32 to 64 bit upgrade. How?

"Unless you have an over-riding reason beyond curiosity or "staying up to date", etc."

I've been on Vista 64-bit OS for 6 years prior to this current HP that I bought used 7 months ago which happens to come with W7 Pro 32-bit. I always thought 64-bit is twice as much (32 x 2 = 64) and therefore should be better. Already, I have been encountering software and programs that configure only with 64-bit OS. So there, that is perhaps my only reason I'd prefer 64.

pappi said:

I always thought 64-bit is twice as much (32 x 2 = 64) and therefore should be better. Already, I have been encountering software and programs that configure only with 64-bit OS. So there, that is perhaps my only reason I'd prefer 64.

It is unfortunate that 64 is twice the size of 32 as it leads to the "should be better" conclusion. Just as a 600 watt computer power supply is better than a 300 watt power supply. Power supply makers would go out of business if they couldn't get people to believe that. Likewise stereo receiver and speaker manufacturers that scream the wattage at you in every advertisement. Not to mention fuel octane ratings.

Some applications will not install at all in a 64-bit system because the installer program within the application is 16-bit and may not run at all on a 64-bit system.

If you've got apps that won't run on 32-bit, fine; that's a good reason to upgrade to 64, but you certainly don't need to buy more RAM for that reason alone.

OH no. It's the other way around. My bad.

No problem so far with this current 32-bit OS. I had probs with the 64-bit Vista a few years ago when some programs were not configurable with 64-bit, like Flash player. Luckily, IE with Vista came with two browser systems, both 32 and 64 bits, the 32-bit being the default browser.

I am now just thinking ahead that perhaps the 64-bit OS might have become the system of choice by recent program/software purveyors.

"I changed from 32 to 64 with only 4 GB of RAM when I last rebuilt. Can't tell the difference in ordinary day-to-day operation." There must be a reason why ignat rebuilt from 32 to 64.

pappi said:

"I changed from 32 to 64 with only 4 GB of RAM when I last rebuilt. Can't tell the difference in ordinary day-to-day operation." There must be a reason why ignat rebuilt from 32 to 64.

I'll tell you why.

I do a complete system rebuild every few years. New motherboard, RAM, CPU; probably a new hard drive, probably a new OS, probably a new power supply.

The possibility of being able to use more than 4 GB of RAM was part of the reason. But as it turns out, I have never gone beyond 4. I rarely use even 3 GB. The RAM I don't buy today is money I can save to buy DDR 4 RAM next year when I rebuild again.

If I had chosen 32-bit instead, I doubt if I'd have ever known the difference.

I chose 64-bit largely because it took X minutes to install it. The very same X minutes it would have taken to install 32-bit. It cost me no additional time at all. You're not in that situation. You'll have to invest more time than you have so far. What's the trade-off for doing that? Apps you need that won't run on 32-bit? That's fine, then do it.

The 2 differ significantly behind the scenes, but those differences aren't apparent in day-to-day operation.

If you were building from dead scratch as I was, most would tell you to use 64-bit. But you aren't doing that.

"If you were building from dead scratch as I was, most would tell you to use 64-bit. But you aren't doing that."

I understand 32-bit does not allow upgrading to 8 GB(6 GB being the max), 64-bit does. But Ignat did not install more than 4 GM RAM and yet bothered to rebuild from 32 to 64-bit. Just because he can? There's gotta be at least one technically advantageous compelling reason why most would rather use 64-bit. Really, why?

At this point, I am no longer considering 64-bit as I am not having any problem at all with 32-bit. I am now just curious, merely for my own education.