<div>
follow this link, it has the answer you are looking for &gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp;<a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/archive/2012/10/23/upgrading-to-windows-server-2012-part-1.aspx" rel="ugc">http://blogs.technet.com/b/askcore/archive/2012/10/23/upgrading-to-windows-server-2012-part-1.aspx</a>
</div>


<div>
It's the same with servers as it is with desktops (more so IMO). In-place upgrades should only be a last ditch effort or extremely situation. I've seen so many machines over the years operate less efficiently, and less reliably with upgrades versus a full on format/install.. or in some cases new hardware/setup/migration.<br />
<br />
And yes as Seth said, you cannot upgrade any 32-bit OS with a 64-bit version.
</div>


<div>
I am with Ben, every time i see a machine that was an upgrade machine, i can only think, the poor client is now going to have to shell out likely triple the cost to have it fixed, due to the upgrade, vs if it was simply a fresh installation. <br />
<br />
The issues with upgrade are many... <br />
The most notable is that the Upgrade process leaves behind parts of the old OS, which cause a slew of reliability issue, stability problems, not to mention used space for no reason. Then in the event that someday the system fails, which is more likely than that of a machine which was simply a fresh install, the recovery process takes someone with a more in-depth skill set to recover the machine, as there are additional drivers, etc that are installed that need to be there to recover. If the recovery fails, you are then stuck with a machine you will need to install the older version first, than install the upgrade over it again. So if this is a mail server, or AD server, expect a 3-5 day of downtime, even if you have backups of all the data. <br />
<br />
It's more expensive upfront for a new system with a &quot;new&quot; OS. <br />
It's WAY more expensive in the future to have the upgraded system fixed!
</div>


<div>
I &nbsp;accept the solution
</div>


<div>
<div class="content wysiwyg-content">
I was trying to find out <br />
<br />
If 2008 servers are 32-bit then a fresh 2012 server is the best path.-why?<br />
&nbsp; If 2008 servers are 64-bit then consider simply upgrading to 2012 in place.-why?<br />
<br />
thanks
</div>
</div>


I was trying to find out 

If 2008 servers are 32-bit then a fresh 2012 server is the best path.-why?
  If 2008 servers are 64-bit then consider simply upgrading to 2012 in place.-why?

thanks

windows server 2008, windows server 2012

Windows Server 2012 is the server version of Windows 8 and the successor to Windows Server 2008 R2. Windows Server 2012 is the first version of Windows Server to have no support for Itanium-based computers since Windows NT 4.0. Windows Server 2012, now in its second release (Windows Server 2012 Release 2) includes Foundation, Essentials, Standard and Datacenter, and does not support IA-32 or IA-64 processors.

Windows Server 2012

Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2, based on the Microsoft Vista codebase, is the last 32-bit server operating system released by Microsoft. It has a number of versions, including including Foundation, Standard, Enterprise, Datacenter, Web, HPC Server, Itanium and Storage; new features included server core installation and Hyper-V.