ad.

After that, I only encountered later Windows versions if they were shipped on a laptop I got for work, before I wiped it to install Linux. Or eventually when I got an install image to put Windows in a VM. (First under VMware, later under Linux qemu+kvm.)

Windows 95 was Microsoft's biggest commercial hit at that point. Selling 40m copies in its first year.

There's no doubt that it went in to upgrade plenty of 386s/486s until the owners upgraded their hardware.

> Maybe it indeed ran on it, but Pentium was available when Windows 95 was released and it was probably far more likely to be sold along with such new Pentium multimedia machines, than someone getting it for their old 386.

I was definitely running Linux on a 486. I even had a big bulky laptop back then but I don't remember what CPU it had: I was running Linux on it too. And my 486 was sharing it's (dial-up, 28.8 or 33.6) Internet connection to the laptop using the PLIP protocol (IP over a parallel cable): I set that up and my brother and I were discovering the Web at the same time. Fun memories.

The jump was not 386 to Pentium. The 486 had its glory days.

I was just trying to give a bit of historical context, but apparrently need to be more precise next time! 386 is the beginning of 32 bit. But it's mainly the pentium and 486 that ran Windows 95.