Memory usage beyond 32Bit limitations of Windows OS

[JunkMail]

If you put your pagefile on a RAM disk, you're taking physical memory away and then giving it back in a more costly way.

Again you are missing the point, RAM disk is NOT being created in the accessible part of RAM, it is being created in the INACCESSIBLE part of RAM (which is above 3.xxGB) so what kind of physical memory is being taken away here??? ONLY INACCESSIBLE!

Say you have 4GB of RAM and a 2GB page file on your hard drive. You load up 3GB of data. Where is it? It's in physical memory.

Now let's say you take out 2GB of that RAM and repeat. Now roughly 2GB of your data is in the physical RAM, while the rest is in the page file on the disk.

Now put back the 2GB of RAM but instead of using it normally, allocate a 2GB page file on it. Now repeat the exercise and allocate 3GB of data. What happens?

2+2=4GB, You CANNOT allocate 2GB PageFile on remaining 7xxMB UnManaged RAM (its impossible unless you have 6GB RAM)

First, as the memory is allocated, the first 2GB are loaded into the free physical RAM. As soon as you go over the available physical memory, the oldest pages in the physical RAM are swapped with free pages from the page file. So you copy data from one chunk of RAM (non-RAM disk) into another chunk of RAM (the RAM disk). Now you have a free page in the available "regular" RAM, so the new data is loaded there. Then you get to the next page of data, and you repeat the process.

You probably end up with the 2nd and 3rd GB of data in the normal physical RAM. The 1st GB had been loaded there, but was then copied to the pagefile RAMdisk to make room for the 3rd GB. Then when you go to access that 1st GB of data, it gets copied back from the RAM disk memory into the normal RAM. But since there's no room, the oldest data from there needs to be swapped to the page file. So 1GB gets copied to the RAMdisk to make room for the data coming from it.

All for no damn reason.

Why anyone would consider this a good idea is beyond my imaginative capacity.

Now If I'm not understanding this right (probably have to read it many times) but still, if i'm understanding little and if all of this is happening from HardDisk, it looks rather more painfully slow (there can always be more pagefile to create extra room on hard disk)

There we go! It's not something you would recommend to others and this thread has now been defeated, so I'll say my final words so I can go to bed.

There is nothing wrong with JunkMail offering the community a guide to something, I think it's great that he has contributed, but unfortunately, it's not something you want to do, and if people did it and crashed their systems when they were doing something vital (worse case issue), then people will only come looking for him.

As Brandon Live said, it's undocumented, and like others said, it's tailored more towards server environments. If you want to try it yourself, then do it, because learning how a computer works is not just by reading material, it's also about living through the experience of a system crash and looking at why it happened and so on. This feature I wouldn't recommend to any one in the community.

I hope I haven't been too harsh on you both, but I really get fired up (and so did a couple of other people) when I've had the experience and witnessed such problems happen and it's not a good experience.

Windows Vista and Windows 7 have come on leap and bounds, and like someone else said, there is a feature called 'ReadyBoost' that is quite efficient to making a computer faster. Microsoft have worked hard on addressing speed issues and they've come a long way. Their methods are more safer and efficient than the ones you are suggesting. If you won't take advice off any one else on the forum, at least take it from someone who works for Microsoft. They might be strong about their views about Microsoft (as in they don't like people saying crap about them) but it doesn't make them wrong, and if anything, they know how Windows work better than anyone on this place.

defeated in your imagination sir, as far as crashes go, NOT happening :p (at least on my system 5GB RAM) Edited July 6, 2009 by JunkMail

[JunkMail]

the new Taskbar is damn simple to use ................

Whay do I get the feeling that this place (the whole neowin site) is payed by Microsoft to talk as much about Win7 as possible :~ Its like advertising everywhere, every thread, main page etc....

hdood, I have a feeling that few guys want to post lots of negative stuff about this idea (I don't know how it can benefit W7 or x64).

