If you didn’t know, there are 2 editions of Windows starting from XP which is the 32-bit and 64-bit. Sometimes a Windows 32-bit is referred as x86 and 64-bit as x64. I won’t go into details on what are the differences between x86 and x64 but one of the major differences is a 64-bit Windows can support more 4GB of ram. If your computer has 4GB of ram and you’re using a 32-bit of Windows, you’ll notice that only about 3.5GB is being recognized and the remaining 500MB of memory is gone. Weirdly Windows 2003 and 2008 can already address more than 4 GB of memory so why can’t we do that with Vista? The answer is: Microsoft doesn’t want that and it is all just a licensing matter.
We can of course go for 64-bit of Windows but honestly, there are still quite a lot of software which cannot run on x64, such as the recent Mamutu and Online Armor. Free licenses are given out to EVERYONE but unfortunately you can’t even get to try it because of your Windows 64-bit. Not only that, Windows 64-bit doesn’t accept unsigned drivers unless you disable driver signature enforcement manually every time you boot. How frustrating… Well here is a good news for Windows 7 and Vista users because I found patches to make your 32-bit Windows support more than 4GB of memory.
Before you download the memory limit patchers, please be informed that some antivirus detects it as a hacktool or backdoor. I’ve analyzed the files using ThreatExpert and they are absolutely safe.
Thanks to Remko, he has provided us with a dUP2 file for the patch according to Geoff Chappell’s article about Vista’s Memory Limit. You’ll need to compile the dUP2 file with diablo2oo2′s Universal Patcher to get the executable file. If you don’t know how to do it, I’ve compiled the dUP2 file provided by Remko and you can download from this link. Remko confirms that the patch works on both Windows Vista x86 Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2. You can either drop this file in Windows\System32\ folder and run it to patch the ntoskrnl.exe file or run it from anywhere and browse for the file.
As for Windows 7, you will need a different patcher and this time it’s from a Russian group called Staforce. Their group also came up with crack/activator for Windows 7. This patch works on Windows 7 (x86) Build 7600 RTM. The official link to download the 4GB memory limit patch is at this link but you’ll need to register for an account to see the download link. If you don’t want to register, I’ve uploaded the patcher here for your convenience. Other than patching Windows 7′s kernel to support more than 4GB memory, the installer also comes with a watermark remover. You can press the N key from your keyboard to disable the watermark remover.
To be honest, I did not get to test either of the patch above because both my desktop and laptop has only 2GB of memory. As for Windows XP to support more than 4GB of ram, I wasn’t able to find any patch for it. If you know any please leave a comment.
Hi, i’ll try to use the Windows Vista patch but I received alway the follow message: cannot acces the file. Maybe it’s in use… Please close the file before patching! Try to access the file again now?
I’ll have try diffent ways to make it work like: Turn of UAC, safe mode,…
Does someone have a sollution? :)
Many thanks!!
I didn’t test this particular patch, but I’ve found another patch which does the same thing.
wj32.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/pae-patch-updated-for-windows-7/
Tested it on Windows 7 x86 and yes, now all of my 4GB RAM can be utilized (I was able to utilize up to 4000 MB before the system became very slow due to swapping)
I guess that’s what both patches do. They patch the NT kernel to remove the 4GB RAM limit.
In fact, PAE can do up to 64GB RAM (2 ^ 36 = 64GB) . But the only 32bit Windows which can utilize that is Windows 2008 Enterprise (not R2).
For the ones running Win 7 32bit try this unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN if you cant get the other one to download or work.
hey all,
just wondering if anyone has tested to see how much ram a single process can handle after using this patch?
i think a single process is limited to approx. 2gb of ram in win7 32 (normally).
does this value change with this patch?
thanks in advance.
I have tried this and I keep getting the BSOD after I reboot. Is there a setting in the BIOS or something I need to change to get this to work, or it does it only work on a specific version of windows 7, i.e 7600 RTM?
any1 who can find the download link or if its broken just search google for 4GB-7600.RTM.x86.04.08.2009.exe
sasha,
the ram rating have nothing to do with the amount installed, you should go back to school and learn how windows work. Newbies and script kiddies like yourself always pretend that they know everything.
hi.i know very thing about windows.i dl the rossian patch.after install my win 7 show 4 gb usable.and 3 gb usable is gone.but the thing must u know,this is only the show and dosent really work,cause rate of my ram is 6,7 after the install still show 6.7.
so if program really work windows must rate my ram about 7.3 .so this prog is bull shit,and only change what u see.if u want more my advise .mail to me and i will answer
Monkeyfaithmonster, if you would go to the original work that ReadyFor4GB, Unawave, etc, have merely copied or at best adapted, then you would soon enough see why there is nothing to be done about the later Windows XP versions.
In SP2 and SP3, the kernel has the code but the HAL does not. Microsoft’s supposed defence against bad assumptions by buggy drivers was to build the bad assumptions into the HAL. All your drivers could be good, but the HAL in those versions assumes that the kernel sees no memory above 4GB. No patching is going to put back what Microsoft removed.
I have done the steps needed as suggested on this page. But it is not working for me. my system properties still says 4gb(2.6 usable ram). Pls help.. I have a ASUS k52 and Windows 7 Home basic
Hi, I have a laptop on vista 32bit and have 4gb onboard, however, my video card is a nvidia G105m and has 1780mb of turbocache, I am unable to disable it and this therefores, takes up a lot of my ram in return for vram, and it’s really laggy when I play Gta IV.
