How to bypass 4 GB wall with a x86 OS - step by step

[spootnack]

Hello.

See my topic in the "Software Chat", before to read this, please ! : HERE

WARNIG : Don't try / do this if your are a noob, if you don't know what you do !!!!! WARNING It can break your system !!!

The article (Please, read it !) : http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm

To fully use our RAM, details :

- Patch the "PAE kernel" (a copy obviously)

- Correct the checksum OR Sign digitally the kernel

- Establish the boot process with "test mode" (Persistent Test Mode)

PS: To sign the kernel, use "Driver Signature Enforcement Overrider 1.3b"

PLEASE, read the instructions on the article ! Pictures are here just to help and show you !!!

Proofs :

Before,

And after :

Steps :

Patch the Win7 kernel ! (Two offsets !!!)

You can correct the checksum,

OR sign it :

Then, you must modifiy the BCD with BCDEdit utility

Most important is finished.

Now you have this :

Use again "Driver Signature Enforcement Overrider 1.3b" to "clean" your desktop.

Be careful my friends !!!

Cheers.

++

[sanjoa]

Nice but dangerous

[implague]

very Fascinating but it reminds me "Poison Ivy" though it is very dangerous to run on the system still there r some doubts this will be patched if ur MOBO or processor will support more than 4Gb RAM like if u hav a Gigabyte G31 NOBO which supports only up to 4Gigs of ram so this will not be applicable to such Motherboards well plz do dorrect if I am wrong somwhere :unsure:

[crezla]

Looking good, but how can you be sure that the whole 6 gigs are actually usable? I mean have you tested extremely heavy apps that use 3+ gigs to find out? The thing is, MS released an update for windows x86 to show the size of ram inserted in the module rather than how much of it is actually usable to make it more eye pleasing for people, yet the fact remains that the hardlimit is what it is...

[henz]

http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2009/08/19/make-windows-7-and-vista-32-bit-x86-support-more-than-4gb-memory/

even recognized, do you able to use more than 4GB ?

[Peace_Angel]

Does 'showing' that the system has 6 Gb means it can actually address these 6 Gb?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that a 32 bit OS could address a maximum of 2³² memory locations, hence, 4Gb of ram.

And a 64 bit OS that's a totally different history since it can address 2⁶⁴ memory locations, hence 18446744073709551616 locations.

Windows 2003 Server also comes into two flavors as is windows 2008, i.e., 32 bits and 64 bits.

Some people (not necessarily on this forum) have claimed that MS is doing this (4Gb limit) on purpose.

A final test could be to add 6 Gb of RAM on a 32 bit version of Linux and see if it can use the 6Gb fully.

P.s. I have read somewhere that 32 bits Linux can handle 64 Gb of RAM. Whether this is true, I am a bit skeptical, but then, I have used Linux only once.

Peace.

[spootnack]

Hello guys !!!

very Fascinating but it reminds me "Poison Ivy" though it is very dangerous to run on the system still there r some doubts this will be patched if ur MOBO or processor will support more than 4Gb RAM like if u hav a Gigabyte G31 NOBO which supports only up to 4Gigs of ram so this will not be applicable to such Motherboards well plz do dorrect if I am wrong somwhere :unsure:

Yes, you are right. Hardware (motherboard) must be compatible. Need support 4 or more GB, I think :)

Looking good, but how can you be sure that the whole 6 gigs are actually usable? I mean have you tested extremely heavy apps that use 3+ gigs to find out? The thing is, MS released an update for windows x86 to show the size of ram inserted in the module rather than how much of it is actually usable to make it more eye pleasing for people, yet the fact remains that the hardlimit is what it is...

Yes, I tested with Vmware Workstation.

There were :

- The OS (~1,5 GB)

- 3 VM (1x 1,5 GB and 2x 1 GB allocated)

Total = ~5 GB

• Normal kernel (3gb usable) => It s*** from ~2.5 GB used (It freeze and SWAP A LOT ! :lol: )
  
• Patched kernel (6gb usable) => Perfect up to ~5.4 GB, then it SWAP :D
  

Btw, each VM have his own process (xxxxVMX.exe) and none had more than 2 GB (by process).

I couldn't test with more than 2 GB allocated for each VM... (If I'm right, there is AGAIN the limit by each process usable, do I understand well ??)

I need time to test more !

http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2009/08/19/make-windows-7-and-vista-32-bit-x86-support-more-than-4gb-memory/

even recognized, do you able to use more than 4GB ?

Thank you for the link dude, I'll read it !!! and the ultimate proofs (I could not remember about "system informations")

Look at : (sorry for the french, use "system informations" or "msinfo32.exe" to see on your PC)

Normal kernel :

Patched one :

Does 'showing' that the system has 6 Gb means it can actually address these 6 Gb?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that a 32 bit OS could address a maximum of 2³² memory locations, hence, 4Gb of ram.

And a 64 bit OS that's a totally different history since it can address 2⁶⁴ memory locations, hence 18446744073709551616 locations.

Windows 2003 Server also comes into two flavors as is windows 2008, i.e., 32 bits and 64 bits.

Some people (not necessarily on this forum) have claimed that MS is doing this (4Gb limit) on purpose.

A final test could be to add 6 Gb of RAM on a 32 bit version of Linux and see if it can use the 6Gb fully.

P.s. I have read somewhere that 32 bits Linux can handle 64 Gb of RAM. Whether this is true, I am a bit skeptical, but then, I have used Linux only once.

Peace.

The patch doesn't correct the "appearance". (Read "Patch Details" in the article) It "kicks out the limit about the licence" ! :lol:

Ask to tony or Koojotti for the ASM code but it truncates a test (at two offsets) (the test which says the licence you have !), if I'm right...

So, if some guys are interested, I can try to provide a patch (like the one of raymond.cc) but for Windows 7 and why not an all-in-one (XP, Vista...) and why not a full package with all softs ??? Anyone interested ? :coolwink:

Cheers.

++

[RadioActive]

It sounds interesting but it's also too much hassle compared to simply installing an x64 bit OS.

[spootnack]

It sounds interesting but it's also too much hassle compared to simply installing an x64 bit OS.

Or maybe not.

If anyone provide an "all-ine-one" tool, it takes you 5 minutes ! Less than installing x64 OS to have many problems ! (drivers problems, security about unsigned drivers (cracked drivers ;)) and less cracked appz, less compatible appz and more and more...

And my system can even boot with normal mode if I choose the other entry in the BCD at the starting of the computer !!! (you can setup as you want ! Ex: 2 two entries with BCD OR 1 with only the new patched kernel, 2 but with the patched kernel by default ... It's cool !)

Cheers.

++

PS: The biggest thing is EVERYBODY in the world think that x32 can NOT run more than 4 GB cause 2^32 !!! Officially, yes but unofficially, it's not true !! :dance2: (PSS: PAE make you to use 2^36 bits, in theory).

[NightWalker]

Wow very nice and dangerous , I will try in the future B)