[notuptome2004]

just run windows 7 X64 end of story and no need to use damn program to use the rest of your ram. and almost ever CPU onthe market NOW is 64bit based so no reason not to go windows 7 64bit or vista 64bit for that matter when just about ever peace of new and or old hardware hasa driver for 64bit and all software that is not 64bit will run in 32bit mode on the Hardware

[JunkMail]

just run windows 7 X64 end of story and no need to use damn program to use the rest of your ram. and almost ever CPU onthe market NOW is 64bit based so no reason not to go windows 7 64bit or vista 64bit for that matter when just about ever peace of new and or old hardware hasa driver for 64bit and all software that is not 64bit will run in 32bit mode on the Hardware

Yawn, are you done advertising W7 and x64? see this thread's sub-title and repeat reading till you finally get the message :p

[DDStriker]

the new Taskbar is damn simple to use and only takes maby a day to get used to it. how hard is it for you to Pin a program to the taskbar and clik on the program to open it? also if you wan to open a new instance of it ya just click the middle of the icon with your scroll wheel now i am referring to the default view witch of course the taskbar can be reconfigured but if you want to see other instances of a program open like webpages or things of the same application ya hover over the icon to get a live preview of it witch can be clicked and as ya hover over everything else on screen goes transparent.

never said it was hard just havn't spent as much time on windows 7 and im basing most my experiences on vista which i've already stated its not that its hard i just don't particularly like the way they've done things and it will take time for me to get use to the crap they've done same as going from 98 to xp it had some nice features but they changed the way it works and sometimes not for the better (i still don't like the default taskbar on xp i prefer the classic style looks much neater)

Now how Freaking hard is it to get used to so simple to run and use. on XP or vista with a billions things open it got to be a big mess for alot of users who have many things open daily and now with windows 7s re-designed taskbar it makes switching and finding your applications so damn easy. so microsoft cleaned up alot of the UI in windows 7 while adding tones of new functionality to windows

you talk of it as if its a revelation i don't have an issue with multiple windows grouping does help but even when expanded its not that much of an issue on xp sure its a nice feature but again something i don't need if you love it thats good for you but not everyone has to share your view

stop talking like a troll im happy with xp and how it works i never said it was hard just that it takes time getting use to (time thats not worth being spent for something i never needed) not saying its a bad feature but geez relax its not like the world didnt exist before it was created

as for the my documents things it is easy to get it just to go start menu then Documents how hard is that ?

Again i'm use to seeing MY documents if you read my post you'd understand that and would stop trolling i've since gotten use to the documents crap but i've been using windows for a long time and i'm just use to finding these areas in a certain way

My ~ Documents/received files/pictures/music

i usually have alot of folders/files around these particular folders and the My prefix helps me quickly find it

Before you Bash something like window s7 witch your doing in a small way you should learn to play around with it some more then 5mins and go (OH F This Shat )

wait are you even talking to me or am i responding to you for no reason? :D

i havn't bashed windows vista/7 at all stating what i'm not used to and don't like about it is in no way bashing it i do intend to upgrade eventually but only once i've made sure its right for me

now for everyone else haveing the hard time of going 64bit well install windows 7 64bit and i doubt you will find a single issue with it all your shat will work just fine on 7 unless you Refuse to get rid of a Early windows XP/ late windows 98 program cause i am sure ether is a alternative out by now or a newer versions

i'm not sure what other peoples reasons are for not upgrading but i'm pretty damn sure they all have their reasons telling them to just install it and you'll be fine isn't great advice stop pushing what you believe on other people

windows xp is still a great OS and is far from obsolete people will upgrade as time progresses there is no need to jump on straight away

just run windows 7 X64 end of story and no need to use damn program to use the rest of your ram. and almost ever CPU onthe market NOW is 64bit based so no reason not to go windows 7 64bit or vista 64bit for that matter when just about ever peace of new and or old hardware hasa driver for 64bit and all software that is not 64bit will run in 32bit mode on the Hardware

plenty of reasons as already stated if you don't understand them then don't bother posting here

[JunkMail]

I just re-Edited my first post (It now has some warnings of dudes messing and spreading wrong infos) :) AND my signature is specially for those people :)

[leslieboy]

i've read most of the responses in this forum and so far i think it boils down to whether using RAMDisk to access over 3GB on a 32-bit system is good or not.

