32 to 64 bit upgrade. How?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ts=&gws_rd=ssl

Above is a Google search for "64-bit advantages". 150,000 hits. Read as much as you care to.

That's where you will find the "technically compelling" reasons.

I did not "bother to upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit". I "bothered" to rebuild my PC in order to get more CPU power, an SSD, and more/faster ports on the motherboard. All of which are much more important to me than any of the advantages of 64-bit.

Given, and it is a given, that I was going to rebuild, there was no reason whatsoever to stay with 32-bit, due to the reasons found in the above 150,000 hits.

That's an entirely different question than the one before you. It's your call whether or not the technically compelling reasons (related to architecture and security) are sufficient to cause you to spend the time required to reinstall.

Reinstalling per se is less than an hour job. But that excludes the many hours it takes to re-install and custom configure dozens of applications, back up data, reload data, update Windows, ad vomitum.

If it's worth it to you, you should get on with it and start tonight. Otherwise, no.

Thanks for the google link.

I read a few of the logs. It seems I am on the right track as far as 64-bit being the choice, generally (except when stuck with some old programs).

I thought I understood most of what I read until I ran into one that has a sentence I do not quite know how to interpret:

"But the 64 bit OS will allow you to use all the memory you put in your system, and perform a lot better because of that" Because I always thought not using up much of available memory is good. And PC might perform less when memory is used up...like maxing with credit card.

pappi said:

"But the 64 bit OS will allow you to use all the memory you put in your system, and perform a lot better because of that" Because I always thought not using up much of available memory is good. And PC might perform less when memory is used up...like maxing with credit card.

Why wouldn't you want to use all the memory you have, if Windows or the applications you are using at any given moment require it? Windows manages memory and allocates it as it sees fit---and does a pretty good job.

You don't buy memory to admire it or take pride in how little of it you are using. It's a tool, meant to be used. If not used, why buy it and install it? It's certainly a lot faster than the alternative--a hard drive. You wouldn't buy a Cat front-end loader with a 10 cubic yard bucket and then tell the operator to use only half the bucket's capacity.

32-bit can't use beyond 3 plus GB of RAM in Windows. 64-bit can use up to 16 GB in Win 7 Home Premium and more than that in more expensive versions.

Can anyone please take a look at my #10 post on page 1(snipped shot of Resource Monitor) and tell me how much is my regular computing usage in reference to current RAM.

See AddRAM's post 11.

We can't tell from that pic.

We need a pic of the memory tab, preferably AFTER you started up a bunch of apps that might represent what your PC might be doing when used at a typical time. Or if you prefer, start up the absolute max number of apps you might use at any one time.

I snipped these while running two windows(my usual computing ways. Occasionally, I have three or more concurrent windows): (1) Seven Forum active posting dialogue (2) Windows Media Center watching live TV broadcast using external TV Tuner. Also, I am now on WiFi with external network using antenna booster

pappi said:

"But the 64 bit OS will allow you to use all the memory you put in your system, and perform a lot better because of that" Because I always thought not using up much of available memory is good. And PC might perform less when memory is used up...like maxing with credit card.

The idea that memory usage should be minimized is hopelessly outdated. All modern operating systems (Windows, Linux, Mac) follow the principle that memory should be used to the fullest possible extent. Unused memory is wasted memory. The ideal is zero free memory at all times, but we are not there yet. All versions of Windows released in the last 20+ years follow that principle. But the concept is much older than that. The basic concepts were worked out in the 1960's and were in regular use in large systems by the end of the decade. The only thing that kept it out of smaller systems was the limited hardware and resources to support a sophisticated OS.

Edit: Note that this does not mean the memory graph in Windows should always read 100%. The graph only show specific kinds of memory usage. If the level is too high performance will suffer. The details are very complex and I will not attempt to describe them here.

OK, I posted new snipped pics on post # 28, this page.