GUIDE: Make 32-bit OS Support 128GB of RAM - Overclock.net

PhaedraCorruption · 4 Weeks Ago

Ever hate how you cant use more then 4GB of ram in a 32-bit OS yet you don't want to switch to a 64-bit?

Well heres an easy solution:

For Windows Vista:
Patch made by Remko

Quote:

Remko confirms that the patch works on both Windows Vista x86 Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2. You can either drop this file in Windows\System32\ folder and run it to patch the ntoskrnl.exe file or run it from anywhere and browse for the file.

Instructions from http://www.raymond.cc

LINK TO PATCH

For Windows 7

Patch made by Staforce

LINK TO PATCH

Hope this helps,

Pics from raymond as well btw

Both these patches will allow the OS to read up to 128GB of RAM.

And as for XP, there is a method as well.

Quote:

Click on the "View" tab, select "Show Hidden File Folders," and clear "Hide protected operating system files." Select "OK," followed by "Yes."

Locate "Boot.ini" file in C: drive and remove the read-only attributes. Open the Boot.ini file and add "/PAE" to the end of the ARC path. The ARC path will have the Windows Server edition listed in its parameter title.

Click "File" and select "Save." Restore all the read-only attributes to the Boot.ini file. Now restart the computer. When the computer restarts the PAE will be enabled.

Instructions from eHow

My explaination to why this works:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhaedraCorruption

Interesting article you found, I not an expert on this and I could be wrong, but this is what I have learned so far: You are right in a sence that a 32-bit architecture will not be able to read more then 4GB of ram, and I'm not sure about the patches for Windows Vista and Windows 7, but for Windows XP the PAE patch (Physical Address Extention) is basicly like a band-aid for the OS, it changes the architecture of the OS from 32-bit to 36-bit. I will again stress that I am not an expert on this and this is only what I have learned so far and I could be wrong. However, even withthe PAE patch each process windows is running will still be limited to 4GB even though you can have much, mcuh more then 4GB of physical ram, for example, you have 24GB of ram, you can noto run a process that takes up 24GB of ram, you can, however, run 6 processes that each take up 4GB.

I'm not sure if this is the case for the patches for Windows Vista and Windows 7 but I would suspect that to be the case.

tl;dr: M$ crippled XP to make 64-bit and Server 2003 sell better.

I could be wrong.

FieryCoD · 4 Weeks Ago

Looks like an awesome thing to do with people using Windows 7 32bit. Good find. +Rep

Quantum Reality · 4 Weeks Ago

Interesting. Might give this a go to see if it works, though I prefer to use 64-bit.

FenixFlame · 4 Weeks Ago

Thanks for the XP bit.

+Rep

DraganUS · 4 Weeks Ago

pics doesnt load for me.

mmparkskier · 4 Weeks Ago

This doesn't make much sense... its not really a patch that can fix this sort of thing, it's all in the architecture of the OS and your computer's components. So what if a 32 bit OS can recognize it, your 32 bit programs will not utilize it.

Does this make any sense? I'm just going off of bits of knowledge, no real research yet.

EDIT: did some quick research. Read "The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean?"

Quote:

People who are unfamiliar with the real meaning behind the 4GB Windows memory limit often point out that certain versions of Windows (such as Enterprise or Datacenter editions) can actually support more than 4GB of physical memory. However, adding more than 4GB of physical memory to a server still doesn't change the fact that it's a 32-bit processor accessing a 32-bit memory space. Even when more than 4GB of memory is present, each process still has the normal 2GB virtual address space, and the kernel address space is still 2GB, just as on a normal non-PAE system.

Nice find by the way, it's gotten me interested in the subject.

gerikoh · 4 Weeks Ago

nice find +rep

PhaedraCorruption · 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by DraganUS

pics doesnt load for me.

Fix'd it for you mate.

M3T4LM4N222 · 4 Weeks Ago

Wow. SRSLY COOL. Wish I would of known about it a year ago.

PhaedraCorruption · 4 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmparkskier

This doesn't make much sense... its not really a patch that can fix this sort of thing, it's all in the architecture of the OS and your computer's components. So what if a 32 bit OS can recognize it, your 32 bit programs will not utilize it.

Does this make any sense? I'm just going off of bits of knowledge, no real research yet.

EDIT: did some quick research. Read "The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean?"

Nice find by the way, it's gotten me interested in the subject.

Interesting article you found, I not an expert on this and I could be wrong, but this is what I have learned so far: You are right in a sence that a 32-bit architecture will not be able to read more then 4GB of ram, and I'm not sure about the patches for Windows Vista and Windows 7, but for Windows XP the PAE patch (Physical Address Extention) is basicly like a band-aid for the OS, it changes the architecture of the OS from 32-bit to 36-bit. I will again stress that I am not an expert on this and this is only what I have learned so far and I could be wrong. However, even withthe PAE patch each process windows is running will still be limited to 4GB even though you can have much, mcuh more then 4GB of physical ram, for example, you have 24GB of ram, you can noto run a process that takes up 24GB of ram, you can, however, run 6 processes that each take up 4GB.

I'm not sure if this is the case for the patches for Windows Vista and Windows 7 but I would suspect that to be the case.

tl;dr: M$ crippled XP to make 64-bit and Server 2003 sell better.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Software, Programming and Coding > Operating Systems
GUIDE: Make 32-bit OS Support 128GB of RAM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)