32Bit Ram Patch for Windows 7

hi did anyone try this software which patch the kernel allowing the 32bit windows version to utilize more than 4GB ram does it actually work

best regards

 

Um, you cannot patch the kernel to suddenly start utilizing more than 4GB of ram. You can enable a different memory mapping scheme that allows Windows to see more than 4GB of memory address space, but it will not utilize it.

And what software?

 

i'm talking about this one

 

Do not use it. You cannot magically patch the 32-bit kernel and magically allow the system to use more than 4GB of memory address space. It does not work that way. You can enable an option in 32 bit Windows that allows the system to see more than 4GB of RAM, but it will not be able to use it.

 

Bingo, this is utter foolishness. Enterprise 32-bit software allows the use of PAE to extend RAM support to beyond 4GB, but on consumer operating systems PAE's ability to do that is disabled (mostly for stability reasons).

You want more than 4GB of RAM, you need to move to a 64-bit OS. Period.

 

don't you think if it was that easy Microsoft would do it

 

Okay, I did a quick Google search on this patching nonsense. The OP does not understand at all what he/she is doing or is about to do.

The "patch" is nothing but PAE mode. The consumer versions of Windows have the PAE mode limit hard coded into the kernel. The enterprise version of Windows do not. By enterprise, I mean the server versions of 32bit Windows and not the Business versions. The "patch" supposedly rewrites part of the kernel. This is plain stupid. If you mess with the kernel without knowing what you're doing, you're just asking for it. End of story.

Windows is not meant to be messed with. Linux on the other hand is.

 

PAE even it is enabled would not benefit 99% of the consumer applications out there. You need special coding to make use of it. One example I know is SQL server.

So don't waste the time, a 32 bit OS is limited to 4GB addressing space. Any RAM beyond it(not those between 3-4 which is a mapping issue that PAE cannot help) needs special coding to use and is otherwise seen by no one but the OS and would not be utilized.

 

I don't know about that software but yes, by a simple modification the 32-bit kernel will let you access the extra memory some 32-bit Windows systems from Vista onwards ignore. As Greg points out the restriction was due to some poorly written drivers but having done my own tests on Vista SP1, SP2 and W7 using different hardware configurations I never had a single issue so either I was very lucky or the problematic drivers are not as common then as they were with XP SP1 which allowed full use of 4GB of RAM. If I'm using a 32-bit OS I don't bother doing it since 32-bit applications will generally only use up to 2GB of memory so with 3GB+ of usable RAM that is usually plenty anyway as I don't need to run several large programs at once.

Probably the simplest way to use the Windows ignored memory mapped above the 4GB physical address range is to use one of the RAMDisk softwares that have their own memory management to make use of it.

Oh, and the PAE thing. That is nearly always enabled by default and is transparent to applications so no special coding is needed for them, it's only some of the drivers that use physical memory that need to be aware.

 

The driver issue with PAE had something to do with drivers back in 2004 not understanding memory address spaces above 4 GB. As a result, when MS enabled PAE in XP SP2 (supposedly, DEP depends on PAE), they also hard coded the 4GB limit. However, virtually all drivers in 2011 are 64-bit compatible, so this is not much of an issue these days.

Still, I don't see the point in doing this given how you can use both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows 7 with the same product key. If you buy the retail boxed (FPP) Windows 7, Microsoft even throws in both DVDs.

 

that can be done without kernel tweaking, it's a simple flag in the boot config. and pae is not used in consumer-apps anyways so it doesn't help.

just go 64bit, it's for free. the same key and activation (google activation backup and restore ABR) can be used for a clean 64bit reinstallation.

 

This just goes to show what people can accomplish when smoking crack

 

There is no flag in the BCD to enable use of all 4GB of RAM or more in a 32-bit Windows client version.

What are you talking about? PAE is a paging scheme that provides a linear address range for the applications. The consumer applications don't need to know about PAE it to run in it.

 

I think it is more correct to say that the application doesn't need to know about PAE if it doesn't want the extra memory(i.e. it is still limited to 2+2) but have to know about it(and code for it) if it wants to use that(i.e. it needs 2G+ memory).

I stand corrected that with PAE, the kernel can use 4G+ memory to accomodate more applications(i.e. kind of extra page file but in memory rather than on disk).

 

Well, there's always the 3GB boot switch.

