🚀 go-pugleaf

I am considering purchasing Windows 3.1, but only if it will run at
a reasonable speed on my existing hardware.  I'm willing to add
things to my machine to speed it up, but can't justify upgrading to
a faster processor at this time.

What I have now:

CompuAdd 316s (80386sx, 16Mhz, 1 Meg RAM, 40 Meg hard drive)
Hyundai VGA monitor (very basic but good display - 480x640???)

I'm very happy with the speed of DOS applications on this machine
(especially compared with the XT I use at work), but am not sure how
much Windows would slow me down.  I am willing to increase the speed
of this system by adding RAM (maximum 4 Meg on motherboard), a
larger hard disk, a video accelerator, QEMM, etc., since I can add
these things gradually as my budget permits.

Primary use of this machine will be about 3 hours/day, with 3/4 of
that time spent on WinWord or a Windows-based PIM (I haven't
selected one yet), with the other 1/4 time running DOS applications
like a PIM called Arriba, and Quicken for my finances.

BTW, this PC has 3 full-size 16 bit expansion slots and 2 half-size
8 bit slots (all free).  I don't have a math coprocessor but could
add one.

Given the above information, am I likely to spend a lot of time
waiting for WIndows if I try to run it on my PC?  I'm willing to
sacrifice some productivity for the sake of being able to run some
of the Windows applications that don't have a DOS equivalent, but I
don't want to spend too much time sitting and waiting.  I realize
this is a subjective thing, but please give me your best opinion
about whether you would opt for Windows in my case, given that
upgrading to a 486 isn't an option right now and I have to invest in
either the DOS or Windows versions of a couple of business
applications very soon.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

- Chris