Windows 7 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 Link Removed.

 

[cybercore]

This is really interesting. I think all it does for the x86 CPUs is only to show the maximum amount of RAM installed, but not really use it. Even with the Physical Address Extension, x86 architecture can address no more than approx. 4 Gbs.

Anyway if I had an x86 CPU with more than 4 Gb of RAM, I'd give this patch a go.

 

[unawave]

Anyway if I had an x86 CPU with more than 4 Gb of RAM, I'd give this patch a go.

It even makes sense with 4 GB of RAM:
I have installed 4 GB of RAM (4x1 GB) - but with Windows 7 32 Bit I only can use 3.25 GB of RAM. What for I have paid for 4 GB RAM - when I only can use 3.25 GB ?
If I had paid for a 1 terabyte hard disk and could only use 750 GB I also would be angry.​

I borrowed from a friend 4x2 GB RAM modules - and the test shows that I can use all of this 8 GB RAM.

And it is even possible that specific applications can use more then 2 GB of RAM. This feature is named "AWE" ("address windowing extension" - see wikipedia Address Windowing Extensions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). But this is a Windows API - so the software must support it.

With the borrowed 8 GB RAM I do this test:
I installed "VMware Player 3" and created a virtual machine with 5 GB of RAM. And this works.

 

[cybercore]

Sounds fantastic. Is your CPU x64 bit capable ?

 

[geynske006]

It's nice to know!
But won't that be harmfull for your pc?
there must be a reason why it's locked no?

 

[Super Sarge]

I would definitely keep a complete a complete backup/image just in case. When you start messing with the Kernal you are possibly asking for a lot of headaches

 

[unawave]

But won't that be harmfull for your pc?

I don't think so. Microsoft sells "Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition". This version ist also a 32 bit version and supports up to 64 GB of RAM. Do you mean using of this version is harmful ?

there must be a reason why it's locked no?

Microsoft sells "Windows 7 Starter" 32 bit. This version supports only 2 GB of RAM. What's the reason for that ?​

And in "Windows 7 Starter" you can't change the desktop wallpaper. What's the reason for that ?​

 

[unawave]

I would definitely keep a complete a complete backup/image just in case.

Or make a parallel VHD installation ("Ultimate" only). You only need 15 GB of hard disk space for the VHD file. You have 30 days to activate Windows 7 – enough time to test the patch. After this you easily can delete the VHD file.​

 

[fjgold]

OK, Have any of you folks tried to D/L this file.
Going to the linked site initially brought up all kinds of crapware popups and popunders, some listed by WOT as unsafe.
Thank goodness I'm running Firefox sandboxed.
I don't appreciate these kinds of surprises.
Then the D/L link shows the file removed.
My bet is that the file service requires a paid membership to D/L.
Having this kind of experience just trying to D/L the patch doesn't
give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the patch itself.

At any rate I would also bet that a 64 bit processor is required.
The limitation for 32 bit processors/OS's is a mathematical limitation.

 

[pweegar]

AWE is actually a way to use virtual memory. There are a few restrictions on using AWE. For an explanation go here:
Address Windowing Extensions (Windows).

I don't know if I would really trust this russian program or not. 32 bit OS's address 2^32 (approx 4 gb) of RAM. To use more, the OS must use various technologies such as PAE (Physical Address Extensions) and AWE. Then too, your motherboard would need to support large amounts of RAM. It's not just a simple matter of flipping a switch and saying, ok, now I can access more than 4 GB RAM.

 

[fjgold]

Well put, pweegar.
An example: my chipset can't see all 4 GB of installed ram even though my Core2Duo processor is 64 bit.
My computer originally came with a Core Duo processor that isn't 64 bit, I later upgraded to a quicker Core2Duo when it became available.
There is a newer chipset that supports 4 GB or more of ram with the Core2Duo but it still needs a 64 it OS or PAE to use all of it.
All is not lost however, even with only 3 GB usable in my machine my (2) 2 GB matched pair of Corsair ram is running in full synchronous Dual Channel mode. If I were to have tried to save money by installing a 2 GB and a 1 GB stick (since 3 GB is all I can use) I would be running in asynchronous Dual Channel mode with no speed advantage.

I can't change my chipset because I'm using a notebook computer.

 

[unawave]

I don't know if I would really trust this russian program or not.

I have installed the patch and it works fine - even with 8 GB RAM.
I do a virus scan from a Linux live CD with three up-to-date virus scanner: Avira Antivirus, Bitdefender and Kaspersky Anti Virus (also a Russian program !). Up-to-date virus signatures were loaded from Internet. And I don't find any harmful.