My question is that if I use this tool, will I be able to use readyboost and enable my 4gb flashdrive as virtual ram getting 8gb of ram in return? Thank you and I can’t buy anymore ram because the 2x2gb took up all cardslots
The reason NO hacks exist for WinXP is because it’s code is strictly 32-bit. To hack it to run 64-bit addresses for memory is like trying to make a GameBoy run GameBoy Advance games. Not going to happen. Too much legacy code in Windows XP.
heres the link
it works very well
unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN
thanks a lot
Does this actually work and windows actually uses this, or does it just show up but makes no use of it? i have x86 win 7 on my laptop, with 4gb ram but it only has 2.75gb usable it says. i would love it if it doesnt conflict with any programmes and it makes use of full 4gb as i just upgraded from 2gb to 4gb.
lastly does this void any kind of warranty etc?
The author says he doesn’t know of an equivalent patch for XP. I’m surprised the people that did the patch for Vista and 7 haven’t done it for XP. Latest stats (as of 7/2010) show 75% of office PC’s still run XP. With computers that can handle more RAM commonplace, but with a 32 bit OS still predominant, such a patch of XP seems like exactly what the industry needs, even if MS wouldn’t agree.
We need to find someone that can do this for XP.
The Russian patch to enable using up to 64 Gb in Windows 7 32 Bit is now also available in English. Details see here: unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html
Now the problem, how i remove the watermark in a right side,?? Please the detail. Thanx a lot..
@ Will.. Make sure you have the Driver Sign Over Ride (dseo13b) patch installed.. same thing started to happen when i accidentally uninstalled it.
why cant i just go on the 128gb ?
when i try to go in, my pc restarts
then i can go in safe mode
i just want to go in normaly
what can i do to fix it?
Can anyone UPLOAD the 4GB windows 7-32bit ram use
Appreciate the effort
Hi,
Leave an ftp account credentials, and i’ll upload it for you…
bye bye
ohh – sorry for double-post, I saw it was missing.
its the win 7 hack
can you upload the patch again please :)) thanks…
well im trying to download the one for windows 7 but it brings me to russian page in russian writing i converted it an it says Module catalog files “is not activated.
To activate the module, go to Control Panel, under “Catalog files” and click on “Activate module. but i dont know how to do it really need more ram please someone help me phone: 425-501-6616
patch applied since one month and all running fine… the problem with genuine advantage come from the last kb971033 I have to reinstall it and all is ok
Thanks for this support
Can anyone re-upload this tool?
Still no problems, been running 6gb ram for about 6months now.. still not sure if i need 6gb ram, lol, but it’s working.
thanks again Raymond.
I apply the patch successfully but now I can’t run the microsoft genuine advantage update… any idea about this ? thanks for help.
Its success for me but I don’t know if this is a consequence but I can’t run the microsoft genuine advantage right now.. there is something to do for this issue ?
just try it with asus n61jq (i7 cpu 4go memory) and I can encode with virtualdub in divx format 2h movie in same time i surf with 15tab open in firefox and all run very well for now
The link is not available to download.
Could you please send me a new web download link.
Thanks
It’s unbelievable that a new OS like Windows 7 built at the end of 2009, in the full of IT era, still present such limits.
Oh but one more thing, shortly after i installed the patch i got B.S.O.D…and unable to boot even to safe mode lol, which i think was due to windows update. but i will try again with updating fully first and turn off automatic updates. and to reply to travis comment, did you try both links in the description 1st one was “link” hilighted blue and the second ( worked for me ) “here” also hilighted blue. but be warned of the B.S.O.D.
I have installed this patch and was very supprised it worked, i have read alot of the posts here of people saying it only shows the 4gb and dont actualy use the whole lot. but maybe you should check the system information page as i did. And this is what i found. Before i applied the patch i was getting only 3.??gb useable and system information was telling me i had 1.75gb total memory remaining.( depending what i had running ) after the patch is shows 4gb installed and….wait for it…. 2.40gb total remaining. So in my experiance i was gettin more free ram with a patched 32bit. which mathmaticly worked out almost correct with the system sharing 1791mb of graphics memory. so all in all, what i was getting at is, it does work :)
Someone please help the russian one didnt work as i dont have windows vista im using windows 7 ultimate an when i go to downloads it says closed PLEASE HELP
Hi!
There”s the last sentence from tha article:
“As for Windows XP to support more than 4GB of ram, I wasn’t able to find any patch for it. If you know any please leave a comment.”
So here I’m a bit confused, as the screenshots of the patcher applications are looks like they were runing on XP, not vista nor 7…
???
It really does seem to be a lot of trouble,I understand your desire to run 32 bit apps .I am over it if it cant run on 64bit win 7 with 8gb it is not worth the worry.
Thank you
G
Great patch…… too bad all you can do is boot up and see the extra memory in task manager. As soon as you try to run programs, it crashes. Non apps are stable under the modified kernel……so it’s no better than a hoax.
I have a love-hate relationship with digital memory because of the way prices are always falling. I hate buying SD Cards for my R4 / R4i at (seemingly) a cheap price only to see it become ten percent cheaper a few months later.(Submitted on Nintendo DS running R4i DS RPost)
guys, for those who success installing the patch, please share any improvement of your system. is it really become faster or super-mult-task or what? thx
PLZZ ReUpload For Windows 7
psl re upload for win 7
Hi everybody,
I just wanted to testify that this patch is really working !!!! I used to work with Win7 x64 since the the first released betas, just to take advantage of the 4gb installed in my HP Pavilion laptop DV5. Last week I decided to test by myself and installed Win7 32bits which first said ” 4gb and 3gb usable ” and my nvidia declared 1,5gb of total memory (including shared) and after applying the patch the system reports 4Gb of total RAM and the nvidia reports 2Gb of total memory. I Don’t have any issue for now, and all my applications run just fine including all the games I play.
So to say : THANK YOU GUYS, YOU MADE A HAPPY MAN !
