Good idea to install Win7 on an old computer

[XXXWesXXX]

I installed 7 on my older computer that is a 2004 model, has 512MB RAM, 32MB Intel gpu, 2.9Ghz Pentium4, etc, it ran BETTER than XP by far, very surprising. And I'm still using 7 on it right now.

[Fish]

My laptop:

Celeron M 1200Mhz

768mb RAM (4mb reserved for video)

30gb hard drive

Windows 7 runs surprisingly well, considering, on this hardware. The real issue for me is the Intel video chipset, which is not supported in 7, so I'm having to use the standard VGA driver. The effect of this is noticeable. Also, I can't scroll with the touchpad. Other than that, it's a very useable OS on this computer.

But XP works much better.

I'm of the mind that the best OS for any computer is probably the one that was prominent when the machine was made. This is an XP-era laptop, and I have found XP to be the best experience on it. To me, it's common sense. YMMV.

[jonhapimp]

an remote control is stronger than my video card

[Udedenkz]

I'll try to get some benchmarks, but no XP ones as I don't think any of my friends has it installed nowadays.

That wouldn't really work as I do not have one of those at home or something similar to compare against and thus it would be just a waste of time as I see it anyway. :/

[Beau Bridges]

I'd go with XP, as it doesn't use Aero and will be more appropriate for your specific hardware.

[+shift. MVC]

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry591028114

warwagon installing Windows 7 on a Pentium II 400MHz. Suffice to say it doesn't run very well at all (barely usable actually) but it does run.

You HAVE to realize that a Pentium Dual Core is NOT a Core 2 Duo!!

And UMPCs can be used with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Vista or 7. What usability issue?

And what you're saying is different than saying that Firefox is a heavy application. The websites can be heavy, it's not the application in itself that's heavy.

But as I already said. Windows 7 shouldn't be tried on a P3 anyhow. It would run great on a Pentium 4 and above machine though.

A "Pentium Dual Core E2200" is not a Core 2 Duo by naming convention, but architecturally (in the electronics world, not the "real" one) speaking it's just a Core 2 Duo with less (1MB to be specific) cache.

[jonhapimp]

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry591028114

warwagon installing Windows 7 on a Pentium II 400MHz. Suffice to say it doesn't run very well at all (barely usable actually) but it does run.

A "Pentium Dual Core E2200" is not a Core 2 Duo by naming convention, but architecturally (in the electronics world, not the "real" one) speaking it's just a Core 2 Duo with less (1MB to be specific) cache.

yeah but the OP has an different processor so it would run fine

[Aero_Rising]

you CAN get a better computer than that's processor is better than P3

www.ebay.com

or better

http://computers.shop.ebay.com/items/Deskt...d=p3286.c0.m301

you don't have to get the best but you can get better for under 50

lol all the ones in there have less ram than my old one and ram that is that old is actually pretty expensive and the ones that aren't like that are p3s so you just proved yourself wrong.

[gaurav]

It seems like a good idea to give Win 7 a try..... if things don't turn out well I can always go back

But because of so many of your positive experiences, I doubt I'll have any trouble with it, besides, I'm only going to use this machine for light work....nothing hardcore.

About the Mobility Radeon 9200: be forewarned that the XP drivers cause Windows 7 to BSOD on shutdown. I managed to find a XDDM driver for my older computer's Radeon 9200 and it works. If you still plan on installing Windows 7 on your laptop I can forward the link to you.

Otherwise, Windows 7 will run rather well, but not tremendously slower/faster than XP. Even on this Radeon 9200 Windows Media Center is just as fancy as on more powerful desktops :p

I'd really appreciate that, thanks!

Once again, thank you all for your inputs ;)

[PGHammer]

Uhm, I just did it to see what it would be like and so I could post my 0.9 experience index to the EI thread as a joke, not to actually use it. Same reason I did it on my Athlon XP 2500+. In case you're wondering, XP ran better on that too. I know you're going to counter this with a "nowai!!! 7 is a super-duper-ultra-awesome OS and way faster on your awesome Athlon!", but the reality is that it's not and that you're all just deluded cult members. Not quite sure what cult though, as Microsoft itself doesn't claim it's any good for that hardware. Oh well.

