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

[ShamRocker1]

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.

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.

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.

"Theoreticaly" isn't real world. It doesn't work. Do some research.

[hdood]

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

"Quit with the fear, uncertainty and doubt?" What on earth does that sentence even mean?

Just because the CPU architecture is 32-bit, does not mean that the addressing has to be. Modern systems support >36-bit addressing, and this is implemented with three-level translation. It's a completely standard thing, supported by all platforms from Windows Server to OS X to Linux to FreeBSD to most other platforms still in development.

[ShamRocker1]

Seriously. Get a clue. It won't work. Do some research.

[Astra.Xtreme]

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.

Is it that hard to read what I said before you respond?... This is not about server products or any of that. If the server products can already address more memory, then it would not need this.

For the second or third time, this is for the mainstream 32-bit system that you piece together from Newegg or whatever. NOT SERVER HARDWARE.

For this casual user with a 32-bit system, this will not work because the hardware and software will not allow it. That's it, no excuses. If you honest think it will work, go try it yourself and report back to us...

[ShamRocker1]

^ TY

[hdood]

Seriously. Get a clue. It won't work. Do some research.

No, you get a clue. What I said was absolutely correct. I suggest that you contact Microsoft and Apple immediately and inform them that their products that support PAE do in fact not work. I'm sure they would be surprised to find out. You get right on that.

Is it that hard to read what I said before you respond?... This is not about server products or any of that. If the server products can already address more memory, then it would not need this.

For the second or third time, this is for the mainstream 32-bit system that you piece together from Newegg or whatever. NOT SERVER HARDWARE.

For this casual user with a 32-bit system, this will not work because the hardware and software will not allow it. That's it, no excuses. If you honest think it will work, go try it yourself and report back to us...

You are absolutely wrong. It is supported by most current consumer hardware. The server versions of Windows support it because they are licensed to use more than 4GB and because they do not have an artificial limit imposed for driver compatibility (which the client edition does.) The logic is that people who run the server edition are able to pick components that they know support it, so that the compatibility issue doesn't matter as much.

Now, whether this particular patch works, I do not know, but it is a simple fact that everything needed to support it is already present in Windows, but is just disabled in the client edition (which is mostly identical to the server edition, with different settings.) This means that it could certainly be possible to do it from a technical aspect. The people here who are claiming it doesn't work or can't be done, are not basing this claim on any facts.

[ShamRocker1]

Seriously. You need to do your homework. It's not gonna happen no matter what you wish in this world. You're wrong, let it go. Supported HARDWARE WISE- not SOFTWARE unless you have the correct OS.

[hdood]

Seriously. You need to do your homework. It's not gonna happen no matter what you wish in this world. You're wrong, let it go.

You need to state what I am wrong about. I have said several things, so please be specific. Am I wrong about it being possible to go beyond 32-bit addressing on 32-bit systems with PAE? Am I wrong about the fact that Microsoft sells 32-bit versions of Windows that support up to 128GB? Am I wrong about the server and client line being virtually identical? What am I wrong about? Be specific.

[ShamRocker1]

I am now tired of you. PAE was never an issue. I believe you brought it into the discussion. As far as the server/client issue. Do you not think that a company would even have a server/client if there wasn't an advantage and a purpose to either? Go away.

[The_Observer]

im amazed at people still wanting to use 4+ gigs of memory on a 32bit system, 32bit is on its way out so why use something that will not use all your memory, and not use something that will make a better overall computer system. I hope Windows 8 is the last of 32bit software and they move to 64bit windows with windows9. I have heard that the current windows server is the last of 32bit and the next will be only 64bit. It seems like people have had mixed results with PAE and that its not worth having it... in the end i think people should try both and see how the feel!

[ToneKnee]

You need to state what I am wrong about. I have said several things, so please be specific. Am I wrong about it being possible to go beyond 32-bit addressing on 32-bit systems with PAE? Am I wrong about the fact that Microsoft sells 32-bit versions of Windows that support up to 128GB? Am I wrong about the server and client line being virtually identical? What am I wrong about? Be specific.

hdood, stop living under a rock and upgrade to x64.

And to everyone else, Windows does support 36bit addressing via PAE, but, it's a hardware problem with drivers etc. Server based products can be tailored to support it since it's a server environment, but for standard consumer hardware like Graphics cards etc, they need to be designed and have drivers to fully support it or you'll have system crashes and so on. This "hack" will only cause system instability which can be avoided by either just staying with 32bit version of Windows or upgrading to x64.

