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


Recommended Posts

unawave
Disabling the page file isn't a good thing to do.

But for testing environment no problem. Otherwise people would say:

all it does is page what can't fit in memory to disk instead
Link to post
Share on other sites
leesmithg
If you have read the link in my first post then you should recognize that you also can do all the steps manually ? no Russian patch necessary.

Your are right. But say "a billion computers minus 4" because I have tested this patch on 4 different PCs without any problem

Not in my case, because I have disabled paging file.

You are right- Microsoft has released operating systems that are able to do it:

  • Windows 2000 Advanced Server, 8 GB
  • Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, 32 GB
  • Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, 32 GB
  • Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition SP1, 64 GB
  • Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition, 64 GB
  • Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition SP1, 128 GB

I was thinking more along the lines of a typical home user ops (operating system), XP, ME, 2K, Vista, 7. x86

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigBoobLover
I was thinking more along the lines of a typical home user ops (operating system), XP, ME, 2K, Vista, 7. x86

And the thread just went in a big circle back to page 2. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
Buio

It's just backwards. The Windows 7 license should be valid for either a 32-bit or 64-bit install, and if you have 4GB or more RAM, just use the 64-bit version.

Even Steam users are adopting Windows 7 64-bit.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

 Windows 7 64 bit (+2.45%)  15.61%
Windows 7 (+0.02%)  7.45%

Link to post
Share on other sites
leesmithg
It's just backwards. The Windows 7 license should be valid for either a 32-bit or 64-bit install, and if you have 4GB or more RAM, just use the 64-bit version.

Even Steam users are adopting Windows 7 64-bit.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

 Windows 7 64 bit (+2.45%)  15.61%
Windows 7 (+0.02%)  7.45%

My windows 7 professional license works on both disk x86 and x64, I prefer x64.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor

The Vista and 7 licenses should work for either version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigBoobLover
It's just backwards. The Windows 7 license should be valid for either a 32-bit or 64-bit install, and if you have 4GB or more RAM, just use the 64-bit version.

A 32-bit processor won't run the 64-bit version. It will, however, access more than 4GB of RAM. Please read over the first few pages of the thread before commenting further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Buio
A 32-bit processor won't run the 64-bit version. It will, however, access more than 4GB of RAM. Please read over the first few pages of the thread before commenting further.

Maybe time to upgrade instead of trying to run Windows 7 on such an old CPU with that much RAM. I'd say that a Windows 7 license would cost more than upgrading the hardware to one that has 64-bit support. And it's just my opinion about it. If someone wants to use this for those extremely few cases then go ahead.

With news like these and no clear indications on who should use it and why in the first post or topic title, there is always a risk that people who really should _not_ use it, do just that. Reading posts on some PC/Windows forums, there still pops up users that believe "I heard that games don't work on 64-bit" or "The computer run faster with 32-bit" and would not hesitate to use this hack and run 32-bit Windows 7 on a PC with 4GB+RAM.

Edited by Buio
Link to post
Share on other sites
ToneKnee
Not in my case, because I have disabled paging file.

/facepalm

You do realise that you cannot actually force page file to be disabled, right? You can limit it's memory but Windows will always have a pagefile because the system requires it and so does a lot of applications. Stop being a noob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VAVA Mk2
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.

I could do that....or I could install the 64 Bit disc instead of the 32 Bit disc....oh wait...I already did

Link to post
Share on other sites
unawave
You do realise that you cannot actually force page file to be disabled, right?

I can disable pagefile.

You can limit it's memory but Windows will always have a pagefile

I realise when I disable the pagefile that the pagefile.sys is gone after a rebooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live
If you have read the link in my first post then you should recognize that you also can do all the steps manually ? no Russian patch necessary.

Huh?

/facepalm

You do realise that you cannot actually force page file to be disabled, right? You can limit it's memory but Windows will always have a pagefile because the system requires it and so does a lot of applications. Stop being a noob.

That is not true. If you disable the page file, there will be no page file.

But there's no reason you'd want to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigBoobLover
That is not true. If you disable the page file, there will be no page file.

But there's no reason you'd want to do that.

I've done it on several occasions for one simple reason: defraging the hard drive and compacting it before splitting the volume with disk management. The page file tends (at least on my system) to sit right smack in the middle of the space that I'm trying to free up for splitting. Of course, I turn the page file back on after I'm done, but I'm just mentioning one reason someone might need to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live
A 32-bit processor won't run the 64-bit version. It will, however, access more than 4GB of RAM. Please read over the first few pages of the thread before commenting further.

Only if you hack Windows to allow >4GB addressing via PAE and have hardware that supports remapping of device addresses and supports >4GB of addressing. Finding such hardware is rare.

And even if you do find it, you may still have devices which don't play well with this configuration, so your machine may be unstable.

Not to mention that hacking your kernel / HAL to allow it to even happen... which itself can destabilze your system, cause updates to fail, require re-patching it when updates are made, etc.

Just overall a really terrible idea. If you want to use 4GB or more of RAM, get a 64-bit computer (with a >4GB enabled chipset and 64-bit OS).

I've done it on several occasions for one simple reason: defraging the hard drive and compacting it before splitting the volume with disk management. The page file tends (at least on my system) to sit right smack in the middle of the space that I'm trying to free up for splitting. Of course, I turn the page file back on after I'm done, but I'm just mentioning one reason someone might need to.