i haven't really gone totally the RAMDisk route before...i only tried it for a while and did not really benefit from it. isn't the point of increasing RAM to make your system run faster and allow it to run more applications at the same time? if you have 4GB of RAM but the 32-bit OS can only access 3GB...then you're losing 1GB to the addressing issue. As suggested, use the remaining RAM (1GB) as RAMDisk...if you install another application to do the RAMDisk thing...wouldn't it consume some of the already 3GB left? so in effect...you're losing more...well...just how i look at things here.

it does makes sense to make the inaccessble RAM as RAMDisk and use it as pagefile but wouldn't it be too small to store the pagefile? welll...if it was 1GB...if you have 8GB of RAM...well that's large enough...but isn't it that you're just wasting 5GB of your RAM on RAMDisk if you're using a 32-Bit OS? wouldn't you rather have it get used by all of your running applications and not just for RAMDisk/pagefile?

i agree that it is POSSIBLE...but not ELEGANT or EFFICIENT. making it possible DOES NOT mean that it's RECOMMENDED. maybe for advanced users...but for those who aren't that knowledgeable about computers but has the dough to ditch out on a system with 8GB of RAM...i think a 64-bit OS solution would be the way to go...

one more thing, DISABLING the PAGEFILE is not a good idea...i turned the pagefile off on my system and it was hell...most of my apps were crashing, the system in general ran very slow. the system has 4GB of ram installed...

[notuptome2004]

the point you are not getting is we most of use are on 64bit and would rather do so instead of using your Half Asses Ramdisk you so try to Ram down are mouths as if it is the Best solution out ther and it is not if you want acces to the rest of your freaking Ram Run windows X64 7 or vista i dont care witch .

[JunkMail]

i've read most of the responses in this forum and so far i think it boils down to whether using RAMDisk to access over 3GB on a 32-bit system is good or not.

i haven't really gone totally the RAMDisk route before...i only tried it for a while and did not really benefit from it. isn't the point of increasing RAM to make your system run faster and allow it to run more applications at the same time? if you have 4GB of RAM but the 32-bit OS can only access 3GB...then you're losing 1GB to the addressing issue. As suggested, use the remaining RAM (1GB) as RAMDisk...if you install another application to do the RAMDisk thing...wouldn't it consume some of the already 3GB left? so in effect...you're losing more...well...just how i look at things here.

it does makes sense to make the inaccessble RAM as RAMDisk and use it as pagefile but wouldn't it be too small to store the pagefile? welll...if it was 1GB...if you have 8GB of RAM...well that's large enough...but isn't it that you're just wasting 5GB of your RAM on RAMDisk if you're using a 32-Bit OS? wouldn't you rather have it get used by all of your running applications and not just for RAMDisk/pagefile?

i agree that it is POSSIBLE...but not ELEGANT or EFFICIENT. making it possible DOES NOT mean that it's RECOMMENDED. maybe for advanced users...but for those who aren't that knowledgeable about computers but has the dough to ditch out on a system with 8GB of RAM...i think a 64-bit OS solution would be the way to go...

one more thing, DISABLING the PAGEFILE is not a good idea...i turned the pagefile off on my system and it was hell...most of my apps were crashing, the system in general ran very slow. the system has 4GB of ram installed...

First of all don't read the people talking and advertising about x64 or win7 in this thread

You did not READ the information properly! Some RamDisks use the SPACE from 3.xx GB but some specialized RAMDisk can use Memory ABOVE 3.xx GB (the unManaged 4th GB for you to understand) This is where the fun starts! Using Managed (Windows detected memory) as ramDisk is stupid :p why will I put that kind of guide??? hehe

The idea is to USE whatever memory you have, A user can manually limit MAX pagefile size in Windows settings. When a software requires more then 3 GB of RAM, what happens??? Your PageFile (in your hard disk acts like RAM) and when this happens, you will notice a message "low memory" etc and software will SLOW down! but if that pageFile is in UnManaged memory (which is RAM) it is obviously faster (bottom line, you software won't SLOW down when full 3GB is consumed AND you don't see pageFile.sys file on your HDD thus, you save that space too)

Your system maybe crashing for other reasons too (my system is NOT crashing) so :) You have only 2 posts in this forum (hope you didn't create new account to impersonate as NEW user) cauz i get these kind of feelings lately

Edited July 6, 2009 by JunkMail

[JunkMail]

Information for Those talking about Win7 and X64 here

CLICK AND READ PROPERLY!

