Windows XP Pro 32 bit to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit Upgrade

Windows XP Pro 32 bit to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit Upgrade

I have three Windows XP Pro PC’s which need to be upgraded to Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.

All three PC’s are used for web surfing, minor office applications, web video streaming (usually not HD video). NO GAMING at all.

PC#1:

ASUS Motherboard (M3N78 PRO)(Year '2008')(AMD Quad Core CPU). ASUS has all needed Windows 7 64 bit drives/software.

Current RAM: 2 X 1 GB DDR2 1066 (Exactly the same RAM (Make & Model Number) is still being sold.)
Motherboard RAM Specs: DDR2 1066/800/667 ECC/Non ECC, unbuffered, 8 GB Maximum, 4 Memory Slots

The price of 8 GB (2 X 4 GB or 4 X 2 GB) of RAM is Extremely High.

Options:

1. Buy two (2) more of what I have and fill all four of the memory slots with exactly the same memory (4 X 1 GB)($45 delivered).

2. Buy 2 X 2 GB of DDR2 1066 and replace what I have ($69 delivered).

3. Buy 2 X 2 GB of DDR2 1066 and add to what I have making a total of 6 GB ($69 delivered). I would try to balance the way they are installed, but I may still get a reduction of performance because of the dual channels.

Which of the above memory Options would you select?

PC #2:

Intel Motherboard (DQ965GF)(Year '2006')(Core 2 Duo CPU). Sufficient drivers seem to be available with the only resolvable issue being reported (web forums) is making sure that an Intel Management driver is installed to get rid of a device not being recognized by Windows 7.

RAM: 4 GB (4 memory slots total). Not much can be done with memory upgrade (maybe). The hardware specifications say 4 GB Total if the memory is DDR2 800. If you install the Maximum of 8 GB of memory it has to be DDR2 533.

The plan is to live with the current 4 GB of memory and do the upgrade in the near future (Before Windows XP Support Stops).

PC#3:

ASUS Motherboard (M2N-E)(Year '2006')(Dual Core AMD CPU)(2 GB of memory).

It is reported that this motherboard will ‘probably’ work with Windows 7, but I have my doubts. I will probably upgrade the motherboard, CPU and memory before installing Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit.

Does anyone have any comments on my plans?

Thanks in Advance.

 

The one you are worried about is HERE. According to their drivers selection Vista 64 is the highest OS supported where they directly give you the drivers that you need.

My advise would be to buy only 2 Windows 7 disks and an extra hard drive. Put the new hard drive into the oldest system and install 7 WITHOUT ACTIVATING. That way if you cant get the drivers working though alternate means you are not stuck having burned a key. If it does work, buy a 3rd key for this system.

IMO replacing the MOBO, ram and CPU will cost more than a far superior used PC.

 

TheKid7,

I think it will be a waste of money for little or nil performance gain. I'd keep WinXP and I wouldn't be overly concerned about no further Windows Updates next year. The OS will still work.

Put your saved money towards a new computer and the latest OS, when the time is right.

 

For a PC#3 upgrade, the following looks reasonable ($262 or $232, if I order before the rebate and promo code expire.):

Motherboard:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131993

CPU:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116950

Memory:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231428

I have always liked the idea of having an Intel Core i5 CPU, but I cannot justify the cost after reading the User Feedback Reviews for the Intel Pentium G3220 Haswell 3.0GHz LGA 1150 54W Dual-Core Desktop Processor.

I just got an EMail from NewEgg with a memory promo code (memory) which will get me another $7 off if I order before tomorrow night. That would make the total cost about $225.

 

I vehemently disagree with that and personally feel that is unwise advice and unsound logic.

The problem is NOT whether the OS will continue to work or not - it will. It will not suddenly stop working. The problem is Microsoft will stop providing security updates after April 8, 2014 for any newly discovered vulnerabilities. And there are already rumors in many security circles about vulnerabilities discovered but NOT reported - or yet exploited. And that badguys have already developed malicious code to exploit those vulnerabilities but are waiting to release them into the "wild" until after April 8th.

Now granted, anti-malware makers will likely continue to update their signature files (for a little while) but those are always done "after the fact" - that is, after the malicious code is discovered on infected systems. BUT it must be noted that security apps depend on Microsoft patches to provide full protection to vulnerabilities.

