19 replies to this topic

[martijn1803]

YES IT IS POSSIBLE!!!! ill explain you here

what is Pshygical Adress Extension_

In computing, Physical Address Extension (PAE) is a feature to allow 32-bit x86 processors to access a physical address space (including random access memory and memory mapped devices) larger than 4 gigabytes.
First implemented in the Intel Pentium Pro in 1995, it was extended by AMD to add a level to the page table hierarchy, to allow it to handle up to 52-bit physical addresses, add NX bit functionality, and make it the mandatory memory paging model in long mode

source: Wikipedia

however, to use it, you need to patch windows 7, and here i will explain you how to do!

first, download PatchPae:
http://www.furulevi...._(PatchPae).htm

NOTE: you need WinRar!

after you did both download winrar and patchpae, create a new folder in the desktop named PatchPae, and extract everything from the download into the file on your desktop.

then, copy the file in your desktop to your local disk C:

if you did that, go to start and type in search: cmd. and open it with administrator rights. make sure it says C:/windows/System32

then copy and paste the following commands in your cmd and after each command press ENTER:


  C:PatchPaePatchPae.exe -type kernel -o ntkrnlpx.exe ntkrnlpa.exe
This will patch the kernel to enable a maximum of 128GB of RAM.

  C:PatchPaePatchPae.exe -type loader -o winloadp.exe winload.exe
This will patch the loader to disable signature verification.

  bcdedit /copy {current} /d "Windows 7 (PAE Patched)"
This will create a new boot entry. A message should appear:
The entry was successfully copied to {xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx}.<-- use the nummer that appears here for the following commands

  bcdedit /set {xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx} kernel ntkrnlpx.exe
This will set our boot entry to load our patched kernel.

  bcdedit /set {xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx} path Windowssystem32winloadp.exe
This will set our loader to be our patched loader.

  bcdedit /set {xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx} nointegritychecks 1
This will disable verification of the loader.

now close everything and restart the computer.

a boot menu will appear, select Windows 7 (PAE Patched)

and there you go!!!

FAQ:

Q: when i put in a command it shows the path is undefined
A: make sure it has its own file in your local disk (C:), and also make sure the file is EXACTLY named PatchPae. and run cmd (not command prompt!) and run it as administrator, then try again

Q: how i copy in command prompt_
A: right click and select mark, then mark your section like you mark anything, and right click to copy.

Q: why not isntalling 64-bit OS_
A: COMPITABILITY: most people like me have hardware that only supports 32-bit OS, for these people there is this patch

here is a video:

NOTE: it is totaly pointless if you have an 64-bit OS or less then 4GB of RAM
NOTE: i recommend to take a backup of your files, althrough if something goes wrong windows wont be damaged.
NOTE: some applications cant use the new RAM

i wish you luck and a happy patching!   i hope i helped you!

if you have any problems feel free to contact me

how to undo these changes_ just simply boot in a no PAE patched boot

how to PERMANENTLY remove the patch:

1. reboot in the no PAE patched boot
2. go to start >run>MSCONFIG>boot
3. set the no PAE patched boot as default
4. delete the PAE patched boot
5. delete the PatchPae from your local hard drive
6. empty your recycle bin and you are done

VERRY CRITICAL IMPORTANT NOTE: DONT DELETE the OS you started with before you patched!!! critical system failure is the result then!

Edited by martijn1803, April 17 2013 - 04:31 AM.

[Kazma]

why not just install a 64bit system_ ^^

[martijn1803]

Kazma, on April 15 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

why not just install a 64bit system_ ^^

one word: COMPITABILITY, most people like me have hardware in thier PC that only supports 32-bit. thanks for letting me know that ^^

[SilentJacket]

out of curiosity, how is this relevant to Hawken_

Hawken runs in x86 mode, would this be shifting OS operations to allow more power to Hawken_

[martijn1803]

SilentJacket, on April 15 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

out of curiosity, how is this relevant to Hawken_

Hawken runs in x86 mode, would this be shifting OS operations to allow more power to Hawken_

yes, it is to let people run hawkin in high performance mode, to run in that mode you need 4GB of RAM, but since the 3GB limit of 32-bit systems....

and read the FAQ to see why not installing 64-bit

[SilentJacket]

I'm fairly certain that x86 can use up to 4GB of ram

the 1GB discrepancy you are referring to is just the idle OS usage, and again, I am assuming that what this does is move the idle ram usage , so that the 4GB extra is reserved for Hawken

[Beefsweat]

martijn1803, on April 15 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

one word: COMPITABILITY, most people like me have hardware in thier PC that only supports 32-bit.