[notuptome2004]

Information for Those talking about Win7 and X64 here

CLICK AND READ PROPERLY!

how about we not click it since your telling the long time neowin users and we already know where to go so NO. Mod would you please shut this thread down or something or at least clean it up and or do something cause to many of us have been trying to make this dude understand witch he refuses to understand

[leslieboy]

isn't it what i was saying? the unmanaged ram is the ram on top of the 3GB...correct? so if you have only 4GB of ram...3GB is being managed by windows...then how much would be left for your ramdisk? i understand that you can adjust the size of the ramdisk...but isn't this limited to the amount of ram you have? if you resize it to 2GB...then all that's left for windows to manage is 2GB.

yes, my system crashed when the paging file was disabled...the moment i turned it back on, restarted the computer, everything ran smoothly...given that, isn't it that the problems were caused by turning the paging file off?

i just wanted to share my expriences using both 32-bit and 64-bit systems...

i also did the ramdisk path and i am saying that personally...i would not recommend it as it has little to no benefit at all...i agree it's possible but why bother? it's like putting in too much effort on something that can be done on a much simpler level.

honestly, as a home user (typical home user with average knowledge in using a computer), i don't think i would use a lot of applications that would not run on a 64-bit machine. if you're still using a very old app (16-bit)...why not consider looking for alternatives...there's already a ton of freewares around. if you have a hardware that doesn't have drivers...well...upgrade. if you have the cash to ditch out for RAM...why not throw out the old hardware.

there's are simpler ways of going about this issue and i would say that having ramdisk would be at the bottom of my list...IT IS POSSIBLE anyway...

[JunkMail]

If guys don't change the topic, there is nothing to clean! From the very start of this thread, it clearly says do not talk about x64 still peeps do so, you go ahead... maybe this move will clean houses in favor of main info instead of spammers :p

leslieboy, its your choice (your system) no one is forcing you :) regardless of all the recommending thing, those who want to do this, will do it anyways... yawn... me heading to bed now bye bye

[leslieboy]

if they do...then you'd be the Pied Piper of Inefficiency...if you want to help out people, we too would like to help them. just make sure that what you are saying REALLY HELPS...

[MagicAndre1981]

I'm sorry, but if you have more than 4GB then you MUST go 64 bits and don't try to use this kind of half assed solution like the OP's one.

WRONG!

MSFT doesn't license you to use 4GB in 32Bit Client systems but you can hack it to use more:

The kernel includes a function ZwQueryLicenseValue to check for special values. For memory it is Kernel-WindowsMaxMemAllowedx86 and this is set to 4096 for x86 clients.

there is a crack out there to do it for you. Just search for readyfor4gb. The technically background is explained here, although I can imagine that 99% of the users here don't understand it.

It is possible, but not recommend because it doesn't solve the x86 memory issues completely.

[ToneKnee]

EDIT: There can be many dudes spreading WRONG information in replying to this guide, If you are smart, try and test this solution yourself instead of reading bunch of negative responses. I know for myself it works on my system so Good Luck!

Modern hardware has 5GiB+ RAM these days... but Windows XP or Vista (x86 32Bit) only detects 3.xxGB approx. So how to make programs use more memory? For this, you have to understand what is "PageFile" and "RAMDisk" (summary at the end of this guide)

Normally, standard RamDisks use the memory within the range of 32Bit limitation (>3.xx GB) but some special RamDisks use PAE to address range beyond the limit (SuperSpeed's RamDisk Plus and Romex's RamDisk does that for NT OSes (XP and Vista) R. Loew's RamDisk does that for lagacy OSes (Win98,98SE,ME).

Once you install the ramdisk, you can set your PageFile path to that drive (set up Min and Max input according to the size of your RamDisk size). If you further need the pagefile on HDD, you can do it otherwise, its good to never see that kind of file in HDD. After next restart, you can test out any of your memory hogging program and get surprised :)

you can also optimize your system by transferring "TEMP" folder, "Temporary Internet Files" or "Cache" folder of Opera/Mozilla to RamDisk and enjoy the super speed installations and web surfing!