All this crap needs to stop, retail versions of Windows Vista/7 (I think some OEM copies) can go from 32bit to 64bit without any additional cost since the CD keys will work with both products.

x64 is no just about more memory, it's the extra CPU registerers etc that are good for speed increases for applications that support/take advantage of x64 based hardware. And if I hear someone say "Well, 32bit is 'emulated' in x64 version of Windows", please stfu, really, the performance differences for this type of 'emulation' is near to nothing.

[Astra.Xtreme]

You are absolutely wrong. It is supported by most current consumer hardware. The server versions of Windows support it because they are licensed to use more than 4GB and because they do not have an artificial limit imposed for driver compatibility (which the client edition does.) The logic is that people who run the server edition are able to pick components that they know support it, so that the compatibility issue doesn't matter as much.

Now, whether this particular patch works, I do not know, but it is a simple fact that everything needed to support it is already present in Windows, but is just disabled in the client edition (which is mostly identical to the server edition, with different settings.) This means that it could certainly be possible to do it from a technical aspect. The people here who are claiming it doesn't work or can't be done, are not basing this claim on any facts.

Seriously, can you please stop going on about server hardware/software? For the fourth time, this is NOT about that.

If you want to convince us that this works, please go try it. I mean no disrespect, but you won't convince us with anything until you give us physical proof that it will work.

[ShamRocker1]

hdood, stop living under a rock and upgrade to x64.

And to everyone else, Windows does support 36bit addressing via PAE, but, it's a hardware problem with drivers etc. Server based products can be tailored to support it since it's a server environment, but for standard consumer hardware like Graphics cards etc, they need to be designed and have drivers to fully support it or you'll have system crashes and so on. This "hack" will only cause system instability which can be avoided by either just staying with 32bit version of Windows or upgrading to x64.

All this crap needs to stop, retail versions of Windows Vista/7 (I think some OEM copies) can go from 32bit to 64bit without any additional cost since the CD keys will work with both products.

x64 is no just about more memory, it's the extra CPU registerers etc that are good for speed increases for applications that support/take advantage of x64 based hardware. And if I hear someone say "Well, 32bit is 'emulated' in x64 version of Windows", please stfu, really, the performance differences for this type of 'emulation' is near to nothing.

Not emulated. Virtualized. ;)

[BigBoobLover]

Seriously. You need to do your homework. It's not gonna happen no matter what you wish in this world. You're wrong, let it go. Supported HARDWARE WISE- not SOFTWARE unless you have the correct OS.

What is likely happening with this patch is that they are modifying the kernel to act like the kernel from the server lines of Windows, which support more than 4GB on 32-bit. There is your OS support right there. Now what exactly are you saying won't work?

[John.D]

im amazed at people still wanting to use 4+ gigs of memory on a 32bit system, 32bit is on its way out so why use something that will not use all your memory, and not use something that will make a better overall computer system. I hope Windows 8 is the last of 32bit software and they move to 64bit windows with windows9. I have heard that the current windows server is the last of 32bit and the next will be only 64bit. It seems like people have had mixed results with PAE and that its not worth having it... in the end i think people should try both and see how the feel!

Most probably would LIKE to go to 64 bit, BUT 32 bit ONLY CPU's still do exist. And obviously 64 bit wont install if the CPU is only 32 bit. And the only way they'll be able to get out of 32 bit, is if they update everything. So, it'll support it

[hdood]

I am now tired of you. PAE was never an issue. I believe you brought it into the discussion. As far as the server/client issue. Do you not think that a company would even have a server/client if there wasn't an advantage and a purpose to either? Go away.

Please answer my question. PAE was never an issue? What do you mean? PAE is the feature that lets you use >32-bit addressing on 32-bit platforms (something you claimed wasn't possible).

Again, tell me what was wrong?

Was it that it is it possible to go beyond 32-bit addressing on 32-bit systems with PAE?

Was it that Microsoft sells 32-bit versions of Windows that support up to 128GB?

Was it that the server and client line is virtually identical?

Since you know for a fact that this patch can't work, could you take a few minutes to explain to us how the memory initialization during startup works in Windows, and how it differs between Vista and Server 2008? How do you know that the difference is any more substantial than simply setting a flag? It's not unreasonable to suspect this, so how do you know otherwise? I trust that you can enlighten us, since you clearly know the facts here.