Note Symantec/Norton reports:

McAfee reports,

It cost money to support multiple operating systems. And anti-malware makers sure don't want to get blamed for failing to protect XP systems. So they all want users to move off the antiquated, 12 year old legacy OS and it will not be long before they all stop providing support for XP.

After April 8, my advice is to disconnect any remaining XP systems from your networks - if for no other reason than to keep that system from becoming a threat to the rest of us.

If you still want to use the hardware, upgrade to a modern OS. If not in the budget, or the hardware will not support a modern OS (no drivers) switch to one of the many Linux alternatives.

I recommend you run Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor on all your systems before attempting to upgrade. A big "clue" as to whether hardware will support W7 or not is if the maker has provided W7 drivers for it on their websites. If it does not have at least Vista drivers, then it is probably best to just retire the hardware.

 

I ran the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor on PC#3. The only thing that seemed like a possible problem is the SoundMAX On-Board audio driver/application. ASUS has both 32 bit and 64 bit SoundMAX audio drivers for Windows Vista, but not for Windows 7.

 

Well, frankly while many have had total success installing a modern OS on legacy hardware, many have not. And for sure, all the installed software must be supported by the new OS too.

I never migrated to Vista because of all the problems. So I took the expensive option to replace all my XP systems and built all new when W7 came out. While it was hard on the budget, I have no regrets. I have since upgraded some of those W7 system to W8 and fortunately, there were no compatibility issues there.

 

Why don't you throw an LTS Linux distro on 1 or more of these instead?

I see the word Linux in your sig already.

 

I just ran the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor on the other two PC's:

PC#1:

RealTek HD Audio was flagged as the only issue. However, this is not an issue since ASUS has Windows 7 64 bit drivers available for download.

PC#2:

IDT High Definition Audio Codec was flagged as the only issue. There is a Windows Vista 64 bit driver available for download from Intel. I have seen reports of people using this driver with Windows 7. My plan is to do a clean install upgrade on PC#2 and use the Windows Vista 64 bit driver. If there remains an Audio issue, I plan to turn off the on-board audio in the BIOS, then buy and install a budget PCI Sound Card.

PC#3:

I am still leaning towards a Motherboard, CPU, Memory Upgrade. I could get by with turning off the on-board audio in the BIOS and installing a budget PCI Sound Card. However, I have an existing 128 GB SSD available and PC#3 is my slowest performing Windows PC.

 

Would Option #3 make the PC slower than Option #2? If not, how would you balance the installation of the different size RAM?

Also, would Option #2 make the PC any faster than Option #1?

Thanks in Advance.

 

Probably no need to turn it off in the BIOS. When you install the new card and its drivers (if not automatically recognized and installed) the system should move to the card and may automatically disable in the BIOS. In any case, no harm if left enabled.

 

I checked some of the PassMark CPU Benchmarks:

PC#1:

AMD Phenom 9850 Quad Core
CPU Benchmark: 2936
CPU Ranking: 502

PC#2:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 Dual Core
CPU Benchmark: 1112
CPU Ranking: 1084

PC#3:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Dual Core
CPU Benchmark: 940
CPU Ranking: 1181

Proposed Budget Upgrade CPU for PC#3 (CPU Cost: $60):

Intel Pentium G3220
CPU Benchmark: 3159
CPU Ranking: 462

Proposed Non-Budget Upgrade CPU for PC#3 (CPU Cost: $150):

Intel Core i3 4330
CPU Benchmark: 4925
CPU Ranking: 234

Proposed Non-Budget Upgrade CPU for PC#3 (CPU Cost: $190):

Intel Core i5 4440
CPU Benchmark: 6409
CPU Ranking: 154

It is really hard to justify getting anything higher than the Intel Pentium G3220 for PC#3 since I can currently get by with the AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Dual Core.

The reason that I listed the Intel Core i3 4330 and the Intel Core i5 4440 is that they are the least expensive Intel Core i3 & i5 CPU's which have the Intel HD Graphics 4600.

 

I am committed to start working on the Upgrade of PC#1. I just ordered the additional RAM. I decided to go with the 2 X 2 GB of new RAM. I plan to place the 2 sticks of 2 GB in one memory channel and the 2 sticks of 1 GB in the other memory channel. That will give me a Total of 6 GB of memory. All of the RAM is the same manufacturer, same timings and same latency.

