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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by error10
If you can't bring yourself to run a strange utility where all the text is in Cyrillic, read this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not a perfect fix, and probably causes some instability. Each process is limited to 4GB of RAM (so you single-program RAM whores sorry), but for multi-users it might help.
This is the \\PAE designed for 32 bit servers to utilize more ram. it doesnt offer any real performance, and is still limited by hardware. I would not recommend messing with the OS address space.
I'm going to steal some pics from Wikipedia to illustrate what is going on:
This is what normally is going on, without PAE enabled.
This is what PAE does:
It's basically a crude hack to make the 32-bit system able to use more memory. IMO there is really no reason to not go with a full 64 bit OS these days.
If you are stuck on 32-bit for some reason (IDK you love them 16bit apps?
), then it is defiantly worth a shot to hold you over until you are able to upgrade the OS.
Originally Posted by Crazy9000
I'm going to steal some pics from Wikipedia to illustrate what is going on:
This is what normally is going on, without PAE enabled.
It's basically a crude hack to make the 32-bit system able to use more memory. IMO there is really no reason to not go with a full 64 bit OS these days.
If you are stuck on 32-bit for some reason (IDK you love them 16bit apps?
), then it is defiantly worth a shot to hold you over until you are able to upgrade the OS.
One of the main reasons I am not on 64-bit is due to program/game compatibility, I know there are only a few that wont work, but I use a few of those.
Originally Posted by ericeod
This is the \\PAE designed for 32 bit servers to utilize more ram. it doesnt offer any real performance, and is still limited by hardware. I would not recommend messing with the OS address space.
I strongly recommend against doing this too. If you have 4gb of ram and are seeing 3.25gb, just be happy and the next OS you go to go 64bit.
I dont know of any program that cant run on a 64 bit OS. Isnt that what the Program Files x86 folder is for? I could tottaly be wrong I just dont understand why any program that works with 32 wouldnt at least run on 64.
Originally Posted by PhaedraCorruption
One of the main reasons I am not on 64-bit is due to program/game compatibility, I know there are only a few that wont work, but I use a few of those.
Has anyone tried this out yet? It would be great to see some actual results posted here. So we can all know if this has any real world benefit or if it is merely just aesthetic flim flam.
Personally I wouldn't touch it with a stick with a disk on the end of it.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!