...like what_

[martijn1803]

SilentJacket, on April 15 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

I'm fairly certain that x86 can use up to 4GB of ram

the 1GB discrepancy you are referring to is just the idle OS usage, and again, I am assuming that what this does is move the idle ram usage , so that the 4GB extra is reserved for Hawken

no, thats not how it works

the 32-bit system normaly is limited to 3GB of USABLE ram for ALL applications, services, and programs. both user or non user started.

Window fools you when it says the other RAM is reserved for the hardware, this is not treu. the only reason games use RAM is to take thier files from the hard drive and put it into the hardware to handle it and vise-versa . none of your hardware will need pshygical memory, exept the processor and some other devices of the motehrboard and that is only around 200MB with my PC. so the 1GB of RAM was just sitting there doing nothing

and it allows to use up to 128GB of RAM! so it is also a good thing for other things beside hawken

best regards,
martijn1803

Beefsweat, on April 15 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

martijn1803, on April 15 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

one word: COMPITABILITY, most people like me have hardware in thier PC that only supports 32-bit.

...like what_

both my internet card of the motherboard, my modem, printer and graphic card only came with a 32-bit installation disc. and im nothing with a 64-bit OS when you dont have graphics and internet, and i need my printer for school works

best regards,
martijn1803

Edited by martijn1803, April 16 2013 - 08:41 AM.

[nokari]

martijn1803, on April 16 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

both my internet card of the motherboard, my modem, printer and graphic card only came with a 32-bit installation disc. and im nothing with a 64-bit OS when you dont have graphics and internet, and i need my printer for school works

best regards,
martijn1803

The fact that your computer came with a 32-bit installation doesn't mean it can't be upgraded to 64-bit. As long as your component's system requirements are compatible with 64-bit Windows (which they should be unless they're really old), you should have no problem upgrading.

Edited by nokari, April 16 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[martijn1803]

nokari, on April 16 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

martijn1803, on April 16 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

both my internet card of the motherboard, my modem, printer and graphic card only came with a 32-bit installation disc. and im nothing with a 64-bit OS when you dont have graphics and internet, and i need my printer for school works

best regards,
martijn1803

The fact that your computer came with a 32-bit installation doesn't mean it can't be upgraded to 64-bit. As long as your component's system requirements are compatible with 64-bit Windows (which they should be unless they're really old), you should have no problem upgrading.

maybe you can be right, but the main reason: that takes a few hours to install everything including 64-bit OS

using this patch only takes 5 minutes or less, so if the only reason to upgrade to use more RAm then the patch is a faster solution

[nokari]

martijn1803, on April 16 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

nokari, on April 16 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

martijn1803, on April 16 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

both my internet card of the motherboard, my modem, printer and graphic card only came with a 32-bit installation disc. and im nothing with a 64-bit OS when you dont have graphics and internet, and i need my printer for school works

best regards,
martijn1803

The fact that your computer came with a 32-bit installation doesn't mean it can't be upgraded to 64-bit. As long as your component's system requirements are compatible with 64-bit Windows (which they should be unless they're really old), you should have no problem upgrading.

maybe you can be right, but the main reason: that takes a few hours to install everything including 64-bit OS

using this patch only takes 5 minutes or less, so if the only reason to upgrade to use more RAm then the patch is a faster solution

It doesn't really matter that it might take a few hours unless your time is extremely precious, which I doubt. It means you'd have a 64-bit system without having to go into any command lines and potentially causing big problems if you do something wrong. I don't even know if there's a guarantee this would work for everyone either. But I guess it comes down to whether you have an 64-bit disc or not.

[SS396]

For some reason, I am skeptical.

This seems like a perfect way to deploy a trojan.

