Upgrade Question

[El.Plates]

Hi, is it possible to do an in place upgrade from Windows 7 Ultimate 32 Bit
to Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit using full retail DVDs.
TIA

 

[bod]

Hi, is it possible to do an in place upgrade from Windows 7 Ultimate 32
Bit to Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit using full retail DVDs.
TIA

I don't know, but I doubt it.

I recently changed from Win 7 32 bit to 64, but I decided to save all my
stuff and reformatted and installed afresh. I would advise you to do the
same.
Nothing beats a fresh install.

Bod

 

[El.Plates]

I recently changed from Win 7 32 bit to 64, but I decided to save all my
stuff and reformatted and installed afresh. I would advise you to do the
same.
Nothing beats a fresh install.

Bod

I advise the same thing to everyone too, but that's not my question. What I
asked was "is it possible to do an in place upgrade from Windows 7 Ultimate
32 Bit to Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit using full retail DVDs"

 

[bod]

I advise the same thing to everyone too, but that's not my question.
What I asked was "is it possible to do an in place upgrade from Windows
7 Ultimate 32 Bit to Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit using full retail DVDs"

Ok, understood and it's a good question, but why would you want to avoid
a fresh install? I can only assume that you have some important prog's
in 32 bit that you want to keep?
Have you tried M/soft's knowledge base, etc?

Or are you just asking out of curiosity?

Bod

 

[El.Plates]

Ok, understood and it's a good question, but why would you want to avoid a
fresh install? I can only assume that you have some important prog's in 32
bit that you want to keep?
Have you tried M/soft's knowledge base, etc?

Or are you just asking out of curiosity?

Bod

Yes I do have some important progs in 32 Bit that I want to keep and I 've
had a look @ M/soft's knowledge base but haven't found a definitive answer.
I'm trying to avoid days of reinstalling.
Cheers.

 

[SC Tom]

Hi, is it possible to do an in place upgrade from Windows 7 Ultimate 32
Bit to Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit using full retail DVDs.
TIA

You have to do a clean install when moving from 32 to 64-bit and vice versa.
Read this FAQ, fifth article down:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/32-bit-and-64-bit-Windows-frequently-asked-questions

Before moving to 64-bit, be sure there are available 64-bit drivers for your
hardware. Compatibility will be an issue if there are not.

 

[El.Plates]

You have to do a clean install when moving from 32 to 64-bit and vice
versa.
Read this FAQ, fifth article down:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/32-bit-and-64-bit-Windows-frequently-asked-questions

Before moving to 64-bit, be sure there are available 64-bit drivers for
your hardware. Compatibility will be an issue if there are not.

Thanks for the link, that answered it all.
Thanks again

 

[Ken Blake]

Hi, is it possible to do an in place upgrade from Windows 7 Ultimate 32 Bit
to Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit using full retail DVDs.

No. It is not possible to change the "bitness" of any version of
Windows. To get from 32-bit to 64-bit, or vice-versa, you have to do
it by a clean installation.

 

[SC Tom]

Thanks for the link, that answered it all.
Thanks again

You're welcome!

 

[XS11E]

Hi, is it possible to do an in place upgrade from Windows 7
Ultimate 32 Bit to Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit using full retail
DVDs. TIA

No.

 

[johnbee]

Yes I do have some important progs in 32 Bit that I want to keep and I 've
had a look @ M/soft's knowledge base but haven't found a definitive
answer.
I'm trying to avoid days of reinstalling.
Cheers.

I am afraid that the questions on the MS website about upgrading windows
specifically states that you can not upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit. That
seems definitive enough for me and agrees with things I have read elsewhere.

If you would rather not bother, console yourself with the thought that if
the important thing is that your old stuff keeps running, 32 bit is the
better option anyway. Also, perhaps there are other punters out there who
are like you: in that case, wait a while and somebody will work out a
method and post it on a site free.

Bear in mind that all the people who installed 64 bit will say it's great
and 21st century and so on, and people like me who run 32 bit will say that
there isn't much 64 bit stuff yet and 32 bit is better at running old
software etc. 64 bit Vista flopped.

 

[Mike 2]

I believe you'll then have problems running any installed 32-bit
applications anyway. By the way, do you have a 64bit processor?