EDIT: If you're using LapTop, you can further save your battery by using SuperVolume/SuperCache (made by the same dude who made RamDisk Plus, SuperSpeed Inc)

===== I can expect people with 64Bit OSes to make comments so know this that I'm not against 64Bit :) I'm simply giving information for those who feel comfortable with 32Bit====

FAQs from below replies posts:

Post 2. Speed: Its on RAM so obviously faster then HDDs :) (SEE the benchmark speed test)

Post 5. Cache: 32 Bit Vista's cache are within the 32Bit addressing range not beyond and even if it had something invisible going there, that particular ramdisk won't overwrite (see the manual)

Post X. Overhead: It is obviously low as its on RAM and lets not forget that even if your on 64BIT OS, when you use 32Bit softwares, WOW64 emulation poses such overheads as well!

Information:

PageFile: In computer operating systems there are various ways in which the operating system can store and retrieve data from secondary storage for use in main memory. One such memory management scheme is referred to as paging. In the paging memory-management scheme, the operating system retrieves data from secondary storage in same size blocks called pages.

RamDisk: A RAM disk is a software layer that enables applications to transparently use RAM, often a segment of main memory, as if it was a hard disk

Clearly, Some guys are trying to advertise Win7 and x64 in their replies to their gutts! This thread is mainly FOR 32Bit users NOT for X64 users, please read this line and stop spamming and changing this thread's topic! This is not an advertising thread for x64 or against x64 or for x64 discussions

How many people have to tell you (including Brandon Live) that the method you are talking about is stupidly dangerous and can be very negative to the people use it and call us out "Wrong"?

[ToneKnee]

Yawn, are you done advertising W7 and x64? see this thread's sub-title and repeat reading till you finally get the message :p

I'm not advertising W7 or x64, but you should not be advertising a half way of causing people problems and greatly misleading people.

First of all don't read the people talking and advertising about x64 or win7 in this thread

You did not READ the information properly! Some RamDisks use the SPACE from 3.xx GB but some specialized RAMDisk can use Memory ABOVE 3.xx GB (the unManaged 4th GB for you to understand) This is where the fun starts! Using Managed (Windows detected memory) as ramDisk is stupid :p why will I put that kind of guide??? hehe

The idea is to USE whatever memory you have, A user can manually limit MAX pagefile size in Windows settings. When a software requires more then 3 GB of RAM, what happens??? Your PageFile (in your hard disk acts like RAM) and when this happens, you will notice a message "low memory" etc and software will SLOW down! but if that pageFile is in UnManaged memory (which is RAM) it is obviously faster (bottom line, you software won't SLOW down when full 3GB is consumed AND you don't see pageFile.sys file on your HDD thus, you save that space too)

Your system maybe crashing for other reasons too (my system is NOT crashing) so :) You have only 2 posts in this forum (hope you didn't create new account to impersonate as NEW user) cauz i get these kind of feelings lately

Again with this crap. Even with a limited Page File, the page file still needs to expand according to demand of applications or who windows should manage it's memory. How are you not getting this?

Information for Those talking about Win7 and X64 here

CLICK AND READ PROPERLY!

LoL! The Inquirer..

[ToneKnee]

JunkMail, I've even taken your picture from your original post and showed you something else what is completely wrong

[Paul]

Ok....so, 64-bit isn't really relevant for general home users at the moment, I agree. What "home users" do you know that will want/need to use more than 4gb ram? Honestly...

This guide is rather pointless and to be honest, what about overall stability? and why is your cpu usage 70%??

[brentaal]

ITT: People getting trolled hard.

[Subject Delta]

You just want to make people buy and waste money, resources, polar bear, earth so be it, In your house only! keep your stink to yourself, don't let it come to me...

Whatever is present, is all features within 32bit addressing range (x86 is blind beyond 3.xx GB). Windows has nothing invisible going on there.

Normal ramdisks will obviously use the limited space but some special ram disks (as mentioned in my first post) use memory above 32Bit addressing limit (which is how all this really works) but what the hell, you do on knock yourself up in keyboard :p

What the hell are you blabbing about? The X64 editions of Windows Vista and 7 are included in all retail boxes, you don't have to pay ANY extra for them, all I am doing is encouraging people to use the hardware they ALREADY HAVE in its most efficient manner.

