Windows 7 32-bit with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

[unawave]

The Russian Programmers Group "staforce" has written a small program witch removes the lock in the kernel of the 32-bit version of Windows 7.

With such an unlocked (patched) kernel all 32 bit versions of Windows 7 suddenly can use almost the entire 4 GB of RAM, 8 GB of RAM - up to 64 GB of RAM.

The patch program automatically makes a copy of the kernel file, then removes the lock and integrates the new kernel file as an extra boot menu entry in the Windows 7 boot menu. Then you have the option to start Windows 7 either as usual with the original kernel or with the modified kernel. Details see here.

[John.D]

Malwarebytes ip protection picks that link up as a malicious ip / site. Dont click on the link

[kawasabi]

Nothing wrong with the link, looks interesting.

[qdave]

interesting indeed. i wonder if someone is brave enough to try it out.

[hdood]

<Snipped>

I don't know why you people have to launch into such a vicious attack just because someone posts something they found interesting. Yes, the site itself seems to be a machine-translated version of a foreign-language post, but so? It is a fact that 32-bit Windows does in fact support large amounts of memory, but that artificial restrictions have been introduced in the client editions. It's not a huge surprise that a hack could change this, although it could potentially be a license violation (the various editions are only licensed to use a certain amount of memory), which I suppose is against the rules.

The hack is interesting and there's no harm in recognizing it as such, even though one should think long and hard about applying a patch that leaves the OS in an unsupported state, and whether just moving to 64-bit wouldn't be a better move.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Anaron

[Astra.Xtreme]

Whether or not somebody made something that "supposedly" works, using more than 3.5GB of RAM on a 32-bit system is physically impossible. 32-bit can only address a certain number of digits (bits) in which 3.5GB exceeds.

If you want the specifics, a quick Google search will bring up everything you need.

Bottom line. It's not possible and it won't work.

[bigmehdi]

So saying that 32 bit cannot support more than 4Gb was a lie ? There was technical explanations about this limitation, and suddenly the true limit is 64 gb !

[ToneKnee]

No, it is possible, it's called PAE (Physical Address Extension), but it can be very unstable, a lot of drivers have not been designed to work with that setting enabled. Server operating systems can have it enabled because they can use specialised drivers. Just upgrade to x64. :)

[Xilo]

There IS a way to support more than 4GB of ram on 32bit system. Windows XP used to support it before SP2 I believe. Google it because it's definitely possible.

[BigBoobLover]

PAE anyone?

edit: I see Tony posted it before I finished looking up the link. I do love all of the ignorant repsonses in this thread though. LOL

[fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj]

The range of integer values that can be stored in 32 bits is 0 through 4,294,967,295 or −2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647 using two's complement encoding. Hence, a processor with 32-bit memory addresses can directly access 4 GB of byte-addressable memory.

PAE anyone?

edit: I see Tony posted it before I finished looking up the link.

PAE isn't compatible with all drivers.

[hdood]

Whether or not somebody made something that "supposedly" works, using more than 3.5GB of RAM on a 32-bit system is physically impossible. 32-bit can only address a certain number of digits (bits) in which 3.5GB exceeds.

If you want the specifics, a quick Google search will bring up everything you need.

Bottom line. It's not possible and it won't work.

No, because most modern systems are in fact not limited to 32-bit addressing. They support 36-bit or more. This means that they can theoretically address at least 64GB even on 32-bit, although few motherboards would support that. The server editions of 32-bit Windows support up to 128GB.

[Vox Populi]

Why not just install a 64bit OS? You'll only be limited by the size of your wallet for how much ram your system will have.

64bit = up to 256 terabytes (artificial limit imposed on the 64bit cpu)

[BigBoobLover]

PAE isn't compatible with all drivers.

I'm aware of that, but I'd bet you that this is what these hackers are using to make this trick work.

[ShamRocker1]

I don't know why you people have to launch into such a vicious attack just because someone posts something they found interesting. Yes, the site itself seems to be a machine-translated version of a foreign-language post, but so? It is a fact that 32-bit Windows does in fact support large amounts of memory, but that artificial restrictions have been introduced in the client editions. It's not a huge surprise that a hack could change this, although it could potentially be a license violation (the various editions are only licensed to use a certain amount of memory), which I suppose is against the rules.

The hack is interesting and there's no harm in recognizing it as such, even though one should think long and hard about applying a patch that leaves the OS in an unsupported state, and whether just moving to 64-bit wouldn't be a better move.