I have ever read something like this, and search for it again when installing ,y win7, but i cannot get it on google, so i just use win 7 x64…
And after using it i found something called if not wrong, tweak7.. it give a function to make win7 x32 can use more than 4 gb RAM…
But i not use that too, because all my data and settings are saved and i don’t really want to do all the things from zero.. it takes me time and i think i have been live with it…
After reading many articles, i also can assume that x64 is fastest than x32… and till now i never face a big problem about compatibility, and driver, because ASUS give all the driver complete for x64…
Asfish, you should read more of the posts, it works just fine, and ALL the ram IS usable..
At best this patch may install some sort of PAE functionality. So yes on some 32 bit versions of Vista and Windows 7 you may see more than 4GB of RAM, you won’t however be able to use it unless what you are running supports PAE. Most applications that are compiled to do this run on Servers
The reason why so many of you only see between 2.75-3.5GB of RAM showing on 32 bit Vista or 7 is down to architecture design , depending on your hardware a portion of RAM after 2.75GB is reserved for hardware.
Finally you should really think twice before patching your kernel via some Russian hack
hi,i have read the content i i really wanna try this program because i use windows 7 ultimate and i have 4 gb ram but it only use 2,8 gb of ram so please if someone is nice to send me the program becuase i cant find on the prezent link…..or at last send the link do download
i’ll be very gratefully
petre_2008@yahoo.com
Sky, I tried to post the link to the patch dl.. hopefuly they add the comment, i tried to post the link here b4 and my post was not added by the moderator.. if u see this post and no link that means s.o.l.. lol.. u can also post an email address if u want me to send u the patch, but i wouldn’t.. LOL..
peace.
still running 6gb RAM, everything is fine. and i sure do notice a difference in computer speed, it’s nice. what would be really nice now would be if someone could make a patch so i can enable the Group Policy Editor, it can not be done, i’ve tried every solution online and none work. I would like to be able to access this to make changes that will hopefully result in a faster internet connection..
Thanks again.
It seems the russian patch (which I had and it worked, but I reformatted and tried win 7 ultimate 64 and it SUCKED with 90% of everything, TV card no longer worked, network wireless, etc… I could just go out and buy NEW parts or a NEW computer, but I decided screw that and went back to windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit, where my software and hardware worked 100%… but now the patch seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth… MS sure has a long reach!
If anyone still has a copy of it I would greatly appreciate it!
you’d think with what this patch does and how great and Awesome it is, that there would be more people writing on this board.. I’m so cerious and anxious to hear more about other experiences using this patch. so far my I.T. friend say that “this patch is just awesome” lol , so that’s great, he has 12 gigs installed and all working!!!! LOL.. said he’ll keep a very close eye on his system and let me know if he finds or sees anything that we may not like..
Peace : )
Hari, how did u uninstall the patch??.. I’d like to know incase i need to remove it.. as for your problem that’s very strange, it’s almost as if windows went and repatched it on you.. and remember looking through many comments about this patch, a lot of ppl say that this could cause hardware issues, i would check to make sure all your ram ports or what ever they’re called are working.. i’m far from a pro, but that’s where i would start. i have 5gb installed and all working, i started having problems when i tried to use 6gb ram. but still can’t verify that this had anything to do w/ said issues.. i did give a copy of this patch to a friend of my who is in I.T. so ima give him a few days to mess w/ it and check it out, also gonna get him to have a look at my comp to see if he can detect any problems that may have resulted from this patch…
EVERYONE STAY IN THREAD, WE ALL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THIS WILL WORK, AND KEEP WORKING FOR EVERYONE, AND THAT MEANS COMMUNICATION..
thanks again.. be back soon.
Now, I have a problem. My memory back to 3 GB useable again, while I always used the loader of “Windows [Version 6.1.7600] >128GB memory”.
I have uninstall the patch and reinstalled it twice but still IT DID NOT WORK. What’s wrong with it. When I used the patch on 4 Jan 2010 it worked, but then when I just wanted to show off to friend of mine it returned to 4GB (3GG USEABLE). Look number 92 and 93 comment.
What’s wrong with the patch.
Need help. please.
And yes, it does allow u your choose the patched version, or previous version when u log on, and i think this has caused Error Reports in my event log, but only b/c it slows down the boot up ( i think ) was event ID 100.. if anyone have anymore info on that i’d love to hear it plz..
as for finding the link, i had to search pretty hard, but i did find it from a link on this thread.
I now have 6gb ram installed and working : ) after i put in the last gb of ram and turned on the computer it restarted it self after a few mins, but hasn’t happened again since… i did try posting the link for patch, but was not added by moderator. sry. Any other experiences or information would be great to hear. as well i am wondering if there is even a use for 6gb ram.. i play a lot of games and none of them require even close to that..
re-up please for windows 7
it seems to work, and thank you very much. i have a desktop gadget that used to show about 3300 MB RAM, now shows over 5100.. and all other indications show full 5 gigs : ).. But, when i look in my computer properties where it used to show 5gb installed (3.25 Usable) now only shows 5gb installed and nothing else,, just wondering why it doesn’t show 5gb installed (5gb Usable) ??
can anyone post again the link for that software
hari, the windows 7 is probably your original configuration which you can switch back to if you encounter problems with the patched configuration “Windows [Version 6.1.7600] >128GB memory”.
Dear, and81, I’ve checked on both loader with everest and it was really show different result when I used “Windows [Version 6.1.7600] >128GB memory. it really is 4GB full. But with windows 7 only 3071 GB.
Any comment or idea???
At first it didn’t work. But then I try for the second try then it WORKED.
But now I have two bootloaders. first says “Windows [Version 6.1.7600] >128GB memory and the second boot says “Windows 7″.
