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 here.

 

[Nibiru2012]

I would be very wary of doing this on a 32-bit hardware system.


From Wikipedia:

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 Microsoft Technical Fellow Mark Russinovich, this was done to increase stability, as some drivers were found to be unstable when encountering physical addresses above 4GBhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#cite_note-markr200807-1 and licensinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#cite_note-geoffchappell.com-2 Unofficial kernel patches for Windows Vista 32-bit are available that break this enforced limitation, though the stability is not guaranteed.

I say if one wants more RAM than what is offered by Windows 7 x86 system, the get x64 capable hardware and a Windows 7 x64 OS.

 

[#Flizr]

Yeah, there's been programs like this all the way, but none of them are recommendable. If you have more than 4 gigs of RAM, I would also suggest to upgrade from 32bit to 64bit, not so big deal.

 

[unawave]

If you have more than 4 gigs of RAM, I would also suggest to upgrade from 32bit to 64bit, not so big deal.

"Not so big deal" ? Not everybody has so much money to buy new hardware. And often you need also new periphery hardware, because old periphery hardware often don't have 64 bit drivers.

 

[#Flizr]

With 'not so big deal' I mean that if you had afford to buy a computer with 8 gigs of ram or more (which in most cases have 64bit OS), I think you'll have the afford to upgrade from 32bit to 64bit.

If you have 4GBs of ram, it's not necessary to upgrade, because Windows (32bit) shows that there's 3 gigs of ram, but in reality programs still uses whole 4GB of ram.

 

[TrainableMan]

Yeah you might get lucky, or you might get screwed! I'll stick with my 64-bit OS thank you.

 

[Nibiru2012]

But this does not mean that the system becomes automatically unstable.

By the way:
Who guarantees that Windows 7 is stable ?
Who guarantees that every driver I install in Windows 7 is stable ?

So: Why not just test the patch and see if Windows 7 keeps stable ?

Sure go ahead and mess with it if you want to, if it were me I would definitely stay away from anything that messes with the system kernals.

It's your computer you can do what you want with it, plus you can always re-install Windows 7 again. That's your prerogative.

 

[unawave]

Sure go ahead and mess with it if you want to
you can always re-install Windows 7 again

If the patch don't work it is not necessary to re-install Windows 7. Only remove boot menu entry with "msconfig" and delete the copy of the kernel file. So: It's very easy to disable the patch.

 

[Fire cat]

Anyway, if you have more than 3gigs of RAM, but a 32bit Windows, just download the iso for FREE, reinstall with the same product key, and get a SAFER system.

Why hack Windows, when you can get a better result for free? I'm ok with the small hacks like enabling aero, but I'm not messing with my kernel!

 

[Nibiru2012]

Anyway, if you have more than 3gigs of RAM, but a 32bit Windows, just download the iso for FREE, reinstall with the same product key, and get a SAFER system.

Why hack Windows, when you can get a better result for free? I'm ok with the small hacks like enabling aero, but I'm not messing with my kernel!

I totally agree!

 

[nyj]

if my laptop have 4 GB of RAM...if i upgrade it from win7 32 bits to 64 bits, will it any major or minor problem occur??

 

[TrainableMan]

NYJ,
4GB is fine for 32 or 64 bit, so RAM won't be an issue. However, you must make sure your laptop is capable of running 64-bit because not all computers can. Also, assuming it does allow 64bit, you will need to get the 64bit drivers (the 32bit drivers you have now will NOT work) and have them available on CD or flashdrive. If you do not have a copy of the 64bit W7 you will need to download a copy from Microsoft and burn it to a DVD or put it on a flashdrive. Also switching from 32 to 64 bit requires a complete reinstall, which means user accounts must be backed up or recreated, all your data (documents, pictures, videos, music) must be backed up and then restored on the fresh install, and all software must be reinstalled including any factory installed programs (if you do not have a disk of these you will want to download them from the manufacturer). For any programs that require product keys, make sure you have them written down before you format the harddrive (a freeware program like SIW will show you the product keys of many programs installed on your computer).

