Patch Vista’s Kernel to Address more than 4 GB of Memory

Discussion in 'General Computer Chat' started by Alboguy, Apr 11, 2010.

  1. Alboguy

    Alboguy Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,634
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Hey Guys!!! Look what I found HERE. Have 2 questions:

    1. Is this legal?
    2. Is it safe to do this?
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
  2. hellnoire

    hellnoire *nix Technical Support

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    8,914
    Trophy Points:
    266
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Legal, I believe so. As for safe... never tried it.
     
  3. Alboguy

    Alboguy Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,634
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    My point is: Do I have the right to use more RAM than a 32bit system addresses the CPU to use? I mean that's the reason why they sell 64bit OSs out there...therefore I have to buy a 64bit OS...right? You got me hellnoire?
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2010
  4. hellnoire

    hellnoire *nix Technical Support

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    8,914
    Trophy Points:
    266
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    No, the reason why they sell a 64 bit OS is that it makes sure perfectly to address more then four gigs of ram... this might make it risky.
     
  5. utkarsh30june

    utkarsh30june Prominent Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,294
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    There's nothing as such that it is illegal to use more than 4Gigs of RAM with a 32-bit PC.

    A 32-bit OS can support 2^32 bits of memory allocations which is 4 Gigs, and 64-bit OSes can support 2^64 bits of memory allocations making them support 16 Billion Gigs of RAM (theoretically though).

    Hence, a 64-bit OS is the way to go if you have 4 or more Gigs of RAM.
     
  6. safeguy

    safeguy Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    5,632
    Trophy Points:
    268
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    Raymond wrote an article on a similar thing before here:

    Make Windows 7 and Vista 32-bit (x86) Support More Than 4GB Memory

    But guess what? Seems like some of the commenters know better than Ray and perhaps for the 1st time, Ray was proven wrong simply because he didn't test it properly.

    See this comment made by Gregg DesElms. I'm quoting it here for you guys to read it:

    In simple words - even if the patcher 'works' - all it does is make Windows "recognize" the amount of RAM but whether or not it will use it is something of doubt. And the 'risk' isn't worth it.
     
  7. Alboguy

    Alboguy Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,634
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Yeah safeguy...I had a doubt about this...
     
  8. kavinraja

    kavinraja Prominent Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,063
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Is it legal?
    Yes it is.

    Is it safe?
    I have no idea since i haven't tried doing it, and also i dislike to play around kernel (though i was a budding embedded designer). When you play around kernel, you must be cautious because it may cause problems more than what is expected, at times.
    I am seeing that Raymond's post for the first time, so no idea regarding that.

    My question:
    Do we really need more than 4 gigs of RAM at this time?
     
  9. johnshaw1917

    johnshaw1917 Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Even if Vista recognizes the extra RAM, if you don't have a CPU, or motherboard that supports 64 bit, I wonder if it would be available?
     
  10. safeguy

    safeguy Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    5,632
    Trophy Points:
    268
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    If it was me who intended to use 4GB RAM or more, then my choice would to go for 64-bit OS and forget about patching the kernel. Furthermore, more and more software developers are trying their best to support 64-bit and even if your software can't, try finding alternatives that do...

    As a last resort, if you can't find any alternatives, then try to run the 32-bit software on it...it might still work (with problems that is) but I still find it less risky than to use Windows with a patched kernel...doesn't sound like a nice idea to me. Or you may want to install a 32-bit Windows in a VM and then run your software there.

    Doing this patch, assuming it's workable, even though beneficial to you, is actually going 'backwards' - if you truly want to experience the modern computing world, then you have to accept 64-bit and not play hanky-panky with such stuffs.

    Decision is yours:

    1. Stick to 32-bit and live with its limits
    2. Adopt 64-bit and live with its compatibility problems for now
    3. Stick to 32-bit, patch the kernel, and convince (or fool:p) yourself with the 'added amount of RAM'

    @kavinraja

    I don't need it but I'm sure there are those who do...especially those who are involved with heavy audio and video editing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2010

Share This Page...