If I choose the first one the memory installed is 4GB(full)
But if select the second boot (Windows 7) it says ” 4GB (3GB useable).
Anybody knows how to fix this?
Now I am starting to question about this patch because of the reason above.
I need comment and help from this forum.
Thanks. Sorry if my English is bad.
Earlier, none of the patches worked for me on Windows 7 Ultimate. But now, it works well on Windows 7 Professional. I can see all my 4 GB RAM. I see intermittent hang at Windows start up in the welcome page (which I need to restart with the power button). And luckily, I haven’t seen any problem with Kaspersky even though some under the comment section said it crashs.
My 2 cents:
Does this work? Sure it does.
Does Microsoft want people doing this? Probably not.
Why? Two reasons:
1) Licensing. Yeah, it sucks, but this is one of the reasons.
2) Drivers. I haven’t confirmed this for myself, but I heard that device drivers will go haywire on a system running uncrippled PAE when the driver tries to address space above the 4 GB “ceiling.”
So for those two reasons (the latter good, the former not so good), Microsoft keeps XP/Vista/7 at the 4 GB barrier with hardware mapped within that limit (not above it). Microsoft Server OSes don’t have crippled PAE because server manufacturers usually follow a strict hardware compatibility list (HCL), and the drivers are written to take advantage of PAE.
Also, the actual limit on a 32-bit OS is actually 2^36, or about 64 GB of RAM (not 128 GB like Ady (#83 above) says)…
so what u guys think…?
I have Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bits with 6gb ram, and patch works for me. Thanks
με λενε μαριετα ……………………………………………………………..
First, Thanks. I have a win 7 32 bit with 4gb installed memory. I tried the patch and it worked. The problem now is that I have a boot screen appearing at the startup asking for a boot option. one for windows 7 another for windows 6 7600. if i select the win 7 option , it again shows that only 3gb of my RAM is usable..
some people just go on writing loads of stories about cpu architecture and what microsoft says you should do, technology is totally about challenges where trials and errors are pron, remember no venture no success, so thanks a million times for this patch as it has just worked for me, thanks again, and for azim61, here is what to remove the watermark with;
i heard windows will loose the balance of ram if u do this is this true?
try it for windows 7 , works perfect !! , no trojans (check it with more than 30 antivir)
about limitations in 32 bit arhitecture : stop acting like microsoft kids , i remember the Z80 back in old days on 8 bits which theoretical can address 64 K and back then where lots of sinclairs with 128K . how was that possible ? how a 32 bit operating system can access 128 GB ( yes i tryed this patch with 16 GB and there are not just numbers , the mem it is accesible and usable) …….
think twice before posting , microsoft it’s full of s*** with pae and other crapy methods…. paging memory can be done in many other ways…
and of course : THX RAYMOND !!!
… problem solved
Restore my unstable win7 system from an image backup,
The patch is NOT recommed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Looking still for better patch…
works fine with win7 ultimate. hope there´s no trojan inside! does anybody, by the way checked this point?
It seems to work. You need to enable the memory remapping in BIOS (it’s probably within the north bridge settings). This should remap the 2GB-4GB area to 4GB-6GB, therefore, no interleaving with the videocard or other memory mapped devices.
OMFG THIS WORKS try the last link and wait 60 seconds. download the file, ( i have it ) and just hit the button then hit y and hey presto all 4gb :D im happy
As an aside for the benefit of #51, admittedly from many months ago, you might like to know some results from my recent investigation into memory limits for hibernation.
Basically, what Microsoft says used to be correct. Before Windows XP SP2, PAE disables hibernation. From Windows XP SP2 and Windows Server 2003 SP1, both in 32-bit and 64-bit editions, using memory above 4GB disables hibernation.
32-bit Windows Vista and, I believe but have not tested, 32-bit Windows 7 has no memory limit for hibernation.
64-bit Windows Vista and 64-bit Windows 7 seem to have 16TB as the limit. Clearly, I’ll be surprised if I get to test either of those within a decade!
On a 32bit CPU/OS as rightly pointed out the architecture can only address a MEMORY SPACE of 2 to the power of 32 (32 bit binary max number now equals 4,294,967,296 or 4Gig) Do the math of 2^32 and it
Now your memory is not just your system RAM, it’s your video card ram, it’s the small amounts used by system buses and other various bits on the system board. So if you plug in say, a 1Gig video card into your machine, it then eats up 1Gig of the addressable memory space by the 32bit cpu architecture, take away another say 1-200meg for system stuff and your total system RAM is now around 2.8Gig or so, even if you have 4Gig plugged in.
Solution ? If you are running a 32bit CPU don’t waste money on excessive amounts of RAM. If you want to use more (recommended with todays prices) get a new systemboard + CPU upgrade kit. Just make sure it’s 64Bit, also make sure you are running a 64Bit OS. Just bear in mind before you make the plunge to 64Bit, the reason many people avoid it is due to lack of driver and application support for 64Bit. Support is better than it was, but do a simple compatability check before upgrading.
As a sidenote, someone here mentioned that 64bit architecture was limited to 64gig or something ? Uhm, the memory space available under 64bit is 2 to the power of 64, do the math. That’s a very very very large number :) The maximum ram for 64Bit ? = 17.2 BILLION Gigabytes!
I think 128Bit (to address memory limitations) may not come around for some time. 2 to the power of 128 ? = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456
Wow! Great thanks! It’s work! Now I’m haven’t problems and may start 4-8 virtual machines on my Windows 7 for simulating network problems!
I’m testing this patch in professional soft and games and see no problems!
