It's a relatively recent CPU (around 2010) , you shouldn't have problems, a SSD will change your life anyway, worth to buy one.
Sure you can. I did it on two Asus EeePC 1000HE Netbooks. Both came with XP; all I did was up the RAM to 2GB and install the latest BIOS. Worked perfectly both times.
The Asus EeePC 1000HE Netbook has a 1.6 GHz ATOM N270 CPU. About 4 years ago I had a Samsung netbook with one of those CPU's that I upgraded to 2 GB ram that I put XP on because it was too slow for Windows 7. It came with XP and I tried 7 but put XP back on it. So with Windows 10, it would probably only be usable with Defender, Cortana and every other possible thing disabled, no antivirus, or any other startup programs. And 2 to 4 media-rich tabs, or 8 text based web page tabs open in the browser. If facebook is opened in one of those tabs, then two tabs max. And then to run Gimp, Photoshop, or Office, you'd have to close the browser unless you don't mind taking a coffee break for everything to swap out to disk. But I bet it gets great battery life.
You have no idea about what are you saying. I'm still running W8.1 on a tablet built in 2003, and thanks to a SSD it runs W81 better today than XP tablet edition in the AD 2003. W10 is not any slower than W81, I'm not running it because no one (yet) has posted the patch to skip the CPU requirements, as happened for W8 and W81 Aside tat none of my notebooks is built after 2010/2011 because the 16/10 display (I don't mind to buy an idiotic notebook ruined by a 16/9 screen) and all of them are working blazing fast, even when running heavier tasks like virtualization.
Since 2009 I have a Sony notebook VPCW11S1E (Atom N280, 1 GB Ram, 160 GB disk) running XP home. First I upgraded to W8/W81 after clean install (never tried W7). Windows update found working drivers. Only one issue : the camera driver. Problem solved after using the generic MS camera driver. I upgraded the ram (2 GB) and upgraded to W10. With W8 and W10 performance wasn't very good, but after replacing the HDD with an SSD performance is correct.
Unless the system was upgraded from 9x or ME, or was a custom install, why would it be FAT32? While XP, Vista, and 7 support booting FAT32, it requires a custom install or booting from within 9x (including ME) for an upgrade install. If you're concerned about cluster wasteage, you can still do a custom install, but use NTFS and 512-byte clusters (NTFS' smallest supported cluster size). (Yes - Windows 10 - and even Windows Server - support that option.)