Unlocking Full RAM on Win XP X86

T

tyttebøvs

New Member
The pae kernel in xp/vista/win7:

"Ignore memory above 4G"

The Geoff Chappell dude then found a way to wipe out that "Ignore memory above 4G" in Vista. You would need to do the same in xp.
 
canivari

canivari

New Member
tyttebøvs said:
And why don't you think it would be necessary to patch the xp kernel for it to do the same?
Click to expand...

I didnt had time to check the "why" but looks like its all because microsoft want us to use X64 OS with RAM above 4GB on Workstations thats all there is.
But at the same time microsoft dont sell the license to upgade Windows XP 32Bis with 4GB or above of RAM.
Its weird the entire idea.
And also i really not saying that is possible to work in all Computers this kind of switchs with XP to un XP X86 with all physicall RAM enabled, but it opens new horizons in X86 OSs so we (gammers and enthusiastics) can have the possibility to choose if we want to run X86 OSs or X64 OSs.
 
tlarkin

tlarkin

VIP Member
canivari said:
I didnt had time to check the "why" but looks like its all because microsoft want us to use X64 OS with RAM above 4GB on Workstations thats all there is.
But at the same time microsoft dont sell the license to upgade Windows XP 32Bis with 4GB or above of RAM.
Its weird the entire idea.
And also i really not saying that is possible to work in all Computers this kind of switchs with XP to un XP X86 with all physicall RAM enabled, but it opens new horizons in X86 OSs so we (gammers and enthusiastics) can have the possibility to choose if we want to run X86 OSs or X64 OSs.
Click to expand...

It's called a business model, and it makes sense in the idea of it making them more money to sell it in different models like that. 32bit memory addressing is part of the limitation itself, but the other part is that MS codes their kernel in that matter.

I am not a developer so I am not going to claim I understand the intricacies of how this actually works or is coded. However, I do understand Microsoft is better at business than they are software development.
 
canivari

canivari

New Member
tlarkin said:
It's called a business model, and it makes sense in the idea of it making them more money to sell it in different models like that. 32bit memory addressing is part of the limitation itself, but the other part is that MS codes their kernel in that matter.

I am not a developer so I am not going to claim I understand the intricacies of how this actually works or is coded. However, I do understand Microsoft is better at business than they are software development.
Click to expand...

LOL... i agree with you on that one...
 
Aastii

Aastii

VIP Member
I wouldn't do that on my system even if I was desperate for 4gb+ memory for some strange reason
 
T

tyttebøvs

New Member
canivari said:
that this switchs only worked with XP SP1 because after the upgrade for SP2, microsoft
released a new Kernel that blocks the RAM above the 4GB.
Click to expand...
And even before SP2 you could only use PAE to get 4GB usable ram. So you couldn't install like 6GB and get all of it usable.
 
canivari

canivari

New Member
tyttebøvs said:
And even before SP2 you could only use PAE to get 4GB usable ram. So you couldn't install like 6GB and get all of it usable.
Click to expand...

What about the /nolowmem switch before the SP2?
it was used to run XP with more than 5GB of RAM and made them usable..
Microsoft used this switch to test X86 OSs with SP1 to test (Drivers i think)
Anyway, what if we managed to get the Kernel from SP1 copy it to a machine
with SP2 or SP3 installed and change the boot.ini to dual Kernel boot
so we could use the /PAE switch along with /nolowmem switch? (because te /nolowmem switch only works with /PAE enabled
Does this make any sense?
The "patch" that the other guy made for VISTA and Win7 is nothing more than
this but the only diference was that Windows already had the 2 Kernels in the system root.
 
T

tyttebøvs

New Member
The patch is a programcode modifier. It changes how the kernel works. That you cannot do with a switch in boot.ini.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top