For 4GB it maybe small but for 5 or 6 or 8GBs, it gives softwares what it wants (more memory)

Firstly, it is software, not softwares, and secondly no it doesn't, it just inefficiently pages data into memory and degrades performance

I didn't go straight to xp either (prior to sp1 it crashed more then millenium :p)

This is an issue to me because when i get my new system built i plan to use 32bit xp for a while until i can become familiar with vista/7 64bit and ensure everything is going to work correctly (i'll be doing my work on this pc) i do plan to upgrade but i need to spend more time on it make sure nothing is going to die when i need it :p

Figured as much it would halve the amount of data written to the disk though giving some benefit but still not worth the effort (not to mention its rather unstable the ramdisk software actually thinks i have 18,432MB of main memory installed in the system) :D

I understand completely i just got a bit defensive with the whole attacking the idea but i need to realize my system is ancient and 64 bit is becoming a lot more common then 32 bit systems

i kind of wish they just upgraded the system but kept the interface similar or atleast give the user to have the same interface i'm tired of having to re-learn everything everytime they release a new os i've played with vista a bit and the needless amount of categories (control panel) makes it rather time consuming to find the setting you are after i'll get the hang of it eventually but it just seems pointless

that doesn't make me stubborn nor refusing to adapt and assuming that on everyone is just wrong most people are comfortable with their system and it works for them so theres no real reason to adapt unless they get a new system and really want to use more then 3GB of memory which is sad microsoft didn't keep updating xp 64 bit to solve compatability issues (but i suppose they wanted to sell vista)

I was using XP ever since it released, and I adapted to Vista within a couple of months. It really isn't as hard as you make out

Microsoft didn't do it, so others had to do it (Intel guys must be idiots as they put PAE). I never knew gaining access to more memory through PAE was unsupported and called HACK? again Intel guys are idiots as they put PAE since??? how long did wiki say??? Pention PROs???

I won't take word of any software engineer unless Mark Russinovich pops here out of no where :)

PAE was designed for use in server environments, it was never intended for use by home users

Hehe at the moment, as i'm on both x86 + x64, that might not happen...

If you refuse to listen to conventional wisdom, at least do others the favour of not wasting their time and degrading their performance with your pointless hacks

Also, don't take it to heart when Windows 7 isn't really that fast at boot times when it's first installed. Let the Superfetch learn over a period of a week or two and it's brilliant! :) As soon as I type in my password at the login, it fades straight into windows and my programs load straight away.

+1 on that. Mine boots to a usable desktop in about 30 seconds, on Vista it tool about 50

Having the page file in physical memory makes no sense. The entire purpose of the page file is for when you need to swap pages out of physical memory. If you put your pagefile on a RAM disk, you're taking physical memory away and then giving it back in a more costly way.

Say you have 4GB of RAM and a 2GB page file on your hard drive. You load up 3GB of data. Where is it? It's in physical memory.

Now let's say you take out 2GB of that RAM and repeat. Now roughly 2GB of your data is in the physical RAM, while the rest is in the page file on the disk.

Now put back the 2GB of RAM but instead of using it normally, allocate a 2GB page file on it. Now repeat the exercise and allocate 3GB of data. What happens?

First, as the memory is allocated, the first 2GB are loaded into the free physical RAM. As soon as you go over the available physical memory, the oldest pages in the physical RAM are swapped with free pages from the page file. So you copy data from one chunk of RAM (non-RAM disk) into another chunk of RAM (the RAM disk). Now you have a free page in the available "regular" RAM, so the new data is loaded there. Then you get to the next page of data, and you repeat the process.

You probably end up with the 2nd and 3rd GB of data in the normal physical RAM. The 1st GB had been loaded there, but was then copied to the pagefile RAMdisk to make room for the 3rd GB. Then when you go to access that 1st GB of data, it gets copied back from the RAM disk memory into the normal RAM. But since there's no room, the oldest data from there needs to be swapped to the page file. So 1GB gets copied to the RAMdisk to make room for the data coming from it.