Hey thnx a lot… its working on my windows 7
let’s get this straight, even if I have more than 4gb of Ram and 64bit OS, i would not be able to fully utilize the 4gb ram because i have a 32-bit processor?
i use this kernel patch on win7 and works,no problem,but i dont understand how to remove the watermark.when press the N key? please,explain en detail,please help. sorry my english
@Mewah, why don’t you read this article?
geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
Ray, with all due respect how can any 32bit OS utilize more than 3.x GB RAM? although the patch or hack will show your system using more than 3.x GB but can it really utilize the extra memory in 32 bit? as far as i’m concerned all 32bit sytems cannot support more than 3.x GB..whether it is xp,vista,7,linux etc (i can be wrong but explanations/proofs all over google)
Yay! it works!
(but now you can be a part of a Russian botnet heh)
This patch really works. I tried both patcher for Vista and Win7.
hi,me try this but my windows vista crash after this it gives a ntkernal.exe is already used..and to start windows in safe mode………..
SHIT!!! this russian version patch worked !!! I now have 4 gb of ram utilisation !!! thanks raymond! !!.. but i hope this doesn’t lead to other system instabilities
Working on Vista Ultimate SP2
Just using this patch and the instructions of Geoff Chappell:
geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
for those who are wondering how to remove the water mark.after u close the patch window another window will apear,just press Y-yes,N-no
hi..
im using vista ultimate ..how can i patch the file …it says file cannot be accessed..
Use windows server 2008 32bits, very expensive, but the only platform that really works
Go for GNU/Linux!!
Linux can support 64 GB of memory through PAE in 32-bit mode! (3 GB for each process and Maximum 1 GB for kernel itself)
It’s an option in kernel, if your Distro does not support more than 4 GB You must re-compile Kernel with this option. And It’s very easy :)
this is great. another reason to still buy 32bit OS’es
support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us
Use easyBCD from here neosmart.net/thankyou.php?app=EasyBCD and install it. Then from Add/Remove intries, remove the one with patch.
how to uninstal this pach dont work on muu windows 7 now i have some problems until boot and i mus remuve the pach any idea how to do this?
j ai installer un pacth qui ma upgrader de 2 gb a 4gb sur une dell dimension 3100 ca limite etait 2 gb avec window edition familial la elle est a 3 gb et vista integral 4 gb j ai pris le pacth sur piratebay et tout fonctionne a+ jai upgrader mon bios de a03 a a04 et la plus part de mes driver aussi. faut juste suire les etape une a une.
I have tried, and it worked in Windows 7 x86 RTM, fully recognized 4GB RAM! Thanks!
But how to remove the watermark “test mode Windows 7″ at the lower-right corner of the screen?
How do i uninstall this freaking patch?
“this patch will make some of software unstable
like kaspersky and a software called FileUploader”
Confirmed, with 4GB of memory you can not use an Kaspersky Internet Security
So this install for some reason didn’t mesh with my version of Windows 7. Is there any way to remove the false partition that was created without losing all my information? (I.e. the partition called “Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600] > 128 GB Memory”) Thanks!
andriuz, not sure what your asking?
“Windows Cannot Hibernate Computer with More Than 4 GB Memory” – what about that?
Dear Geoff Chappel, I am so happy that you came here and cleared things up. I will go to your site ask for help.
Thanks!
I am quite surprised to see your blog which is rating as NO1. after viewing your blog it is obvious to me your blog deserve that postion. The contents and style is very impressive.
Considering that increasingly many websites now circulate utilities to simplify this patch yet don’t mention the original source at all, I should perhaps be grateful that I am at least mentioned by name here even though it is left to a commenter – thank you, Nightfall – to supply the link:
geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/license/memory.htm
Now, I am in no way going to answer for patching utilities from who knows where and of what quality, but I am of course concerned by any reports of trouble caused to anyone even from misapplying my work.
Please, do not patch the kernel directly. Work on a copy. Enable the copy by setting BCD options, as I describe in the original article. Really, if you cannot follow the original article, then you should not be trying the patch.
If you’re getting objections from anti-virus utilities, then you are doing something wrong or the anti-virus utility is much too aggressive. You must have permission to copy an executable into the Windows System directory. You must have permission to run BCDEDIT. Other than these, activating this patched kernel does nothing that any defensive utility should care about.
In writing that article, my purpose was not to produce a hack to enable the use of memory above 4GB for ordinary work. There are two purposes to the patch. First, by removing the checks for license limits, the patch that 32-bit Windows Vista has the code for using memory above 4GB but will not use it because of licensing. Second, once that code is allowed to work with memory above 4GB, you can test Microsoft’s vague assertions that 32-bit Windows must be limited to 4GB because of faulty drivers.
Such faulty drivers do exist. The article mentions one from NVIDIA. I doubt that they can be so prevalent to justify the limit as the best technical response. Even if they were, I would complain that Microsoft has not described its response honestly but is instead taking advantage of widespread ignorance that masquerades as knowledge. Without something like this patch, nobody has any means to test what Microsoft says. It is very much a matter of shame for the computing industry that so many supposedly knowledgeable commentators repeat Microsoft’s essentially un-testable explanations without question.
If you apply the patch – compatibly with the directions in my article – and you encounter trouble, then go through the usual processes of elimination to identify a faulty driver. Remember that Safe Mode is available as a base for such testing. You might do well anyway to get the latest versions of all your drivers and particularly to get WHQL-certified drivers wherever possible.
No application can be directly incompatible with PAE or with using memory above 4GB, though some may behave foolishly, e.g., by asking for the highest physical memory address, truncating it to 32 bits, and thereafter thinking that you have a low-memory machine. If you observe an application misbehaving, then far and away the likeliest explanation is that the application’s pattern of usage exposes a defect in some driver.