 

[tobijay]

A little confused:

I have windows 7, 32 bit, 3 gb of memory/ Is it worth upgrading to 4 gbs or no? Will windows use the other gb for a littler better performance? Will it only see 3.5 of thhe 4?
And if so is it worth the upgrade?

Thanks

 

[Nibiru2012]

A little confused:

I have windows 7, 32 bit, 3 gb of memory/ Is it worth upgrading to 4 gbs or no? Will windows use the other gb for a littler better performance? Will it only see 3.5 of thhe 4?
And if so is it worth the upgrade?

Thanks

Windows 7 32-bit version will only see 3.25 GB of the 4GB of RAM. Stick with your 3GB for now or install Windows 7 64-bit. I would do the latter and also add more RAM. Much better and the OS run better and a little quicker too.

 

[TrainableMan]

Unless you decide to upgrade to 64bit your computer will only be able to use about 1/4th of the additional 1K of RAM (unless you use this risky kernal thingy the poster mentions). 64bit is the future but it would involve a bit of work backing up and then reinstalling everything ... and you would need to first make sure all your hardware and software will work in 64. So, unless you want to deal with upgrading your OS, I wouldn't add the extra 1/4thGB.

 

[Tushman]

I just registered today because I have a small problem in Win7 that is not even urgent or annoying. When I googled for a Windows 7 specific forum, it led me here. Naturally, this was one of the first few threads to catch my eye. When I read this, I had to post.

All I can say is that messing with the kernel is both foolish and it's stupid to think that there are no repercussions from such an action. I very much like Nibiru2012 & Fire Cat's responses. I have been using computers since early 1990 and have used virtually every Microsoft desktop OS. I've done some "tweaks" & hacked XP to look like Vista when Vista was first released.... but this is one "hack" I would definitely avoid.

For anyone who does this and runs into trouble, don't come crying in this direction - you will find no sympathy from me. Especially after so many people have posted advising against applying this hack.

 

[unawave]

For anyone who does this and runs into trouble

What trouble do you mean?

What does the patch? It makes a copy of the kernel file, patches the copy and add a new boot menu entry witch allow to boot either with the original kernel or the patched kernel. So: If you recognize that a program or driver does not work with the patched kernel - reboot with the original kernel.

 

[TrainableMan]

I would never ever recommend someone try this kernal patch on their computer. That said, I will play along as if I am interested but need some answers...

From the website "However, you should not remove the boot menu entry for the original kernel. Because there are some very few programs that do not get along with as much RAM as the kernel patch makes available. Then you can always reboot the original kernel." ... obviously there are known programs that have problems, could you provide that list please?

Making the computer show a higher number doesn't prove it will actually use it and definitely doesn't prove it is safe. You offer no actual examples of the extra memory being reached let a known stress tested. Could you show actual benchmarks with common tools to show memory in use above the 3.25GB range and what programs are running successfully utilizing that memory?

In the old Win95-98 days I used to like to tweak the kernal to control my start-up logo but every time Microsoft shipped an update it might have contained a kernal update and I had to patch again - so do you recommend disabling updates? Do you update your code when Microsoft updates the kernal?

... I love the idea as a novelty hack but for real people risking real data on real machines that they need everyday - just go 64-bit to be stable and utilize your memory properly and to not have to reboot to use those programs with known problems to this method.

 

[Nibiru2012]

What trouble do you mean?

What does the patch? It makes a copy of the kernel file, patches the copy and add a new boot menu entry witch allow to boot either with the original kernel or the patched kernel. So: If you recognize that a program or driver does not work with the patched kernel - reboot with the original kernel.

Why you keep pushing this unorthodox method of patching the x86 kernel is beyond me. If a user has 4GB of RAM or more than the x64 Windows 7 is the system to go with. 99% of all 32-bit software will run on the x64 Windows 7 operating system so this little "fix" is basically superfluous.

Some n00b is gonna try this, screw up their system, and then come hollering to the vets here for help.

I suggest quit promoting a method that maybe only less than 1/10 of 1% of users would ever consider using.