Is there a workaround to use all 4GB of RAM?

I ask you once again to read the article. Link is in my post.

That 32-bit editions of Windows Vista are limited to 4GB is not because of any 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

Click to expand...

The article is discussing PAE, but doesn't give you many of the negatives. That's the standard, go-to article for someone talking about PAE, but you are also failing to remember a very basic concept in technology. Could != Should. The bottom line is, and always was...to properly use 4 GB or more on a desktop system, you run an x64 OS. I truly don't get all this resistance to the simplest answer, or why we have to turn a molehole into a mountain each time. PAE is not mention for desktop use. Keep it simple, use an x64 OS.

DeaconFrost said:

That's mearly showing you how much physical memory is installed...not what Vista is actually addressing. Microsoft had too many complaints about systems only showing 3.25 GB, even though more was installed, so it was patched.

Click to expand...

He demonstrates what Vista is able to address.

Fumz said:

He demonstrates what Vista is able to address.

Click to expand...

I guess while we're in the spirit of quoting to correct, the article discusses PAE, which shouldn't be used on a desktop system. Why are we going round and round discussing this? We all know what the OP was looking for, and that doesn't exist. Let's just focus on giving the best answers to the people asking for them, okay?

DeaconFrost said:

Fumz said:

He demonstrates what Vista is able to address.

Click to expand...

I guess while we're in the spirit of quoting to correct, the article discusses PAE, which shouldn't be used on a desktop system. Why are we going round and round discussing this? We all know what the OP was looking for, and that doesn't exist. Let's just focus on giving the best answers to the people asking for them, okay?

Click to expand...

I get your point: the easiest and best solution would be to simply get 64-bit 7; and I agree, but, if we're going to quote correctly, then we can't inject our own assumptions, okay?

bilzmale said:

Thought I'd read somewhere that thwere is a tweak to let Win Home Prem 32 bit access all of the installed RAM? Or was I dreaming?

Click to expand...

Is there a way to allow a 32-bit OS to access all the installed RAM. Did he read it somewhere? Is he dreaming? Yes, yes, and no. Is it ideal, or even a good idea? Well, he didn't ask that.

DeaconFrost said:

Fumz said:

He demonstrates what Vista is able to address.

Click to expand...

I guess while we're in the spirit of quoting to correct, the article discusses PAE, which shouldn't be used on a desktop system. Why are we going round and round discussing this? We all know what the OP was looking for, and that doesn't exist. Let's just focus on giving the best answers to the people asking for them, okay?

Click to expand...

OP asks if it's possible, if the tweak exists. The article I quoted is a perfect answer to OP. Yes, it's possible.

It's a completely other question if it's a good idea, or how difficult it is, or how it can be done. By telling the OP it's not possible, you gave him a wrong answer.

BTW, quoting is good forum policy. Some forums even require it when replying.

Since we're arguing the highest possible RAM accessible on a 32-bit Windows OS, I'll post this here:

Yes, desktop OSs aren't licensed to use PAE.

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Server 2008. Limits greater than 4 GB for 32-bit Windows assume that PAE is enabled.



More info: Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

Kari said:

OP asks if it's possible, if the tweak exists. The article I quoted is a perfect answer to OP. Yes, it's possible.

Click to expand...

You should practice what you preach. By giving him links and discussing PAE without the caveat that it isn't a good idea or even a valid solution to his question, you only muddy the situation.

The OP wanted to know this for their own system. Given their system and environment, PAE shouldn't even be mentioned as a solution. It only serve to give brief and false hope.

While we are on the lecture topic of good forum etiquitte, let's discuss the responsibility to give the best possible answer to the specific situation at hand. For most issues, there are long, drawn out, overly technical discussions that could be had, or you can go right to the best possible answer. Much like the Occam's Razor concept....why discuss something that isn't even a valid or possible solution? The OP's true issue, is that he/she wants to use all 4 GB of memory on a desktop system, using a desktop OS. Given that, PAE shouldn't have been brought up at all. If you search for pallesenx's username on the HardForums, you'll see that each time someone asks that question, he jumps in spouting PAE. Once many others start dismissing it as a non-option (correctly), the thread is usually closed, and the OP is none-the-wiser to an answer to their questions.

Stick to what works, what's valid, and what solves the issue. If anyone wants to discuss PAE, start a new thread and have it it. As someone else mentioned, it is a great topic of academic's sake, but it doesn't apply here. Simple as that, really.

All of you idiots who think a 32 bit operating system can see more than about 3.2 GB by using any kind of software tweak are wasting your time and that of everyone foolish or inexperienced enough to read and try it. There is no way to increase the amount of memory that 32 bit windows can see. It's not a software limitation that can be changed by any of the people who would come here to read about it so why waste people's time? If you want your system to see more memory, use 64 bit windows

Lets keep this civil ....

DeaconFrost, you are mostly right in what you say in your last post, I have no problems to admit that. I have only tried to make my point clear: OP asked if something is possible, and that article I mentioned shows it is. That's all.

OK I've got my answer(s) and read some interesting stuff. How do we close this thread - it's taking on a bit of a life of its own.