However, I doubt any 32-bit consumer application will ever need (or even touch) that much memory without devising their own memory management techniques (like VMware/VirtualBox do with large VMs), because it would lead to major problems with the computer illiterate masses. The virtual address space issue with Vista RTM and DX10 games a few years back caused quite a commotion, and in that case the games themselves weren't even using anywhere near 2GB - memory was simply being mapped twice.

 

Your still limited with linear addressing to typically 2GB and to use more than 2GB of RAM for a single application then AWE can be used to map physical memory in and out of that linear space. The application in this case really needs to know about AWE rather than PAE. AWE can work with or without PAE but to be able to use the physical memory mapped above 4GB then PAE needs to be enabled and of course the OS needs to allow access to it.

Like the 4GT (increaseuserva [/3GB]) switch which needs both the application flag to be set as well as the 2GB/2GB default for the OS to be changed, AWE requires a special Windows privilege (which is not enabled by default) and IIRC Admin rights to run on consumer versions so there is little hope in seeing these applications being written except maybe for a few special cases.

 

Please people, do not do stuff like this.
The reason why you can't use more than 4GB of RAM under a 32-bit OS (ANY OS), is CPU limitation. PAE perform a performance degradation patch. This is ONLY USED on VERY VERY SPECIAL CASES. As mentioned 99% don't need it, and provide more harm than good. Hence why not available in Windows consumer versions.

If you want to address more memory, please upgrade to the excellent Windows 7 64-bit. All your program will still work (unless they are 16-bit programed, aka: DOS, but then you just use XP Mode (Win7 Pro and above editions))

 

If you want to use more than 4GB of RAM in a 32bit OS, the only way to safely do it is with a RAM disk and setting your swap file out on the RAM disk.

But as most everyone else has said, there's no reason to stick with a 32bit OS any more.

 

There are certain reasons. But I can't think of a logical scenario where you had to stick with a 32 bit OS, and wanted more than ~3GB RAM.

Still, if everyone wants to brick their computers by applying half-baked patches off dodgy websites based on a complete misunderstanding of address spaces & PAE, I'm not gonna stand in their way.

 

I really do. Windows 7 + firefox (1tab) + MSE + IM + Outlook + SuperFetch, is already eating ~1.7GB of RAM.
If I play any games, even at minimum settings I pass 2.5GB of RAM. If I have any of my projects open on the back, I am at 3GB, is not more.

Every year, programs get more and more fancy, with nicer interfaces, and new features. This consumes more and more computer resources weather we like it or not. If already, I can touch 3GB of RAM easily, 3GB+ would be easy to pass next year or so.

But, yes, I totally agree with the rest of your post.

 

I stopped using Firefox cos of the memory leaks tbh.

But what specifically about your setup limits you to 32 bit Windows 7?

Edit: I see from your sig you're running x64 Windows?! To clarify, my point was that I could see some situations where a 32 bit OS is needed, and I can certainly see situations where >4GB RAM is needed (I have 32GB in my workstation ), just that I couldn't see much potential overlap between those two scenarios - i.e. having more than 3.5GB available in a 32 bit OS, which is what this thread is about.

 

All multi-tab web browsers consumes just as much memory than Firefox, including IE9, and Chrome. The only difference is that Firefox tend to use a tiny bit more, due to it's super flexible add-on system. And the more add-on you have.. well.. the more memory it consumes (obviously). It's not the 10, 20MB difference that will do anything out of your 4GB of RAM.

Unable to run 64-bit programs and codecs. I save ~1 hours of battery like (using 9-cell battery) using 64-bit codecs with Media Center 12, then with 32-bit. Also I get to use 64-bit anti-virus, such as Microsoft Security Essential, Zune software, the simple fact of having Windows 7, this full fledged and essentially feature complete, OS, in 64-bit helps the overall systems.

In addition to all this, I PURCHASED a 64-bit CPU. I paid A LOT of money for it. I want to use it. If not, I would just have gotten a Pentium M or 4 or D on my desktop, and call it a day.

I understand your point.
And my point, is that I find it silly to lock yourself out, especially if you don't have a SPECIFIC reason to run a 32-bit OS, like you want 16-bit program support, and it doesn't run under XP Mode. Or you want to run a legacy peripheral, where a new one, doesn't exists or is custom build, that only has 32-bit drivers only. Beside you PAID for a 64-bit CPU. YOU the consumer said "OMG, I want this AMD 64-bit CPU!!!!" which made Intel produce their own (under AMD license), and makes CPU production cost increase. And now you (well not you you.. those you refuse going 64-bit with no specific reason) go "nha, I don't want it"... makes no sense to me. Consumers vote with their wallet.