That’s more than enough spelling out from me. I appreciate that my article will seem deeply technical to many, but it is as close as I could get to writing for a general readership. I understand that people may want to package a simplified patching procedure for use by the non-technical, but they need to take care – and I can’t make them.
Geoff Chappell.
I tried this many times on windows 7 RTM build 600 but still doesn’t work. New boot entry with a name “Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600] [128GB with ntkr128g.exe]
‘” is created but when i check the task manager after restart, it still says 2999MB (3GB). Can someone please post how to install steps with the latest version of this patch?
you should copy the ntkrnlpa.exe to a another folder, use the utility from here to patch it in this folder, then copy it in windows\system32 as ntkrn128g.exe or whatever. Then use the instructions from here geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
to create a bcdedit boot entry with the new kernel. So now you havewo boot options
1. the old one with the original kernl
2. the old with the new kernel
and it works like a charm. Yesterday nigh I worked for a long time in my windows 2003 enterprise vmware session hosted in my laptop with no problems at all. it rocks
update
uninstall kaspersky
if u use it coz it make ur OS unstable
find another antivirus software
i use avira
OS stable
maybe you all get a bit more understanding
what this patch make if you read this
geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
here is my screenshot
funkyimg.com/u2/394/840/windows_7_2.jpg
funkyimg.com/u2/462/104/windows_7.jpg
and FYI
this patch will make some of software unstable
like kaspersky and a software called FileUploader
it will make ur OS restart and restart and restart again
even if u already patch ur OS with this ReadyFor4GB
If u using RAM under 4GB ur system will be stable
without restarting even if u use kaspersky
but if use more than 4GB it will make some of the program unstable
like i said before
i test this only on Windows 7 , dont know about vista
im not saying this becoz of favour or what
but if u really want more than 4GB
just for for x64 OS
i tried in safe mod, but still same and cannot patched. any idea ?
the same error as Devrim said … I can’t patch it and the result of course ( nothing patched ) … so what’s up Raymond ?
Guys it is unbelievable but it WORKS. I have a sony vaio ar71s with vista homem premium (too lazy to upgrade to ultimate now I will) with 4 GB of physical RAM installed. The task manager and msifno32 showd 3.0gb available memory and if you consider that nvidia uses another 1250 of physical ram the situation wasn’t so bright.
So I tried this patch and it DID NOT work. In fact when it rebooted, windows prompt me with a system recovery dialog which I choosed to ignore. Then I want on and read carefully Geoff Chappell page, followed his instructions and I created my ntkrn128g.exe. Now that I am posting this I have booted up the machine using this kernel, task maanger shows 4093 MB total RAM and msinfo32 4 GB ram available. I am going to test it for a while and if you want I can write down a batch file with Chappell ‘s instructions.
I am running vista home premium sp2 so I had to search a little bit to find the proper addresses in ntkrnlpa,.exe to patch.
The original article of the patch,
geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
That 32-bit editions of Windows Vista are limited to 4GB is not because of any physical or technical constraint on 32-bit operating systems. The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista all contain code for using physical memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn’t license you to use that code.
Basically, x86 supports PAE with allows 36bit address and thus 64GB of ram. Even though PAE is enabled after XP SP2, there is a license check in the windows kernel that limits the usable ram to 4gb. What the patch does is to skip the check.
why should one go for x64 machine , i mean any pros over x32 …….
hey guys how did you pacth it, it says me this file is using by a program bla bla bla. i tried the unlock process but unlocker says only delete or rename, otherwise i cant patch it.
this patch really works but do it at your own risk. better that you back up your kernel and rename the patched kernel.
Here’s my proof
img29.imageshack.us/img29/5383/x864gbvista2.jpg
Windows Vista w/SP2 shouws 4GB of ram without the use of any utility.
BUT Microsoft pointed out although it shows 4GB, windows cannot utilise it as the x86 OS or x86 architecture cannot address more than $GB of memory space (includes all devices connected to the machine e.g. PCI)
I trust the deepxw guy, I used his patch and now shows my full 8gb, no idea of it uses it but I like the sound of it, and I can reverse it if I like. His links are down on his website but you can get it here
2shared.com/file/6455549/37ec8802/ReadyFor4GB_20090422.html
What’s with the x64 hate?
:S
i have vista and i can’t patch the file. it says you can’t access to file because it being used. any solution Raymond.
wait, how is this possible raymond as i thought it is an architechtural limitation on the 32bit system to address =>4gb.
I think what this software actually does is just to cheat the info by tapping memory allocations directly from the BIOS but still it doesn’t actually make your pc utilize => 4gb in a 32bit OS/software.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this just make it recognize, not utilitize, more than 3.5GB RAM?
Hey, guys, the patch isn’t compatible with the Kaspersky (and maybe some other too?). So you should try it on your own risk, if you use that.
And as for PAE, check these links:
msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb613473
msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
The only home system x86 that does support 4Gb RAM — Windows XP SP1, but I don’t recommend surfing the net with it ))) It’s very lousy.
First off I don’t think it’s very “safe” secondly, how would you patch the file if you’re using it??? Without a second OS or dos enviroment to patch it?
Why do the graphics for this and all articles not show up in Google Reader? It’s quite annoying.
If people don’t know if there CPU (architecture) / OS supports 64/32 Bit or if they don’t know how much RAM (memory) they have then they can use this program:
rapidshare.com/files/269180844/BitS.exe
It’s a really small program I wrote to test all of the things you need to know :)
The program is ofc virus free:
virustotal.com/analisis/4c94316552a421ccb2266d42daceb457632f96e2e10946107d41acd6e6839201-1250700896
But if you have a crappy AV that thinks everything packed with UPX is viruses then UNPACK IT (UPX -d BitS.exe) and see! Now its “virus free”, but also also bigger:
Before (UPX): After: Ratio:
586531 -> 240931 41.08%
But im willing to send the source code to Raymond if you still don’t trust me!
