My memory is that the 1600 can take 2 gb of ram, even though the specs say otherwise. I put 2 in mine, and it read it. Also, what was your battery life on Win7? Given the single core processor, I would think you'd get better numbers than the 1700 running that OS.
I found the 1600 was great for sketching, surfing, etc. but it did lag if you were going to do anything in an art program for print (i.e. high dpi or canvas size), as well as on the sophisticated brushes (like watercolor). For these things, the 1700 has shown marked improvement. Beyond that, the 1600 was great, and has better viewing angles than most 1700s (because of the switch to non-hydis screens for a while). It was just as good at doing most normal low-usage processes as the 1700, for half the price, a better screen, and a bit less weight (.2 lbs). It's amazing to me that these computers are 3-5 years old. Way ahead of their time!