Overclock.net banner
1 - 20 of 161 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,008 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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 View Post
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 View Post
If you can't bring yourself to run a strange utility where all the text is in Cyrillic, read this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
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.
 

·
Efficiencycionado
Joined
·
5,587 Posts
nice find +rep
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,008 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mmparkskier View Post
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.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,407 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,343 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 161 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top