I also ordered the 2 X 4 GB of RAM for the PC#3 hardware upgrade.

 

My current PC#3’s ASUS EN7300LE/HTD/128M (GeForce 7300LE) PCIE-X16 video card should work fine with the new ASUS Motherboard which has PCIE-X16 3.0. ASUS has Windows 7 64 bit drivers for this video card. The current performance of the video card is acceptable for all of my needs. However, I decided to look at some of the video card benchmarks.

GeForce 7300LE - 55 (Existing Video Card)
Intel HD Family - 306
Intel HD 4600 - 597
GeForce GT 630 - 720 (‘Budget’ PCIE-X16 2.0 Video Card (~$69))

I have always liked the idea of having a dedicated video card. Only PC#2 uses on-board video (Intel Graphics). I will give this some consideration.

 

I also share this view. I have 3 notebooks on XP which are 8,6,5 years old, their hardware is too old to invest anything new on them. I also think that, in my case anyway, using virtualization and sandboxing technology systematically for every session, I can't see how malware would be able to do any damage, even without security patches. Of course activities like purchasing online would be done on my Vista or Windows 8 machine.

 

Well, that's pretty much a moot point since notebook hardware, even with new notebooks is near impossible to upgrade anyway. Typically all you can upgrade is RAM. If the notebook maker has not provided driver and BIOS upgrades to support a modern OS, upgrading will be impossible.

That will buy you some time but not indefinitely. You must not and cannot assume the developers of your virtualization and sandboxing software will continue to support XP. In fact, since we already know Microsoft and security program makers will stop providing patches and updates, you should assume they will stop too!

That is being wise but I fear others will not be.

That said, CLEARLY you are not normal! That is, you are not a normal XP user as the vast majority have no clue what virtualization and sandboxing are. Only advanced users with considerable knowledge of computer and networking security stand a good chance at remaining uncompromised with Windows XP, and advanced users are a minority.

Virtual Insider, XP End of Life

As noted in that article, we must not lose sight of the fact even the most secure corporate and government networks and computers across the globe are being compromised. And they have teams of highly educated, trained and experienced eggheads on staff whose sole responsibility is to keep those networks and computers from being hacked. Are you (speaking to the crowd of XP users) smarter than them? For sure, XP is already a huge target and as noted here, "Anyone still on the OS can expect an onslaught of malware after April 8th, 2014."

Considering a brand new Windows 8 HP Notebook can be had for $300, or a refurbished PC with W7 or W8 or less than $200, is the risk really worth it?

 

I agree. I don't understand when the talk is to throw $200-$500 of parts into an older computer.

 

Well, people don't like to get rid of things that still work but with ever advancing technologies, it is a way of life. How many of us have replaced perfectly good CRT monitors or TVs with LCD models?

 

So true . . . LOL
I used my Flatron CRT Monitor for almost 10 years until it died. I would have kept using it if it didnt die.
And i still miss it, great viewing angles, just about the right brightness for all conditions. My current $150 LG LCD monitor has crappy viewing angles, colors are not as accurate and its too bright at night.

 

I have my Samsung SyncMaster 957MB 19" CRT that I bought in 2003 (I think) and still use it today

 

When it died last year, i was looking for another CRT but they basically dont exist LOL. Had to get an LCD with washed out colors, crappy viewing angles and too bright.

Yeah i know there are good LCD monitors but they were out of my budget, my CRT cost me $140 new and was very good compared to this LCD.

 

Yes they're nice. Now, not to go even more offtopic with the CRT talk. But this one is said to be one of the best:http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Sony-GDM-FW900-24-Widescreen-CRT-Monitor-/52108670

Unfortunately they're not cheap....if you ever find one for sale that is because they are rare these days.

 

What would you comment on a Windows Experience Index of 6.6 on the following setup? I have never looked at the Windows Experience Index before.

Intel G3220
MSI H87-G43
Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB DDR3 1600
Sandisk 64GB ssd

Someone who purchased the Intel G3220 CPU recently commented that he was very happy with the performance of the Intel G3220. The above setup is what he is using.

I am trying to decide whether to go "cheap" or get an Intel Core i5.