Oh where to start on this one.
The limit of a 32 bit Windows after 2000 is 4 GB, not 3.2...what have I told you about pulling number out of a hat LMAO Memory only holds the information that comes from a disk, and sends it to the places it needs to be sent. The ammount of RAM only dictates how many things can be loaded at one time, not the quality. An 1000 Mhz PIII Xeon can run something like 5 GB of registered ECC Rambus, but it is still going to run like crap if you try to use it to run Adobe CS 5. It is with in the minimum requirements, though it is really old and wont preform at all. Performance wise there is no differnce in a 32 Bit and 64 Bit Windows, because they are almost the same. The kernel, a few services, the addition of the Program Files x86, that is really all that is difernt. There are lots of things deep in the system, though that was coverd with the change in the Kernel. If you take a look around, your OS, there is really ver few things that are a 64 Bit process. Most people dont even know that there is a diffence in Media Player, and they are using the 32 Bit version. Pull up your Taks Manager, and go under Processes...any name that is followed by a *32 is a 32 Bit process, and the exact same thing that runs on a 32 Bit Windows. It is a placebo effect, you wanted it to make your computer faster, and now you think you see working. If I was to replace your RAM with two two GB sticks, you wouldn't notice, well unless you ran out of RAM that is. We have so much because it takes so much more to hole all the crap that is being used today. The examle you used of:
If there wasn't a difference, we'd all still be running 256K ram.
is adsurd. You are trying to relate space and speed together, when that are not relateable. More space doesn't translate to faster, never has and never will. It is a ghost, an illution of what the use wants it to be like. In short, it is exactly what whs said it is, a placebo effect, plain and simple.