Windows 7 32-bit with full 4 GB or 8 GB RAM support

Get your daily fix from here:

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

Now no more blaming Microshit for not giving full 4 GB Ram on your 32
bit windows 7!

Get your penile dysfunction corrected as well at the same link.

On 07/06/11 12:53 am, Tester wrote:

> Get your daily fix from here:
>
> <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN>

I see many reports that the ntkrlICE.exe file is a virus.

Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" <> wrote in message
news:iv1in8$1d0$...
> On 07/06/11 12:53 am, Tester wrote:
>
>> Get your daily fix from here:
>>
>> <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN>
>
> I see many reports that the ntkrlICE.exe file is a virus.
>
> Perce

A year or so ago, I downloaded and installed this kernel patch/replacement.
Although Zone Alarm marked it as a virus, I was never able to confirm or
deny that it truly is. Once installed, I ran a full system scan with ZA,
SuperAntiSpyware, MalwareBytes, and another AV program from a protected USB
pen drive (I don't recall which one it was), and Sophos Anti-Rootkit. None
of them found anything, not even ZA which had marked the compressed file as
dangerous.
I have since uninstalled it since I don't run anything heavy enough to
require all of the RAM that I have installed. The only problem I saw with it
was the inability to get into Safe Mode if I had to without jumping through
a lot of hoops.
--
SC Tom

On 06/07/2011 7:59 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> On 07/06/11 12:53 am, Tester wrote:
>
>> Get your daily fix from here:
>>
>> <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN>
>
> I see many reports that the ntkrlICE.exe file is a virus.
>
> Perce

A lot of programs like registration key generators are usually
classified as malware by most virus programs. They typically don't want
you getting something for nothing.

Yousuf Khan

On 06/07/2011 12:53 AM, Tester wrote:
>
> Get your daily fix from here:
>
> <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipps/32-bit-ram-barrier.html?lang=EN>
>
> Now no more blaming Microshit for not giving full 4 GB Ram on your 32
> bit windows 7!
>
> Get your penile dysfunction corrected as well at the same link.

When Intel introduced the 32-bit x86 mode, many people noticed that the
actual memory limit went way beyond 32-bit, it was actually more like
46-bit (or 64 TB). This was a result of using the segment-based memory
management mechanism. Using segments a 16-bit processor like the
original 8086 was able to address 1 MB of memory instead of just 64 KB,
which is the norm for a 16-bit processor, making it an effective 20-bit
address space. And then Intel later modified the segment mechanism with
the still 16-bit 286 processor, but the segment mechanism allowed that
to address all of the way upto 1 GB of memory making it an effective
30-bit processor (although it was physically limited to only 24-bits or
16 MB).

Using segments, each 32-bit program could be put into its own private 4
GB address space, and each program wouldn't know that there are other
programs also assigned 4 GB of space. Each segment adds an effective
14-bits to the overall address space. And the programs themselves could
go beyond the 4 GB limit if they were segment-aware and they could
request additional 4 GB segments of their own. However, this segment
based memory addressing was incompatible with Unix programs which were
designed to run on multiple architectures (including x86), this would've
meant putting in special code when porting to x86 Unixes to make the
programs segment-aware. So they never bothered with this memory model,
and instead most operating systems just simplified everything by putting
everything into the same single 4 GB segment, and ignoring all
references to segments. Windows adopted this model too for the majority
of applications, they call it the "flat address space" model. However,
some enterprise applications that require as much memory as is possible,
like the Oracle database have made itself segment-aware and can use the
multiple segments in a 32-bit environment.

When AMD introduced the 64-bit version of x86, they finally acknowledged
the lack of use that the segment model gets and completely dropped it
from the 64-bit mode. Everything in 64-bit mode is fully flat, and there
is no remaining option to sneakily use segments to address more memory.
The segment registers are still there in 64-bit mode, but they are
vestigial and they point to exactly the same starting point in memory;
there is no option to set them to different locations like there used to be.

Yousuf Khan

Tester wrote on 07/06/2011 00:53 ET
> Get your daily fix from here
>
> <http://www.unawave.de/windows-7-tipp...r.html?lang=EN
>
> Now no more blaming Microshit for not giving full 4 GB Ram on your 3
> bit windows 7
>
> Get your penile dysfunction corrected as well at the same link
>
Any OS has two types 84x bit (32 is what most people know it buy) and 64x bi
there is no way to use over 4 GB of ram in a 84x bit O
also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ra
e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ra
so if you have over at total of 4GB of ram you should be using a 64x bit O
64x Bit OS can be different amounts depending on the type of O
for windows 7 it is home basic: 8GB, home premium: 16GB, professional: 24GB
an
enterprise/ultimate: 128+GB

In message <D_mdnaWS-_>, kdogs
<> writes:
[]
also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram

[]
Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.