As for still having a P3, it's not weird at all. Thousands and thousands of them are in daily use. If all I want to do is control a piece of hardware, I don't need anything more. It's not for everyday use (although it could be, if it hadn't been for the issue of browsers being so heavy these days).

hdood, would a P4 Northwood (specifically, a Northwood-B) with 2 GB of Buffalo Select DDR-400 and HIS Radeon X1650Pro AGP suit you?

It's running Windows 7 (build 7100, the Release Candidate) right now. Prior to that, it was running Vista Ultimate (in fact, it was upgraded from Ultimate). The motherboard itself is of XP (original XP!) vintage (chipset is Intel's 845E) and was purchased as a direct replacement for a Dimension 2400C that had the motherboard head south. The graphics card is, in fact, the second-newest hardware in the computer (I bought it in 2005 and passed it to Mom wqhen I upgraded to LGA775 at Christmas last year); that and the RAM are the only hardware in the computer (besides the DVD burner) bought new (the DVD burner I originally bought Mom for the Dimension in Christmas of 2005). So we're talking pretty much all vintage (and XP vintage at that) parts.

Some caveats: the graphics card, while AGP, is Aero capable (in fact, it's better in terms of desktop/business graphics performance than the HD3450 I have in my computer today; however, the HD3450, despite the mere 256 MB of DDR2 onboard, eats the X1K series part's lunch in terms of gaming performance). It's using, at best, drivers included with the operating system (or drivers developed originally for Vista; there are no X1K series drivers for Windows 7, for example). So why is it that it runs better under 7 than it did under Vista? (Remember, I upgraded from Vista.)

[PGHammer]

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry591028114

warwagon installing Windows 7 on a Pentium II 400MHz. Suffice to say it doesn't run very well at all (barely usable actually) but it does run.

A "Pentium Dual Core E2200" is not a Core 2 Duo by naming convention, but architecturally (in the electronics world, not the "real" one) speaking it's just a Core 2 Duo with less (1MB to be specific) cache.

True. However, there is at least one Windows 7 PC (mine) with even less processor (Celeron DC E1200) and I've run pretty much *only* 64-bit Windows 7 builds (except for briefly running a 32-bit build for performance delta comparisons, I have stayed with 64-bit builds for daily usage). In fact, until last Monday, I had a mere gigabyte of RAM installed (and I did everything from playing Burnout Paradise to running Office on it). So processor strength (or weakness) is no real barometer; considering that I've gone from 1 GB to 3 GB (changed nothing else), it's even less of a barometer. (To further bang home how little of a barometer it is, the Celeron DC E1200 has as much on-die cache, despite the two physical cores, as the P4 Northwood B or C (which added HyperThreading Technology). In fact, the E1200 and P5N-EM it's mounted in directly replaced, in the same case, a P4 Northwood-C clocked at the same speed, mounted in ASUS' P4C800-E Deluxe; except for the memory, graphics card, and PSU, which is rated for the same wattage as the one it replaced, I'm using all the same parts. Yes; I'm saying that the Celeron is severely overclocked.)

[Xstyle]

I recommend XP SP3. I am using win 7--dual boot xp sp3 on AMD Athlon 64, 2000 MHz (10 x 200) 3000+, Motherboard Name:ECS 755-A2 (5 PCI, 1 AGP, 1 CNR, 2 DDR DIMM, Audio, LAN), System Memory:768 MB (DDR SDRAM), Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 (128 MB) and i must say Win 7 works good...but comparring with XP SP3, well XP runs and Seven walks!

In conclusion use XP SP3!

[hdood]

hdood, would a P4 Northwood (specifically, a Northwood-B) with 2 GB of Buffalo Select DDR-400 and HIS Radeon X1650Pro AGP suit you?

Not sure what you mean. I haven't said anything about Vista, and I'm not surprised at all that 7 runs better on that machine than Vista did. Does it perform better and use less resources than XP would on that machine though? Unlikely. Does it actually have to? Not if you're happy with how it runs.

[neufuse Veteran]

Uh, the Core 2 Duo is about a year and a half old. It is not an old processor. It is a modern, fast multicore 64-bit processor (albeit with a small cache). The graphics card is a ~2 year old DX10 card, also pretty powerful. A Pentium 4/M or Athlon XP with a DX7/8 card can be considered old, but nothing used in these tests.

