How to make Win7 x86 use all 4GB RAM

Hello. I know what you`re thinking: "why don`t you just go for Win7 x64 ?". Belive me, I did... or at least, I tried. But I was overwhelmed with BSOD's which I was unable to fix. I posted a thread *here* about the BSOD's, sadly I couldn`t get rid of them. Long story short, 2x2GB=BSOD, but 2GB=OK. Now I`m not gonna sit with a 2GB stick on my shelf. So I`m willing to give up on x64 and just go for x86 (haven`t got around to installing x86, will do that tomorrow; hope it runs ok with 2x2GB RAM installed, otherwise I`m gonna go completely crazy).

Anyway, since x86 only shows 3.25 or 3.5GB out of 4GB, I found a very interesting article about doing something about this. *This is the link* to the article. The instructions on how to tweak Windows start from the part where it says "Patch Details" (around the middle of the article). I`m not a programmer, but I read the whole article and I pretty much understood what he`s saying. I am to understand that the file NTKRNLPA.EXE needs to be modified, but how? With what am I supposed to open it? BCDEdit is used later on, so I don`t think is that I need to use at first. Basicly, I don`t understand with what to open the file.

Help?

I think the last statement in the highlighted portion of the article will answer your question. At least on this forum, as it states. Microsoft doesn't "license you" to use that code. So help here might not be coming. In this artical from MSDN it staes that 4gb is the limit for windows 7 and the 32 bit version http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7 Ok I found this on MSDN BCDEdit/set command set the pae boot entry option http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796(VS.85).aspx I don't know if this will answer your question. Fabe

Thanks for the reply, Fabe. Will come back tomorrow and post my results after installing the x86 version.

As thefabe said, attempts to defeat licensing restrictions are not supported for obvious reasons.

I'd also like to add that following Mr. Chappell's suggestions is not only technically illegal in many places (breach of EULA conditions = breach of contract = illegality), but also hazardous to a system's stability for reasons which he glosses over in his quest for glory. Either way, I'm not the Internet Police, so it makes no difference to me, but the first kernel-inclusive hotfix for Win7 would wipe out your modifications anyway, as would each and every subsequent one.

After reading your other thread, I think torrentg is right on the money - focus on updating your BIOS as the best possible chance of getting Windows to run with all your RAM. The problem symptoms are entirely hardware-ish, and a BIOS update frequently helps in these situations.

The lists of "what's new" in any given BIOS update are just summaries. Nobody ever publishes each and every bug fix in their update documentation. Don't be too certain that the updated BIOS does not contain the goodness you're after.

Thanks for the feedback, H2SO4. I`ve posted a reply in my original thread. I`ll be sure to keep you guys up-to-date with my progress

I would recommend downloading Memtest86+ and make the bootable CD. Boot it with the CD and make sure all your ram tests good. Update bios, examine your bios settings, get the latest drivers for your hardware.

Memtest86+ - Advanced Memory Diagnostic Tool

"Windows 7 64bit, Asus A8n32sli-deluxe" .....go to that thread. It's on the General discussion. Not sure if it will help, but there was a simple Bios change I made on my motherboard which alowed both my mb and os to see and use all 4gb of dual channel memory. I think you enable the memory hole? Anyway read the thread it's there.

H2SO4 said:

I'd also like to add that following Mr. Chappell's suggestions is not only technically illegal in many places (breach of EULA conditions = breach of contract = illegality),

Click to expand...

Is breach of contract of itself illegal? Well, leave that aside and that shrink-wrap conditions have anyway not been much tested at contract law, and just look at copyright. If you follow my suggestions, then as far as concerns copyright, I believe you would have so reasonable and obvious a defence of fair use that no copyright holder's lawyers would ever bother alleging that what you've done is unlawful.

As for contract law, I do not believe that any court in the developed world, or at least the English-speaking part of it, would uphold a condition in which a party with no negotiating power, i.e., the typical mass-product consumer, agrees not to test what the other party says.

If I hadn't included directions for testing, then I imagine your criticism of me would place very highly that I don't back up what I say and that what I say can't be verified. Instead, I, unlike Microsoft, provide you with the means to test what I say, and then you say that following my suggestions and actually doing the tests would be illegal!

Clearly, you can't be that conflicted: when you talk of "following Mr. Chappell's suggestions", you must mean something else. If you want to dissuade anyone, such as the OP, from thinking that the patch is for everyday use, then you have my support - as is surely clear from the article. Just don't say that you're dissuading him from following my suggestions.

but also hazardous to a system's stability for reasons which he glosses over in his quest for glory. Either way, I'm not the Internet Police, so it makes no difference to me, but the first kernel-inclusive hotfix for Win7 would wipe out your modifications anyway, as would each and every subsequent one.

Click to expand...

If you mean that I gloss over instability from future fixes and updates, such as you go on to talk about, then you are much too generous. I don't gloss over them: I ignore them entirely. I've explicitly said the patch is not for general use. How then do you criticise me for not talking of hazards that could only matter if you put the patch into general use? You're way out of line on that.

Even if you mean hazards from buggy drivers that misbehave when given physical memory addresses above 4GB, you're still out of line to say I gloss over these, whatever motive you think I have. Do I not explain the main bugs? Which have I missed? Do you think my reasoning is faulty anywhere that I explain that correction of these bugs is natural when 32-bit drivers are ported to 64-bits? Maybe you mean that I don't spell out the obvious implication that any tests are best done with the latest drivers, preferably ones with WHQL certificates. Mind you, I do say that I myself had to get one such driver from NVIDIA. I don't think anyone who reads the article can be in any doubt that there do exist buggy drivers - and I, unlike Microsoft, do at least provide the world with a way to assess their prevalence.