Agreed, that actually is a legitimate use (disabling the hiberfile helps in that case too). I just wish the volume resizing tool took care of that for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigBoobLover
I could do that....or I could install the 64 Bit disc instead of the 32 Bit disc....oh wait...I already did

You installed the 64-bit disc on a 32-bit processor? Or did you fail to comprehend what this entire thread is about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
mrk
Not in my case, because I have disabled paging file.

When you disable the pagefile in Windows it's not completely disabled, Windows will still page to disk.

Anyway on Vista/7 Disabling the pagefile gains nothing, in fact apps that rely on paging will complain (Photoshop) and Windows will still page to disk anyway.

This thread should just be closed.

32bit is old news, 64bit is compatibel with virtually everything 32bit is and even netbooks now will run 64bit just fine. You don't need to have 4+ GB of RAM to make use of a 64bit OS and upgrading from a 32bit version to 64bit of your OS is usually free anyway. Just source the 64bit version of your OS and install with your 32bit product key.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live
When you disable the pagefile in Windows it's not completely disabled, Windows will still page to disk.

No it will not. Where did this myth come from?

Anyway on Vista/7 Disabling the pagefile gains nothing, in fact apps that rely on paging will complain (Photoshop) and Windows will still page to disk anyway.

No they will not. Apps might complain about not being able to map enough address space / allocate enough memory, but they will not do any paging if there's no pagefile to page to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigBoobLover
Only if you hack Windows to allow >4GB addressing via PAE and have hardware that supports remapping of device addresses and supports >4GB of addressing. Finding such hardware is rare.

And even if you do find it, you may still have devices which don't play well with this configuration, so your machine may be unstable.

Not to mention that hacking your kernel / HAL to allow it to even happen... which itself can destabilze your system, cause updates to fail, require re-patching it when updates are made, etc.

Just overall a really terrible idea. If you want to use 4GB or more of RAM, get a 64-bit computer (with a >4GB enabled chipset and 64-bit OS).

Yeah, I think this thread keeps going in circles because new people keep coming into the thread without reading (at least)the first couple of pages.

Agreed, that actually is a legitimate use (disabling the hiberfile helps in that case too). I just wish the volume resizing tool took care of that for you.

Yeah, I don't use hibernation on this system anyway, so I have that disabled all the time. It does get to be a major annoyance when the page file keeps volume splitting from working right. I've actually had the damned page file sitting right at the end of the drive before too! That completely disables the ability to split the drive. How about sending a memo to someone who works on the disk management console to see if they can figure out a way to work around that? Hell, I'd even be happy if it required a reboot (shrinking the volume at boot time and then re-enabling the page file after booting).

It's not like I have to do this every day, but every few months I re-arrange some things on my system, and that is one of the tools I use to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood

Obviously the myth came from the old task manager. A true masterpiece of design.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mrk

Some processes still need the pagefile to work so Windows will just use it when needed, also crash reports don't get generated if you turn off the pagefile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood
Some processes still need the pagefile to work so Windows will just use it when needed

Anything that "needs" it (you can technically allocate memory in it, but I don't know of anything that does, nor many people who know how) will simply fail. It won't work. There's no hidden backup page file.

also crash reports don't get generated if you turn off the pagefile.

Only kernel crash dumps (and they require the page file to be on the boot volume as well), not applications.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason S.
I guess the fact that lots and lots of people still have perfectly useable 32-bit systems eludes you. Be careful, your arrogance is showing.

arrogance? perhaps...

if you have a perfectly useable 32-bit system then you should accept the fact that it cannot support more than 4GB of RAM. why is that so hard to believe?

it's like saying "i have a perfectly useable Core 2 cpu... how can i get it to fit into an x58 socket? but there has to be a way!" no... physically it will not fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Buio

The users needing this are extremely few. A lot of PC's with a 32-bit CPU doesn't even support 4GB RAM on the motherboard, very few over 4GB (probably servers mostly, and in those cases why not run a server OS with native PAE support). This thread shouldn't be more than one page long if the original post made clear who this could benefit (and told the others to keep out).

Link to post
Share on other sites
BigBoobLover
it's like saying "i have a perfectly useable Core 2 cpu... how can i get it to fit into an x58 socket? but there has to be a way!" no... physically it will not fit.

Actually, its not like that. Most 32-bit processors have a 36-bit address bus, so they do support more than 4GB of RAM. It is a limitation of the software (in this case the OS) that keeps it from being utilized. As has been pointed out though, even though the hack works, problems can arise from the fact that it is an untested configuration, and some software and drivers are likely not to work. Others will work just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live
Actually, its not like that. Most 32-bit processors have a 36-bit address bus, so they do support more than 4GB of RAM. It is a limitation of the software (in this case the OS) that keeps it from being utilized. As has been pointed out though, even though the hack works, problems can arise from the fact that it is an untested configuration, and some software and drivers are likely not to work. Others will work just fine.

PAE uses 64-bit page table entries and an additional layer of page table directory. Some of the additional bits are used for flags like the NX bit, and up to 51 bits could be used for addressing (though in practice this number is smaller, i.e. 36-bit addressing).

But is isn't the CPU that really matters, it's the chipset. Even relatively modern chipsets like the common Intel 925X/915 don't support addressing more than 4GB of memory, regardless of PAE, 64-bit OSes, or anything else.

The only chipsets which generally do support >4GB are those designed for 64-bit CPUs or those designed for servers. And even several chipsets which are compatible with 64-bit CPUs (like the 915) still won't allow you to map more than 4GB worth of addresses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.