Windows RAM Limitation patch questions

[Atasas]

Hi guys,

I upgraded Memory on mateys Lappy to 4 gig, lazy to reinstall Win7 (in x64) just for that and simply have not that much of time to re'do.

32 and 64 Win7 RAM configuration patch... does one really work/ anyone tested? would windows version changer patch work/anyone tested?

any thoughts?

Thanks!

[sanjoa]

Those are fakes. Windows 7 32bit can handle only 3.3 GB of RAM, but Win7 x64 does not have that problem

[DKT27]

My reply from shoutbox:

Stay away from those RAM patches, they are fake. No matter what, a 32bit Windows cannot address more than 3.3GB RAM.

[Tweety.Abd]

Even if they do work, it constitutes a great risk. Patching core files of your operating system is almost never good. Besides, there is no patch for the Maintenance Pack 1 as far as I know. If I were you, I'd stick with x86 till I'm ready to migrate to x64. But for experimenting purposes, you may apply the patch, but I'd say that you should back up your files in case of system failure.

[DKT27]

A 32bit can no way calculate to 4GB RAM fully. What these patches do is, falsely show that it can address more RAM, in real, they are just graphic changes.

[Atasas]

hmhm.. shame I can not try it on m PC (only one got left x86) :P

on the other hand list of stuff to deal with on mateys PC- as long as my arm... sounds like my hated "windows upgrade" scenario :frusty:

Thanks for the opinion guys anyhow, would be nice to find 100% confirmation as of by tested one :think:

[Tweety.Abd]

A 32bit can no way calculate to 4GB RAM fully. What these patches do is, falsely show that it can address more RAM, in real, they are just graphic changes.

I never used the patch and didn't feel the need to as I use x64 architecture. I did not know that the patches were fake, since there was a topic on the forum about it. Just a quick question, if its just graphics changes, can the real amount of RAM be verified by using a 3rd party software? In any case, I strongly oppose the idea of patching OS files. Their effects may not be noticed in short run, but they definitely messes up your system on short run. Just my two cents.

[x3r0]

Agree with all above: unless you've got a program you need that doesn't work under x86, choose x64 instead. And by the way, I've read the patch won't work on intel x3100 up to newer Intel HD graphics that usually installed in a laptop...

[tangkungan]

the above replies already gives a heads-up of a what is in store if we choose to go down that path, being lazy now to reinstall to 64-bit is cumbersome yeah I agree, but once installed, you're doing your friend a big, big favor.. it'd be a set and forget thing remember?

besides a lappie wouldn't require "that much" backing up, not unless it has a terabyte of storage, which I doubt it has.. Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit FTW.. :showoff:

[Atasas]

thanks for thoughts on it guys!

x64 is in a way better?... RAM capacity only as for apps- cant think of any that really would be compatible(running x64) and would require 4gb RAM, so back to x32 modulation and abilities...

as for work?- whooo! mess got to be seen to be believed: three active users M$O profiles on each (with all outlook configurations and contacts etc); all sort of iTunes profiles; photos, used in some cases on different software; simple hardware drivers ie video cam- hardly possible to find( "support" of some manufacturers) backing up does not resolve.... files in absolutely all over the show.... :frusty:

Perhaps I've lied, when I said lazy , just an Monmouth size job and no that big of benefits, hence me looking for a quick fix...

[dishwara]

Actually i used some patches. I installed first 32 bit Win 7 thinking that 64 bit may give problems. i had 4 GB RAM , 32 win 7 recognized only 2GB.

I used patch & it created a second entry in boot record, so i can boot either with 2GB or with 128GB.

If u install u get 128GB in boot screen, meaning windows 32 bit can recognize up to 128 GB.

But did i see any improvement. I will say no.

besides that when i upgraded to sp1 i got some strange problems.

It never updated new updates after i upgraded to sp1 with 128 GB option.

But if i boot in normal 2GB, it updates fine.

Again if i go to 128GB it says update available & i need to update...

I think M$ well aware that 32bit user may try to work with more than 2GB RAM & doing something in back to avoid that.

Also, if you have graphics card with 1GB RAM, your system will get very slow, even with dedicated graphics card.

2GB RAM will become 1GB graphics memory + only 1 GB of RAM(even though you may have 4GB PHYSICAL RAM)

Better change to 64bit. I see no problem in any of my applications. 32 or 64 bit applications.

Drivers may give problems & you need to get 64 bit OLD drivers.

[RadioActive]

AFAIK the limitations on the amount of RAM that an x86 Windows can see and use is not a limitation of the OS itself, but a hard-coded limit set by the developers for God-knows-why..

[Kojootti]

Even if they do work, it constitutes a great risk. Patching core files of your operating system is almost never good. Besides, there is no patch for the Maintenance Pack 1 as far as I know. If I were you, I'd stick with x86 till I'm ready to migrate to x64. But for experimenting purposes, you may apply the patch, but I'd say that you should back up your files in case of system failure.