 

[Ken Blake]

I believe you'll then have problems running any installed 32-bit
applications anyway.

No, the upgrade is simply not possible. A clean installation is
required, as I said in an earlier message.

By the way, do you have a 64bit processor?

Good question, and certainly something he should be sure of.

 

[XS11E]

I believe you'll then have problems running any installed 32-bit
applications anyway. By the way, do you have a 64bit processor?

Please reply to the person who asked the question, not to others in the
thread.

Thanks.

 

[Mike 2]

Please reply to the person who asked the question, not to others in the
thread.

Thanks.

I'm sure he's reading all the threads my friend, I do when I ask a
question. Actually I think we all do.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I'm sure he's reading all the threads my friend, I do when I ask a
question. Actually I think we all do.

You sure told him!

(To disambiguate my sarcasm: I'm with XS11E 100% on this one.)

 

[Ken Blake]

You sure told him!

(To disambiguate my sarcasm: I'm with XS11E 100% on this one.)

And so am I. And to Mike 2, please note that the word "thread" refers
to the entire group of messages on a particular subject, not to each
individual message. So your message, my message, Gene's message, and
XSE11E's message are all part of a single thread.

If anyone who doesn't know why the word "thread" is used to describe
it, let me know and I'll be glad to describe the reason (which I think
is very interesting).

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

And so am I. And to Mike 2, please note that the word "thread" refers
to the entire group of messages on a particular subject, not to each
individual message. So your message, my message, Gene's message, and
XSE11E's message are all part of a single thread.

If anyone who doesn't know why the word "thread" is used to describe
it, let me know and I'll be glad to describe the reason (which I think
is very interesting).

Thanks for chiming in, and thanks for pointing out to Mike 2 the meaning of
thread.

As for the origin of "thread", if it's not just the obvious meaning and
analogy, as in threading through a maze or threading a string of beads,
then I am one who doesn't know the reason for calling them threads, and
would like to learn it.

 

[Ken Blake]

As for the origin of "thread", if it's not just the obvious meaning and
analogy, as in threading through a maze or threading a string of beads,
then I am one who doesn't know the reason for calling them threads, and
would like to learn it.

OK. It has to do with list processing. "List" is a technical term and
isn't just the ordinary use of the word. A list is a bunch of data
that has more than one sequence as follows:

1. The physical sequence of the records.

2. One or more logical sequences that are different from the physical
sequence.

So the messages in a newsgroup are a list. Their physical sequence is
the order in which they were posted. Their logical sequence is the way
messages in a "thread" are connected--e. g. this message follows
yours, the one I'm replying to, even though there are usually several
messages between them in the physical sequence.

So visualize each message as a shirt button, and think of these
buttons as parallel to each other in a row arranged in physical
sequence (date and time). Then think of a thread (this thread, for
example) as having all the buttons pertinent to it as connected by a
piece of thread that goes from buttonhole to buttonhole, skipping the
buttonholes in the messages that are not part of the thread.

So a "thread" *is* a thread.

Also note that (although it's not pertinent in a newsgroup) the
buttons have multiple buttonholes and can therefore participate in
multiple threads (in other words, have more than one logical
sequence).

 

[Char Jackson]

OK. It has to do with list processing. "List" is a technical term and
isn't just the ordinary use of the word. A list is a bunch of data
that has more than one sequence as follows:

1. The physical sequence of the records.

2. One or more logical sequences that are different from the physical
sequence.

So the messages in a newsgroup are a list. Their physical sequence is
the order in which they were posted. Their logical sequence is the way
messages in a "thread" are connected--e. g. this message follows
yours, the one I'm replying to, even though there are usually several
messages between them in the physical sequence.

So visualize each message as a shirt button, and think of these
buttons as parallel to each other in a row arranged in physical
sequence (date and time). Then think of a thread (this thread, for
example) as having all the buttons pertinent to it as connected by a
piece of thread that goes from buttonhole to buttonhole, skipping the
buttonholes in the messages that are not part of the thread.

So a "thread" *is* a thread.

Also note that (although it's not pertinent in a newsgroup) the
buttons have multiple buttonholes and can therefore participate in
multiple threads (in other words, have more than one logical
sequence).

That looks to be an overly complicated, and overly wordy, restatement
of Gene's (and my own) understanding.