Sry, raymond but i had to agreed to Kalyana and Klimax. Maybe raymond didn’t notice this before he post this article.
use megaupload link, its working :D
I’m very concerned, indeed, about this article, and about the patch promoted therein.
In the first place, 500MB (or whatever, depending on the machine, is the amount of RAM between 3.?GB and 4.0GB which seems not available) is not “lost.” This is a common misconception. When Vista first came out, most machines — even ones with 64-bit-capable motherboards and processors — on which the 32-bit version was loaded showed, in the system area, only 3-point-something gigabytes of RAM available even if 4GB was physically installed; but that didn’t mean that all 4GB was not actually used. All 4GB was (and is, still) in fact used. Believe me.
Newer machines with 32-bit Vista on them — like, for example, the Dell notebook that I got for my wife just six months ago — have this problem fixed. Her copy of 32-bit Vista shows, in the system area, all 4GB available. My HP notebook, which was manufactured in 2007, on the other hand, shows only around 3.19GB available in the system area. But all 4GB are actually used.
No 32-bit operating system may use MORE than 4GB, however. And, potentially, the patch described in this article could be useful, I suppose…
…except that another poster, VijayIND, said it best when he wrote:
“A Kernal hack/patch!!! IMO that’s not a very safe proposition. A badly written hack could provide loopholes for malware and also break the system when say MS/Driver updates occur.”
Truer words have rarely been written. It is difficult to even IMAGINE a more risky — and ultimately, in my opinion, stupid — thing to do… and for even more reasons than VijayIND suggests.
The 64-bit versions of Windows are the only meaningful and safe way to utilize more than 4GB of RAM. Period.
Sadly, they’re not yet ready for prime time. Months ago… way more than a year, in fact… perhaps two years ago… I saw the first article which hailed 64-bit Vista as the only thing worth owning; and the only thing that anyone would see available for sale.
Now, however long later (months and months, in any case) 64-bit Vista is, indeed, the defacto standard that most PC makers are installing, by default, on their new machines…
…but a whole lot of software won’t run on them. And that’s, in my opinion, tragic… perhaps even criminal.
Until everything that will run in 32-bit Windows will also run in 64-bit Windows (either because the makers of the software write 64-bit versions (which, of course, is the ideal), or because a utility is implemented in 64-bit Windows which effectively and successfullyl emulates a 32-bit environment which kicks-in whenever a 32-bit app that doesn’t work well in 64-bit environment tries to run), then most common, everyday users should be sticking with 32-bit Windows.
The exception, obviously, would be if the primary use for the computer is something for which a 64-bis version of Windows is either required, or is at least optimal… such as, for example, just to name one, the Hauptwerks digital pipe organ software, which runs far better on 64-bit versions of Windows with tons of RAM.
However, unless something like that is being used, and unless there really is a compelling reason to use 64-bit Windows, the average, everyday user should stick with 32-bit. And, yes, of COURSE I know that 64-bit Windows is faster and sleeker and outperforms 32-bit Windows. However, there are, for the moment, just too many applications that won’t run in a 64-bit environment; and it’s just not right — tragic, perhaps even criminal, as I earlier said — for an unsuspecting end-user to be suckered into buying 64-bit Windows based on a barely-important-to-him/her higher level of performance, only to learn later, the hard way, that some piece of software near and dear to his/her heart, and which s/he has been using seemingly forever, will suddenly not be available to him/her.
If almost any other industry did that sort of thing to consumers, the FTC (in the US, at least) would be all over it. The only reason Microsoft has been able to get away with it is because it’s as big as a small country. Look how it thumbed its nose at the EU just a couple weeks ago by changing its mind at the last minute and going against its agreement to release an EU version of Windows 7 (which I think was court-ordered, too, no?).
The 32- versus 64-bit issues with Windows that Microsoft has foist upon the world are unconscionable. My personal recommendation, informed by 32-years in IT, regardless of Windows vesion, is to stick with 32-bit unless there’s a damned compelling reason to use 64-bit instead. And until everything that runs on 32-bit Windows will also run on 64-bit, that will CONTINUE to be my advice.
Just because something (in this case, I’m talking about 64-bit Windows) can do certain things a little better than something else (and in this case, I’m talking about 32-bit Windows), isn’t sufficient reason to just embrace it, all else be damned. Just because we CAN do a thing doesn’t always mean we SHOULD. All things must be considered and weighed… netted-out.
If the world had approached 64-bit Windows in that way; and had telegraphed its insistence on complete 64-bit version compatibility with all 32-bit applications by not buying 64-bit Windows until that was true, even the arrogant giant Microsoft would have done what needed to be done and ensured that no one would be blind-sided by 64-bit versions of Windows like is happening now.
What is the defect in the thinking of the various cultures around the globe who think that newer is automatically better? How did this happen? When did humanity stop using its brain?
[sigh]
Oh, well… at any rate, back to the point: All 32-bit OS’s have a 4GB RAM limit. Period. Wishing won’t change that; and neither should patches to the kernal.
Or so it is my opinion.
___________________________
Gregg L. DesElms
gregg@greggdeselms.com
Napa, California
Well, after few minutes win 7 restart itself…. no go… you enter in windows, do some task, windows restart…. i repair my win with the dvd in the tray..
RE Windows XP: If the boot options include “/PAE” WindowsXP will be able to pretend to address more than 4GB of RAM. SP2 and newer by default will try and run in PAE mode because it also allows the “no execute” mode which is some DEP security thing.