Most probably would LIKE to go to 64 bit, BUT 32 bit ONLY CPU's still do exist. And obviously 64 bit wont install if the CPU is only 32 bit. And the only way they'll be able to get out of 32 bit, is if they update everything. So, it'll support it

Well, technically they do, but they're no longer made except for certain mobile processors. I doubt there's any great number of people out there with old 32-bit Pentiums or Athlons and >4GB of memory they're dying to get to work. When this topic comes up, it's almost exclusively people with fairly high-end modern hardware.

[ShamRocker1]

What is likely happening with this patch is that they are modifying the kernel to act like the kernel from the server lines of Windows, which support more than 4GB on 32-bit. There is your OS support right there. Now what exactly are you saying won't work?

What "patch"? The kernel is what it is. You can't alter 32 bit code to do what 64 bit code does. Go away with the FUD.

[BigBoobLover]

Seriously, can you please stop going on about server hardware/software? For the fourth time, this is NOT about that.

As I (and others) have stated, this patch is most likely making a hybrid kernel that has the memory support from the server software patched into the kernel for the client OS. That is why people keep mentioning the fact that the server version support it. You and ShamRocker1 are the ones who keep claiming that it simply isn't possible at all without stating any facts to back up your claims.

[Harsesis]

http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?do...ense/memory.htm

Read please.

That 32-bit editions of Windows Vista are limited to 4GB is not because of any technical constraint on 32-bit operating systems. The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista all contain code for using physical memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn’t license you to use that code.

ps. Please don't whinge that its about Vista, the same applies to 7

[Raa]

Windows XP used to support it before SP2 I believe. Google it because it's definitely possible.

No, it didn't, and it isn't (supported).

[hdood]

What "patch"? The kernel is what it is. You can't alter 32 bit code to do what 64 bit code does. Go away with the FUD.

I don't think you understand. The ability to use 36-bit addressing is already present in 32-bit Windows. It's solid, fully tested implementation that has been around for ages. If you want some examples of what the various 32-bit versions of Windows Server can support, you can click here.

The server and client version of Windows aren't two separate operating systems. They're the same OS, built from the same code, but with different settings. They even share many binaries (this makes servicing much easier.) It's perfectly rational to suspect that the configuration is decided at runtime with a simple flag, and that you can patch the kernel to enable the functionality that is really intended for the server editions. This doesn't have to be more than a few bytes.

It's a silly thing to do, and leaves your OS in an unsupported state, but it can be possible.

[ShamRocker1]

As I (and others) have stated, this patch is most likely making a hybrid kernel that has the memory support from the server software patched into the kernel for the client OS. That is why people keep mentioning the fact that the server version support it. You and ShamRocker1 are the ones who keep claiming that it simply isn't possible at all without stating any facts to back up your claims.

Well. We managed to get 4 pages of crap.

[hdood]

No, it didn't, and it isn't (supported).

Actually, XP did originally support it. The license limited it to 4GB, but you could use the whole 4GB with PAE (and not lose any address space to things like the graphics card.) It was disabled in SP1 because of compatibility issues with incorrectly designed drivers.

[Stetson]

I don't think you understand. The ability to use 36-bit addressing is already present in 32-bit Windows. It's solid, fully tested implementation that has been around for ages. If you want some examples of what the various 32-bit versions of Windows Server can support, you can click here.

The server and client version of Windows aren't two separate operating systems. They're the same OS, built from the same code, but with different settings. They even share many binaries (this makes servicing much easier.) It's perfectly rational to suspect that the configuration is decided at runtime with a simple flag, and that you can patch the kernel to enable the functionality that is really intended for the server editions. This doesn't have to be more than a few bytes.

It's a silly thing to do, and leaves your OS in an unsupported state, but it can be possible.

Are you still talking about PAE? Reading this thread it seems to me that nobody denied the existence of PAE or its ability to extend memory usage in a 32-bit OS under the right conditions, but rather that it isn't practical for consumers using standard consumer hardware because of incompatibilities.

[BigBoobLover]

As I (and others) have stated, this patch is most likely making a hybrid kernel that has the memory support from the server software patched into the kernel for the client OS. That is why people keep mentioning the fact that the server version support it. You and ShamRocker1 are the ones who keep claiming that it simply isn't possible at all without stating any facts to back up your claims.

Well. We managed to get pages of crap.

Why did you quote me there without using quote tags??