Why he has to wait till you're ready? :o

[myidisbb]

which programs inj the forums are consider these patches?

[Tweety.Abd]

Even if they do work, it constitutes a great risk. Patching core files of your operating system is almost never good. Besides, there is no patch for the Maintenance Pack 1 as far as I know. If I were you, I'd stick with x86 till I'm ready to migrate to x64. But for experimenting purposes, you may apply the patch, but I'd say that you should back up your files in case of system failure.

Why he has to wait till you're ready? :o

I'd like to clarify what I have said. I meant to say that, if I were in his place, and were too busy to upgrade at the moment, I would wait till I am ready rather than modify the OS core files. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding my post caused.

[LeetPirate]

AFAIK the limitations on the amount of RAM that an x86 Windows can see and use is not a limitation of the OS itself, but a hard-coded limit set by the developers for God-knows-why..

It's because computers use a binary system and so 32 bit system can only address 4,294,967,296 bits which is 4GB. So the system uses 4GB address space. Think of 4GB address space as addresses that map to 4GB locations on the memory module. But to access every physical device on the computer the cpu can only find them based on a predefined table of addresses that map to the hardware devices, like how a phone book matches addresses to people. So the top part of the availble 4GB address list is used to map to devices such as keyboard, gpu etc. which means that they cannot be mapped to memory locations else you would have a case where one address maps to multiple locations. This is why you lose about 700MB of ram space because the system maps the addresses for those memory locations to actually point to devices on your system.

A simple example of what I mean is like this. You have 2 tables of hex values, 00h address maps to 00h physical memory location, up to FFh address which maps to FFh physical memory location. But now on my system I need to access a keypad and I can only do this if I remap addresses FEh and FFh to point to my keypad device, therefore those 2 addresses no longer map to memory locations and therefore when my cpu calls those addresses it is to access my keypad instead and the physical memory locations remain unaffected.

[Atasas]

which programs inj the forums are consider these patches?

http://www.mediafire.com/

?6stqg8gknj8yqwl

..............................

Reading

http://msdn.microsof.../aa366778(VS.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7

:think: but hell- its M$!

and http://social.techne...03-0b04b7305d4c

poop really- nothing worth time wasting

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

[Atasas]

...reading MDL

.info/threads/15002-Windows-7-x86-with-full-4-GB-or-8-GB-RAM-support/page4

got to go to sleep, but in case I'll find an solution or else- will post later

[Atasas]

http://wzwzwz.ntcore.com/4gb_patch.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

Microsoft Windows implements PAE if booted with the appropriate option, but current 32-bit desktop editions enforce the physical address space within 4GB even in PAE mode. According to Geoff Chappell, Microsoft limits 32-bit versions of Windows to 4GB as a matter of its licensing policy,[2] and Microsoft Technical Fellow Mark Russinovich says that some drivers were found to be unstable when encountering physical addresses above 4GB.[3] Unofficial kernel patches for Windows Vista and Windows 7 32-bit are available[4] that break this enforced limitation, though the stability is not guaranteed.

M$... :rolf:

but no real do/die as yet pointed out by example to me...

:frusty: why did I get rid of other PC? (highly rhetorical, but I could have tested it, before risking dudes (and family)PC) :pirate:

[michaelteo2000]

I use eBoostr to utilize those unused 0.8GB RAM of 4 GB RAM for my 32bit Vista...

[Peace_Angel]

I agree with LeetPirate.

If a 32 bit OS can address more than 4gb then the OS is not 32bit at all... It is unlikely that MS would rebrand a 64-bit os as 32bits. This would be the only way for these patches to work since natively the OS would have a larger address space (only restricted by the rebranding).

Peace.

[dishwara]

Hope these two links help

h**p://www.overclock.net/t/596932/guide-make-32-bit-os-support-128gb-of-ram

h**p://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/25797-make-your-32bit-copy-of-windows7-support-up-to-128gb/

[Atasas]

Thanks guys!

yeah... so much talk all over the show, but apart from load of scared wannabees, very few knowledgeable people have tested it... and guess what? I have not found a single recent reputable member to say, that IE " my personal 4gb x32 system after using such or the other patch- Crashed!? or at least- I tested one!?"

Just tried for the laugh of it wz.ntcore... ( not what I need) ;

UNAWAVE -12.7.2010.. left to try, but my current PC is not going to help for me to much sure'er as I am safe to do so on my friends PC...

[Atasas]

http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN

is "the dogs bo$$oks"! :pirate:

and I shall post back... not any wiser...

Can I ask somebody (with relevant hardware) to read that page carefully and try it ?

[Atasas]

solved really :think:

Thanks for all the input guys!