up vote 4 down vote favorite
1
share [g+] share [fb]

This is my PC configuration, Should I upgrade my Windows XP to Windows 7. Currently I'm using Windows XP SP3 32 bit. Now will I get same performance or better performance or bad performance if I install Windows 7 on this system?

Or would sticking with XP be better?

Memory (RAM):       1472 MB DDR RAM  (not DDR 2)
CPU Info:           AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 2500+
CPU Speed:          1398.7 MHz
Sound card:         Vinyl AC'97 Audio (WAVE)
Display Adapters:   VIA/S3G UniChrome Pro IGP | NetMeeting driver | RDPDD Chained DD
Network Adapters:   Bluetooth Device (Personal Area Network) | WAN (PPP/SLIP) Interface
Hard Disks:         300 GB SATA HDD
Manufacturer:       Phoenix Technologies, LTD
Product Make:       MS-7142
AC Power Status:    OnLine
BIOS Info:          AT/AT COMPATIBLE | 01/18/06 | VIAK8M - 42302e31
Motherboard:        MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD MS-7142
Modem:              ZTE USB Modem FFFE CDMA :
link|improve this question
45% accept rate
I would suggest checking the specs listed on the M$ website... – marcusw Feb 26 '10 at 16:40
feedback

10 Answers

up vote 9 down vote

Download this to check if it's fully compatible.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1B544E90-7659-4BD9-9E51-2497C146AF15&displaylang=en

Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor

Brief Description: Download and run the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor to see if your PC is ready for Windows 7. It scans your hardware, devices, and installed programs for known compatibility issues, gives you guidance on how to resolve potential issues found, and recommends what to do before you upgrade.

But yes, you should install it, I use it and it's better than every other OS I used.

link|improve this answer
Even if the processor is not the best one, I'd rather install Windows 7 instead of Vista! That's for sure! – r0ca Feb 26 '10 at 16:50
my question is not "can i install", it's "should i install" or should stay with XP – metal gear solid Feb 26 '10 at 16:55
Yhea yhea ok... same thing. My answer is YES! And also, check if it's fully compatible. – r0ca Feb 26 '10 at 17:03
If he gets decent results from the upgrade advisor, he should definitely throw XP in the garbage can. Otherwise, stick with XP until you get a newer machine. – MetalMikester Feb 26 '10 at 19:57
if upgrade advisor passes all the things but still would it be a good decision to upgrade to Windows 7 with 1.5 GB DDR-I ram? Will i get any performance improvements. – metal gear solid Feb 27 '10 at 7:57
feedback
up vote 5 down vote

Yeah, Windows 7. Besides the eye candy, it is more secure, arguably more stable, and has a longer support life going forward. Additionally, there are usability features that i think are big wins. All this can be argued, but Windows 7 is not a junky upgrade. I went from XP Pro to Windows 7. Never installed Vista, but i'm glad to have W7--just bought the final versions to replace the RC versions i had installed on two systems.

Your MS-7124/K8MM-V motherboard supports some upgrades. Maybe get a fresh 2GB of RAM for it and pick up an Athlon 64. Bumping the graphics card would help too. But these are relatively cheap upgrades.

Case in point: i had W7 on a four year old laptop (Dell 9300) with 1 GB RAM. It was usable but there was some HDD thrashing. Upgrading to 2 GB RAM ($64) made a huge difference. Much better than XP.

link|improve this answer
I don't play games on my PC should i buy Graphic card just for Windows 7 I just need Windows classic theme in windows 7 i don't need cool wallpaper and theme. – metal gear solid Feb 27 '10 at 5:50
1  
@Jitendra - no you don't need a fancy new Graphic Card for W7. The reason i suggested it is some of the UI improvements use any available GPU features. If you install W7 it will pick an appropriate UI feature set. From there it's easy to experiment with enabling/disabling features to see what you prefer. The most helpful upgrade for you will be 2 GB RAM or CPU, then video card. If your HDD is 5400 RPM, an upgrade to a 7200 RPM model will speed things up noticeably. – bill weaver Feb 27 '10 at 7:33
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

I would stick with XP. You can install '7 on that machine, but for what. They look nicer, yeah, but apart from that, they don't offer anything you cannot do with XP. So why bother ? All you can get is a new load of problems (which take time, which you could spend doing something else).