If you have a desktop system where the motherboard has integrated
graphics, it is likely to use shared RAM. (Mobos with on-board graphics
that actually had its own memory have existed, though I don't think
there are any these days.) Laptops can use shared RAM or have an
independent "graphics card", though it might not be a physically
separate card.

The main disadvantage of shared graphics RAM is not so much that it
takes some of the main RAM, but that it adversely affects the speed of
the system, since the graphics accesses are over the same buses. Only
relevant if you're doing high-performance things; shared-graphics
systems are in general cheaper, and fine for most run-of-the-mill work.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in
silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in
silencing mankind. -John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist (1806-1873)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:

>In message <D_mdnaWS-_>, kdogs
><> writes:
>[]
> also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
> e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram
>
>[]
>Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
>card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.

Not exactly. A 32-bit system can address 4GB of memory, regardless of
where that memory physically resides. If your video board contains
..5GB of memory, then you'll only be able to access 3.5GB of your
system RAM (minus address space needed to access your BIOS and a few
other things).

see http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

--
Tim Slattery

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

Tim Slattery wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:
>
>> In message <D_mdnaWS-_>, kdogs
>> <> writes:
>> []
>> also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
>> e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram
>>
>> []
>> Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
>> card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.
>
> Not exactly. A 32-bit system can address 4GB of memory, regardless of
> where that memory physically resides. If your video board contains
> .5GB of memory, then you'll only be able to access 3.5GB of your
> system RAM (minus address space needed to access your BIOS and a few
> other things).
>
> see http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
>

When you say that, are you taking PAE into account ?

In my testing, I've now come to call this a "memory license",
because the limitation is artificial. PAE allows up to
64GB of memory to be accessible from a 32 bit OS, with
a limitation being placed on how much any one process
can access by itself. To use all of the 64GB of memory,
you'd have to run a number of programs at the same time.

One test case I ran was:

1) WinXP SP3 x32 bit (PAE enabled, "licensed" for 4GB)
2) Install 6GB memory in computer (X48 chipset, PAE capable)
Not all motherboards support PAE, for the record.
3) Install this RAMDISK and set it to use memory above 4GB.
http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk

The end result, is a system which is *using* more than 4GB
of memory, but with the restriction that the RAM above
4GB is being used for storage and not for programs. Free
memory reported might be 3.1GB, at the same time as a 2GB
RAMDISK is operational. Total usable about 5.1GB.

What that test case showed me, is there isn't a hardware limit.
So I now call the 4GB limit of the x32 OS a "license", like is
mentioned here. Since Microsoft chose to enable PAE on SP3,
it means PAE is still in effect.

http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer....nse/memory.htm

Since my test case allowed *some* usage of the unlicensed
memory, it would mean a 6GB installation of RAM would not
be a total loss.

When I had that configuration set up, as another test, I put
the pagefile on the RAMDISK. I was able to run multiple
programs, causing them to swap out as the total memory
usage passed 3.1GB. Due to the speed of the RAMDISK, there
was virtually no slowdown as I passed the 3.1GB point. Without
the RAMDISK, my system would be disk constrained during
swap and behave in an annoying manner.

What's wrong with that idea, of using the RAMDISK for pagefile,
is the RAMDISK software wasn't perfect. In four days of
testing, I had two "anomalies", one of which was a game which
exited immediately when started. Another, was a program which
was running, but had no icon in the bar at the bottom of the
screen, and which had to be killed with Task Manager. I stopped
using the setup in that way, and unplugged the extra memory,
leaving my usual 4GB (3.1 free) configuration.

Paul

In message <>, Tim Slattery
<> writes:
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <> wrote:
>
>>In message <D_mdnaWS-_>, kdogs
>><> writes:
>>[]
>> also if you have video memory it takes it out of the total ram
>> e.g. 512mb graphics and 4GB ram = 3.5GB of usable ram
>>
>>[]
>>Only if you have a "shared graphics RAM" system. If you have a graphics
>>card with its own on-board RAM, then it isn't taken out of the main RAM.
>
>Not exactly. A 32-bit system can address 4GB of memory, regardless of
>where that memory physically resides. If your video board contains
>.5GB of memory, then you'll only be able to access 3.5GB of your
>system RAM (minus address space needed to access your BIOS and a few
>other things).
>
>see http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html
>
I don't need to. If a graphics card has its own RAM, it is not the main
processor that is addressing it, but the graphics processor. Modern
graphics processors are quite powerful computers in their own right.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Electricians do it 'till it Hz.