Windows 3.1 was pretty light though. It did indeed start up pretty fast because it simply didn't do much. Remember a DOS PC had almost no startup time besides the BIOS Self-Test so there was some expectation to fulfill as well. With 95 and even more so 98 it really started becoming a thing.

The LCD looks amazing though for 1993. Where I lived we didn't see those appear until much later in the 90s and they didn't have that much contrast (they were still very crappy DSTN panels). In 1994 I worked for a computer shop that sold packard bell among others (mainly their own brands) and we didn't have LCDs until much later. I have seen this Philips 150S LCD later but not in 1994. According to ChatGPT the 150S is from 2002 but I can't find a source link so take it with a grain of salt :)

And at work we didn't get LCDs until 2004-2005! At that time I worked in a callcenter and we used to throw stress balls at each other which we had to stop when the LCDs arrived due to an unfortunate accident.

Don't know if this is /s or not, but for me it seems fast, but not extremely so.

My PC from '92, a 386 with 4Mb RAM was a bit slower, but not much. Boot took about a minute, including RAM test. Once in windows 3.1, bigger programs took long to start, but I presume that's mostly RAM limited.

This machine was very powerfull. 16Mb was huge and pentiums were rare.

My biggest slowdown was win95 on I think a cyrix 6x86 with 16Mb. But win95 was such a leap forward that we tolerated it.

SSD's brought us vack to this era of startup speed, and we're quickly regressing again.