All for no damn reason.

Why anyone would consider this a good idea is beyond my imaginative capacity.

Some people become so convinced that they are right that they ignore the evidence people give them because it doesn't fit into their own self-opinionated idea of what is right and wrong.

Whay do I get the feeling that this place (the whole neowin site) is payed by Microsoft to talk as much about Win7 as possible :~ Its like advertising everywhere, every thread, main page etc....

hdood, I have a feeling that few guys want to post lots of negative stuff about this idea (I don't know how it can benefit W7 or x64).

No, people are posting negatively about this idea because it is absolutely useless, and of very little performance benefit. People are talking about Windows 7 because it is in line to be the best version of Windows yet. If inventing a crazy conspiracy theory is your best defence against admitting that you are wrong, that is pretty sad.

I just re-Edited my first post (It now has some warnings of dudes messing and spreading wrong infos) :) AND my signature is specially for those people :)

The only person spreading wrong info is you.

Ok....so, 64-bit isn't really relevant for general home users at the moment, I agree. What "home users" do you know that will want/need to use more than 4gb ram? Honestly...

This guide is rather pointless and to be honest, what about overall stability? and why is your cpu usage 70%??

I use 8GB of memory, and I know a few other people that do as well. Memory is so cheap nowadays that almost anyone can afford to put a large amount into their computer. Granted it may be of no use to an average home user, as opposed to a power user, but then this guide would neither.

This guide is inaccurate, and it is useless, misinformation shouldn't exist, it is a big part of the cause of a lot of computing problems in the modern era. This thread really should be removed.

[kazuyette]

WRONG!

MSFT doesn't license you to use 4GB in 32Bit Client systems but you can hack it to use more:

The kernel includes a function ZwQueryLicenseValue to check for special values. For memory it is Kernel-WindowsMaxMemAllowedx86 and this is set to 4096 for x86 clients.

there is a crack out there to do it for you. Just search for readyfor4gb. The technically background is explained here, although I can imagine that 99% of the users here don't understand it.

It is possible, but not recommend because it doesn't solve the x86 memory issues completely.

Lulwut ?

YOU are wrong :p

Let me explain it clearly :

You have 3 GB or less ? then a 32bits OS is good enough for you ( you can always go 64 bits for it's not a real requirement in this case).

You have more than 3GB ? then it is STRONGLY advised for you to go the 64bits route because a 32bits OS WON'T see/use more than 3,25 or 3,5 GB since the RAM of your GFX card needs an adress space in the 4GB limits, that's why on only see a bit less than 4GB on a 32 bits OS.

some links to MSDN and ( not some shaddy website ;) ) :

MSDN : Memory limits on Windows systems

MS: PAE explained.

So, I wish that you and the OP would stop spreading wrong intel.

P.S. : the fact that you can see your "real" amount of memory on Vista is the result of a patch done by MS. And in NO WAY you'll be able to effectively use it (excluding the dodgy PAE switch or the stupid -imo- OP's solution ).

edit : I just watched your screenshot and I think that running a 32 bits OS with a Xeon and 8 GB of RAM is not the smartest thing to do ;)

[Joe User]

I just re-Edited my first post (It now has some warnings of dudes messing and spreading wrong infos) :) AND my signature is specially for those people :)

Your guide is inefficient at best, data corrupting at worst. Unless your system is ready for PAE you run a risk of corrupting memory. I have no problems with using a RAMDisk, but not for the swapfile, it's absolutely not designed to do that, use it for temp files instead.

Finally, I hope you are aware that you won't get over 4GB of usable memory, even if you have a swapfile over 4GB.

[MagicAndre1981]

@kazuyette

sorry, but you have no idea of nothing. Read the the link and think again before posting the next time.

[kazuyette]

@kazuyette

sorry, but you have no idea of nothing. Read the the link and think again before posting the next time.

I've read the link you've provided mate. It seems to be well documented but I think that it's only a "conspiracy theory" coming from a lonely software consultant and no matter how you try to put it, running a 32bit system with more than 4Gb by using a ramdisk is just a waste of time and - most of all - a BIG waste of ressources .

So my point still stands :p