Then the D/L link shows the file removed.

??? The download link works.

My bet is that the file service requires a paid membership to D/L.

No paid membership is necessary.

 

[RAK]

The fact that you can only use 3.25 of your total 4 in memory, is a different issue. The .75 is being used by your system.
It has been around, as the OP indicates, since 2003.

" and the test shows that I can use all of this 8 GB RAM."

Which test was that? I have a chip problem on one of my computers. It will run perfectly well on 2Gbs. Putting in 4 gbs causes, among other small problems, the Windows dual boot menu to vanish, and I , by default , boot into the main OS. During the boot period, the computer is in basic VGA mode unitl it intercepts the OS. In the desktop, the various areas (system information etc) show I am using the full 4GBs. I have no indication that anything is responding faster. A memory check, however, shows I have a failure on 2GBS.

A 32 bit OS can only use 4GB of memory total, that means if you have 4GB of ram and your graphic card has 1GB of ram, you have a total of 5GB of memory. Out of that 5GB of memory, you can only use 4GB total. 1GB the graphic card will take up, so now the 32bit OS can only use 3GB.
Enabling PAE, will limit the OS to 2GB total. What PAE does is dedicate 2GB to OS and the other 2GB to anything other then the OS. Some think that some how PAE, can magically make a 32bit OS use more then 4GB, which is impossible. Perhaps a visual from MS itself might help sink it in, you can see it here: Link Removed due to 404 Error

 

[unawave]

The fact that you can only use 3.25 of your total 4 in memory, is a different issue. The .75 is being used by your system.

As shown on the Internet site the 0.75 GB is not strictly linear.
With 0 MB or 128 MB Graphic card RAM the usable RAM is 3.5 GB
With 256 MB, 512 MB or 1024 MB Graphic card RAM the usable RAM is 3.25 GB​

and the test shows that I can use all of this 8 GB RAM

Which test was that?

My test (page file was disabled): With 8 GB RAM I do this test: I installed "VMware Player 3" and created a virtual machine with 5 GB of RAM. And this works.​

I have no indication that anything is responding faster.

In Windows 32 bit any single application can use 2 GB of RAM. The remaining 2 GB is used for the operating system (unless you use the /3GB switch - than any single application can use 3 GB of RAM - the remaining 1 GB is used for the operating system).​

So: When you use e.g. 4 applications and every single application uses 1 GB of RAM then 2 inactive applications are swapped to the page file - and this is slow because hard disk access is much slower then RAM access. So you only see a performance enhancement when you use many applications which uses much RAM - and when page file is involved.​

Some think that some how PAE, can magically make a 32bit OS use more then 4GB, which is impossible.

In your quoted link from Microsoft you can read:
"support for PAE memory is typically associated with support for more than 4 GB of RAM"​

Perhaps a visual from MS itself might help sink it in, you can see it here: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx" target="_blank">Physical Address Extension - PAE Memory and Windows</a>

But your quote shows just the opposite:
In first table you can read:​

Maximum memory support with PAE:

• Windows 2000 Advanced Server, 32 bit, 8 GB of physical RAM​
• Windows 2000 Datacenter Server, 32 bit, 32 GB of physical RAM​
• Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, 32 bit, 32 GB of physical RAM​
• Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition, 32 bit, 64 GB of physical RAM​
• Windows Server 2003 SP1, Enterprise Edition, 32 bit, 64 GB of physical RAM​

 

[unawave]

I don't know if I would really trust this russian program

The patch to enable using up to 64 Gb in Windows 7 32 Bit is now available in English. Details see Link Removed.

 

[fjgold]

So mathematical laws don't apply according to the russians concerning the use of ram in a 32 bit system.
Even in english I don't trust this program.
From my experience with Linux I know how fragile a kernel can be so I won't use any "patch" that messes with the kernel.
Especially if the patch purports to help do something the math says can't be done.

My take on this debate: If you are using a 32 bit OS it is mathematically impossible to use more that 4 GB of ram.
There is no "switch" in the kernel that can be turned off\on to avoid this mathematical certainty.
Possibly MS has placed a limit in the kernel so that no more than 4 GB can be used in 32 bit windows to prevent the OS from
trying to do something it can't do.
To bypass a protective feature like this would be foolhardy in IMHO.

Even if you have a system with a 64 bit processor and the chipset\motherboard supports more than 4 GB of ram
You still can't use more than 4 GB of ram with a 32 bit OS.
Install a 64 bit OS and be done with it.