PAE as mentioned allows “36 bit” addressing, which allows for addressing more than 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit OS. The thing it’s kind of a patch, and I believe it deals with swapping pages in and out, kind of like the old DOS EMS system. The thing is, although Windows will recognize it, will it actually use that memory without specially written applications? Because as of yet, I only thought some database server software was written to take advantage of PAE.
Here’s an interesting semi-related experiment: you can get Windows XP(32) to use more than 4GB of address space with the swap file. Have say 2GB RAM and a 6GB swap file. Use a memory test program and have several programs allocate 2GB of RAM each. You can get up to a commit charge of 8GB and the system will still run.
I have 2 questions in mind. Windows 2003 x86 supports more than 3GB of memory? I also agree with VijayIND for his comment, this patch may only show the available system memory, but the usages of memory is completely up to the core kernel. And patching the kernel is not a kid’s job. So this patch might patch successfully and show the available memory, but you will never be able to use that IMHO.
Confirm, working, tested with 2 games running in parallel on my Win7 RTM 7600:D….
Nice… nice one… now beware of microsoft updates to crack this tweak.
So, my Ubuntu its not using 4gb ram here also, don’t think its license problem. Since I know its a limit from 32bit architeture.
Yes, 64 bit Ubuntu is better than 64 bit Windows, because windows must have “signed” drivers. However, forcing 32 bit applications to run on it may be difficult for beginners. I would imagine that this patch will only SHOW that the RAM is there, but won’t really be able to use it.
@ Raymond…interesting…How can you prove/promote this to be workiing if you haven’t tested it on your own machines? x86 arcitecture limits the amount of RAM not licensing (so i believe). And even if the OS did report that all 4GB was being used, how can you really tell for sure that the OS is utilising all of it?
No offence but what Klimax has said is true. A 32 bit system can never support to address more than 4 GB of memory. And by memory I mean RAM as this is the memory with which the processor will directly talk. This is the limitation of the 32 bit architecture.
I don’t want to go into details but simply if you see a 8085 (a very primitive 8 bit processor) or 8086 a person will actually understand how addressing is done and base level and why it can’t be made to address more than 4GB for a 32 bit OS.
I don’t want to confuse with the way the timing overlap between cycles was designed for Neoburst architecture of P4, the most famous 32 bit processor.
If I speak as a layman, it depends both on the processor and the OS. Almost all now-a-days processors are 64 bit, but people still run 32 bit OS for sake of software, its dumb. Understand every OS most of all that are 64 bit will support 32 bit applications also. Run a 64 bit XP on a 64 bit processor and see how great the system will run, run counter strike and you will be amazed by its amazing flow.
Understand one thing when you pay money to buy a 64 bit processor and run 32 bit OS on it you are basically under utilizing your CPU, and not to say its dumb. But thats how the hardware vendor will make cash, make you buy a more powerful processor but still tell you to run crappy OS. Just try a 64 bit OS and see all the benefits, better processing, higher RAM capability of course, till 32 GB.
I am not aganist windows, but try a 64 bit ubuntu and you won’t leave it, its far better than windows.
Hi Raymond, It will recognize the amount of RAM but will it use it?
If you install 4Gb, there is no way to make all of the RAM between 3Gb and 4Gb available without installing a 64-bit OS, which you can’t do unless you have a 64-bit CPU. And even then it won’t necessarily work.
So, to avoid hassles on current systems, it’s best to stick with 3Gb or less.
dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm
can it work with XP?
Raymond,
Thanks for this one. I have windows 7 RTM. this patch work on x86 windows 7 enabling me to utilize full 4gb ram.
This is apparently using some sort of cheat through PAE and AWE.
And since it is architectual limitation of x86 where there are only 32bits for addressing. PAE is 36bits(app has to declare compatibility) and AWE is for specially made applications.(They have to use different WinAPI funcitons to access more and they have to do some things themselves as Windows memory management is doing only basics.)
I recommend to read Intel developer manual and Windows Internals, 5th edition to understand.
Raymond,I thought you would do better…
As for ammount of memory,either 2GB/2GB (user/kernel) or 3GB/1GB (PAE,/3gb) = total 4GB
I guess you’d have to boot only essential files to use it. But I’m not going to risk it.
issit save to use this as VijayIND said it might create loopholes for malware and all… any solutions or recommendations for this? what do u think raymond? issit save?
Excuse me, but what is the maximum amount of memory that a x86 system can potentially recognize? I thought it was architecture design dependent.
@Noah Yeah i get the same error file is already in use cant be accesed do u have to install it in safe mode ??Using a x86 vista 32 bit system..
An easier solution from the author of TCP-Z
zh-deepxw.blogspot.com/2009/04/readyfor4gb.html
A Kernal hack/patch !!!
IMO that’s not a very safe proposition. A badly written hack could provide loopholes for malware and also break the system when say MS/Driver updates occur.
Just my 2 cents…
the prob now
is i dont know how to remove the watermark
although it’ss just small at the low right corner of desktop
already press N but nothing happen
i already test it
with windows 7
here is the result
img197.imageshack.us/i/819200940704pm.png/
img197.imageshack.us/i/819200940735pm.png/
thx raymond
now i can upgrade my ram
without worry abot x32 and x64
two thumbs up to you and who develop this nice program!
It says the file can’t be accessed.
i already try
in my windows 7
dont know about vista
and yeah it totaly read 4GB
dun have more ram to test
see it here
[url=img197.imageshack.us/i/819200940704pm.png/][img=img197.imageshack.us/img197/3703/819200940704pm.th.png][/url]
[url=img197.imageshack.us/i/819200940735pm.png/][img=img197.imageshack.us/img197/4884/819200940735pm.th.png][/url]
thx raymond :)
I’ll try it