Low-end maybe, but not necessarily old. The two do not mean the same. I already commented on the UMPC though, and how it is likely not very usable in the real world compared with XP.

Yes it is. A single webpage can easily contain over 150 images, have tons of markup, run javascript, have 3-4 Flash animations. This is very resource-heavy. You have to remember that I was talking in terms of a P3 with half a gig of RAM, not a modern Core 2 Duo machine.

I didn't think the E2200 was a C2D chip... I thought it was an old Pentium D rebranded with a few changes?

[hdood]

I don't think so. I believe all the current Pentiums are just scaled down C2Ds. Probably easier to base the whole range on the same architecture, instead of keeping old stuff around.

[PGHammer]

Not sure what you mean. I haven't said anything about Vista, and I'm not surprised at all that 7 runs better on that machine than Vista did. Does it perform better and use less resources than XP would on that machine though? Unlikely. Does it actually have to? Not if you're happy with how it runs.

The big advantage 7 and Vista bring to the table (and something not many of the pro-XP camp apparently rely on) is stability under multi-tasking load (especially medium to heavy multitasking).

If you don't run many applications, applets, or processes at once, I can see where you won't want to leave an older operating system that does what you need it to.

I personally moved on from XP and Vista because I started running more applications at once,. and needed an operating system that would hold up under the load. I moved from Vista 32-bit to Vista 64-bit for the same reason (increased stability, not necessarily increased speed).

As I've said before: stability, stability, stability.

[deletedxyz]

Which would be better for this system? Win 7 Home or Win XP Media Center?

2.53 Ghz Pentium 4

1 GB Ram

80GB HD

Intel integrated graphics

[Access Denied]

7 should run fine except for graphics. It won't look bad.

[deletedxyz]

7 should run fine except for graphics. It won't look bad.

So it will run as good or even better than using Windows XP on the same computer?

[bbfc_uk]

My dad is using my old laptop - its got a 2Ghz Intel Celeron, 512MB RAM and integrated Intel graphics. It runs Vista very badly, like really bad! Will putting Windows 7 on it be a better idea?

[splur]

Hard to say, although you won't be able to run Aero, I've found that Windows 7 and XP are comparable on older hardware unlike Vista which kills old hardware. At times, Windows 7 actually ran faster than XP on my old desktop and laptop (old P4s), but I'm not sure if it was actually faster or my mind was playing tricks on me.

Give it a shot, it's worth it to find out.

[.tony]

It'll run fine, but no matter which OS you use, more RAM would be good.

[jonhapimp]

My dad is using my old laptop - its got a 2Ghz Intel Celeron, 512MB RAM and integrated Intel graphics. It runs Vista very badly, like really bad! Will putting Windows 7 on it be a better idea?

go 7

[anarkhy]

What everyone is saying is that Vista is a resource hoger, seven is a resource hoger.

[PGHammer]

I didn't think the E2200 was a C2D chip... I thought it was an old Pentium D rebranded with a few changes?

The Pentium Dual Core (like the Celeron Dual Core) is based on a cut-down Core 2 Duo design. The PDC (E2xxx) has twice the onboard cache per core (1 MB vs. 512 KB) as the CDC (E1xxx).

I've seen the Pentium Dual Core, and personally own a Celeron Dual Core (which I bought as a starter CPU for my first voyage to LGA775 from Northwood-C). The PDC and CDC have two major advantages over the true C2Ds they are based on - they are half the price or less, and they overclock like crazy, even using the stock fan. (I'm personally running my E1200 1 GHz over stock clocking (2.67 GHz actual vs. 1.6 GHz stock) on a microATX board so NOT known as an overclocker (ASUS P5N-EM HDMI); how's that for headroom?)

The Pentium D (like the Celeron D) is not based on the Core architecture at all, but did serve as a bridge between Netburst (Williamette and Northwood) and Core. Other than the architecture differences, the Celeron DC is closest to the hyperpopular Northwood-C; however, the dual advantages of a second real core and 64-bit capability (compared to the HyperThreading Technology of the Northwood-C) enable it to thoroughly embarrass the older part even with the Celeron hobbled by half the RAM and clocked stock, let alone with the same amount of RAM and overclocked to Northwood-C speeds.