Not even remotely interesting. It doesn't work. Get off of your high horse.

[hjf288]

You'd need applications that are PAE Aware to use the memory... so basically it will recognise all the memory but it will still be limited to 2GB per app

[Malisk]

The Russian Programmers Group "staforce" has written a small program witch removes the lock in the kernel of the 32-bit version of Windows 7.

With such an unlocked (patched) kernel all 32 bit versions of Windows 7 suddenly can use almost the entire 4 GB of RAM, 8 GB of RAM - up to 64 GB of RAM.

The patch program automatically makes a copy of the kernel file, then removes the lock and integrates the new kernel file as an extra boot menu entry in the Windows 7 boot menu. Then you have the option to start Windows 7 either as usual with the original kernel or with the modified kernel. Details see here.

Hehe...

The problem is not the software kernel, patched or not... The problem is hardware limitations. :p

The registers in a 32 bit CPU aren't 64 bit. :p

[John.D]

Why not just install a 64bit OS? You'll only be limited by the size of your wallet for how much ram your system will have.

64bit = up to 256 terabytes (artificial limit imposed on the 64bit cpu)

Not only that, first you'll have to find 4x4 gb sticks, (if your system supports up to 16 GB ), which are either non-existent in NZ where I am. or cost an arm and a leg, if you do manage to find any

[Astra.Xtreme]

No, because most modern systems are in fact not limited to 32-bit addressing. They support 36-bit or more. This means that they can theoretically address at least 64GB even on 32-bit, although few motherboards would support that. The server editions of 32-bit Windows support up to 128GB.

Well yeah that's all possible, and so is PAE, but this isn't about that. This is about the barebone 32-bit systems that can't address more than 3.5GB and how they "cracked" that barrier.

The answer still stands that it's BS and it doesn't work.

[ShamRocker1]

Hehe...

The problem is not the software kernel, patched or not... The problem is hardware limitations. :p

The registers in a 32 bit CPU aren't 64 bit. :p

TY

Well yeah that's all possible, and so is PAE, but this isn't about that. This is about the barebone 32-bit systems that can't address more than 3.5GB and how they "cracked" that barrier.

The answer still stands that it's BS and it doesn't work.

And TY

[BigBoobLover]

Hehe...

The problem is not the software kernel, patched or not... The problem is hardware limitations. :p

The registers in a 32 bit CPU aren't 64 bit. :p

And in most CPU's made in the last decade, they aren't 32-bit either, they are 36-bit.

[tsupersonic]

Just plain old BS.

[daiv_]

And in most CPU's made in the last decade, they aren't 32-bit either, they are 36-bit.

but the OS is 32 bit, so regardless of how many bits the processor is, running a 32bit OS uses only 32bits of the processor.

[ShamRocker1]

No, because most modern systems are in fact not limited to 32-bit addressing. They support 36-bit or more. This means that they can theoretically address at least 64GB even on 32-bit, although few motherboards would support that. The server editions of 32-bit Windows support up to 128GB.

Quit with the FUD please. 32 bit is 32 bit not 36.

[hdood]

Not even remotely interesting. It doesn't work. Get off of your high horse.

Which you don't know at all. Personally I think running patches like this is stupid, but I wouldn't be so quick to insist that it doesn't work. From a theoretical aspect, it can certainly work.

You'd need applications that are PAE Aware to use the memory... so basically it will recognise all the memory but it will still be limited to 2GB per app

There is no such thing as a "PAE-aware" application. The 2GB limitation always applies, even on 32-bit versions of Windows that support more than 4GB (the server line.) The only way around this is for applications to do their own memory management by mapping chunks of memory in and out of their address space, but this is fairly rare. A few server programs did it years and years ago, but nothing else does.

Well yeah that's all possible, and so is PAE, but this isn't about that. This is about the barebone 32-bit systems that can't address more than 3.5GB and how they "cracked" that barrier.

The answer still stands that it's BS and it doesn't work.

Why doesn't it work? What are you basing this claim on? You do know that Microsoft sells a whole range of 32-bit operating systems that support up to 128GB of memory, right? It's called their server products. As you probably know, the server and client edition is virtually identical (to the point where binaries literally are identical for Vista and 2008). With this in mind, I don't know why you believe it is completely impossible to patch the part of the kernel and loader that decides how much memory you get to use. It doesn't have to be more than a few bytes to change.