link|improve this answer
3  
+1 for advocating the truth. Microsoft are a regressive company. They hit their technology peak late-90s. Everything since then has not been about innovation but about restriction and regression. – PP. Feb 26 '10 at 17:17
5  
@Idigas, No downvote, but W7 is more than eye candy. It will have longer support life going forward, is more secure, and has usability improvements. I resisted and argued against upgrading from XP to Vista, but W7 is a worthy upgrade if a system can support it. If you have or can install at least 2 GB it runs fine. – bill weaver Feb 26 '10 at 19:55
5  
@ldigas:Have you even USED Windows 7? And I do mean used it. Anyway, I'm not into voting down but, damn... 7 is light years ahead of XP. – MetalMikester Feb 26 '10 at 19:56
1  
@bill weaver - 'tis true, but for an average user, it doesn't really offer anything new. I'm running xp, with no updates whatsoever, no anti-virus,malware, anti-anything really, and they work fine. Never had any security problems or any similar ones. So tell me, apart from the eyecandy, what do w7 offer me ? Longer support life ? Maybe. But then again, I bought a new laptop 3 months ago, and it came with XP drivers for everything. So, why bother ? (it's a machine connected to the net 100% time) – ldigas Feb 26 '10 at 20:09
2  
@Idigas - i think this boils down to preference and approach to things. Some folks think the usability enhancements are actually enhancements that make for a more productive experience, but of course some people don't care or have 3rd party utilities that do similar tasks. I'm typing this on XP at the moment and am not suffering, but i rather enjoy W7 on my systems running it. W7 is more secure for most users, though i haven't had security problems with XP (safe computing!). Your mileage obviously differs, but i have to insist that W7 is better for most people. – bill weaver Feb 26 '10 at 21:37
show 6 more comments
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

The only reason that I would change an OS on a computer that was more than 2 years old is if it was due for a hard drive reformat, etc. I don't think I'd do it for any other reason just in case you run into issues and the experiment becomes a 12 hour install/reinstall/marathon.

If you want a little extra security in the decision to upgrade or peace of mind, check out the Microsoft Upgrade Adviser Tool.

So to answer your question on should you upgrade, I think that it is a good idea, so long as you NEED to reformat your hard disk for any reason.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 2 down vote

This configuration should run Windows 7 just fine EXCEPT for the fact that your S3 graphics probably won't handle Aero very well.

I'd say upgrade to 4 GB of RAM and get a decent graphics card and you should be OK. Also, there are probably lots of Athlon CPUs on eBay that will fit that socket for DIRT CHEAP, so you can replace the Sempron as well.

link|improve this answer
1  
My desktop is at least 5 years old.. but through the years it has had a new video card, new CPU, new motherboard, new RAM, new hard drives. It's like the old spade.. after 15 new handles and 8 new heads how old is it really? – PP. Feb 26 '10 at 17:18
if i don't need AERO then my system ok – metal gear solid Feb 26 '10 at 17:22
@PP - Is that Trigg's moment from 'fools and horses ? :))) youtube.com/watch?v=bk24RdfXWcg – ldigas Feb 26 '10 at 17:25
FWIW, Windows 7 32-bit will only see 3GB of RAM (3.5GB on certain MB but that's more rare and depends on both the MB and any cards installed such as the Graphics card). Upgrading to more than 3GB RAM on a 32-bit machine is a waste of $$$. – Adisak Feb 27 '10 at 0:30
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

Go Ahead, your PC is more configured than most netbooks

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

I run Win7 on my 5 year old Pentium 4 laptop with Radeon Mobility x600 and 2 gig ram and it runs fine for what I use it for (it's my development machine). Now I wouldn't have done it if this was a gaming machine. I would have left it as XP in that case.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

Windows 7 would run adequately on that machine, with the exception of Aero, and there are some real advantages not only in the user interface and security.

However, my advice would be not to upgrade a three year old machine and instead put the money you would have spent upgrading toward getting a new computer.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

With 1.5 GB RAM? Forget it, unless you increase it to 3.5 GB because Windows XP sees only 3.5 out of 4 GB Ram due to 32-bit limitations. Also, have a high rpm harddrive like 7200 and a good graphics card. This should do it.

Also, run the Windows 7 Upgrade advisor provided to you from Microsoft to see what you are up against.

link|improve this answer
feedback
up vote 0 down vote

Hate to go against the flow here... But with my experience of Sempron's I'd give a ** DEFINITE NO!**

That processor is much older than 3 years.

The Sempron I've previously used where slow on XP nevermind Vista... Havn't seen one run 7, but I can't imagine it'd be anywhere near as fast as XP... Not without lots disabled - no Aero etc.

6 years ago I was installing new machines and the low end where Sempron 2800's. They where budget then... And that processor is faster rated than yours! My only experience since has been with a Sempron 3500+ (AM2) and I wouldn't consider that 'quick' in Vista...

Source

"Palermo" (Socket 754, D0, E3 & E6, 90 nm)
All models support: MMX, SSE, SSE2, Enhanced 3DNow!, NX bit
Cool'n'Quiet supported by: 3000+ and higher models

Model Number - Sempron 2500+ Frequency - 1400 MHz
L2-Cache - 256 KB
HyperTransport - 800 MHz
Mult 2 - 7x
Voltage - 1.40 V
TDP - 62 W
Release Date - July 7, 2005
Part Number(s) - SDA2500AIO3BX

link|improve this answer
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown
discard

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.