Why would you link a website that tries to get you to install malware, instead of just linking the original creators website_

Even on original creators website he specifically states:

Quote

Note: I do not offer any support for this. If this did not work for you, either:

• You cannot follow instructions correctly, or
  
• You cannot use more than 4GB of physical memory on 32-bit Windows due to hardware/software conflicts.

Also, are you aware that if you update windows and it updates the kernel, you are going to have to reapply the patch_  Because you will have to.  

To all of you thinking this is a great idea, don't bother with it.  Just get a real 64 bit OS.

[martijn1803]

nokari, on April 16 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

martijn1803, on April 16 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

nokari, on April 16 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

martijn1803, on April 16 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

both my internet card of the motherboard, my modem, printer and graphic card only came with a 32-bit installation disc. and im nothing with a 64-bit OS when you dont have graphics and internet, and i need my printer for school works

best regards,
martijn1803

The fact that your computer came with a 32-bit installation doesn't mean it can't be upgraded to 64-bit. As long as your component's system requirements are compatible with 64-bit Windows (which they should be unless they're really old), you should have no problem upgrading.

maybe you can be right, but the main reason: that takes a few hours to install everything including 64-bit OS

using this patch only takes 5 minutes or less, so if the only reason to upgrade to use more RAm then the patch is a faster solution

It doesn't really matter that it might take a few hours unless your time is extremely precious, which I doubt. It means you'd have a 64-bit system without having to go into any command lines and potentially causing big problems if you do something wrong. I don't even know if there's a guarantee this would work for everyone either. But I guess it comes down to whether you have an 64-bit disc or not.

indeed i dont have a 64-bit installation disk

SS396, on April 16 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

For some reason, I am skeptical.

This seems like a perfect way to deploy a trojan.

Why would you link a website that tries to get you to install malware, instead of just linking the original creators website_

Even on original creators website he specifically states:

Quote

Note: I do not offer any support for this. If this did not work for you, either:

• You cannot follow instructions correctly, or
  
• You cannot use more than 4GB of physical memory on 32-bit Windows due to hardware/software conflicts.

Also, are you aware that if you update windows and it updates the kernel, you are going to have to reapply the patch_  Because you will have to.  

To all of you thinking this is a great idea, don't bother with it.  Just get a real 64 bit OS.

i could not find a official site of the creators, but there are MANY youtube videos of these, and a wikipedia page, and if you google it you will find even a bigger bunch of them. i dont think that many people would deploy a virus on you

i tested it myself and it worked for me, however.. i also agree with you. i dont give all support in it, if you can, just install 64-bit

and a question to you: i know viruses, i know hacks, i know how hackers hack, but whats a trojan virus exactly_ i heard of it, but i dont know what it is exactly.

and when you look on the youtube comments, none said they got a virus by it, but indeed.. if you can, just install 64-bit OS, if you cant.. then this is a solution

an you can FULLY REMOVE the patch, here is how:

1. reboot in the no PAE patched boot
2. go to start >run>MSCONFIG>boot
3. set the no PAE patched boot as default
4. delete the PAE patched boot
5. delete the PatchPae from your local hard drive
6. empty recycle bin

VERRY CRITICAL IMPORTANT NOTE: DONT DELETE the OS you started with before you patched!!! critical system failure!


EDIT: i scanned PatchPae folder with windows defender (for some reason, i cant install microsoft secirty essentials >.<) and it said it was alright

Edited by martijn1803, April 17 2013 - 04:39 AM.

[SS396]

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

i could not find a official site of the creators, but there are MANY youtube videos of these, and a wikipedia page, and if you google it you will find even a bigger bunch of them. i dont think that many people would deploy a virus on you

Original creators website.  Took 5 seconds to search google for it.
http://wj32.org/wp/2...-for-windows-7/

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

and a question to you: i know viruses, i know hacks, i know how hackers hack, but whats a trojan virus exactly_ i heard of it, but i dont know what it is exactly.

http://en.wikipedia....orse_(computing)

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

EDIT: i scanned PtachPae folder with windows defender (for some reason, i cant install microsoft secirty essentials >.<) and it said it was alright

That is one of the problems with anti-virus scanners, they can only detect something that the antivirus research company has analyzed and determined to be a "bad" program.  Therefor if you scan a newly created or modified virus it will pass and go undetected, until the research company adds the new strain to its detection list, which could take weeks based solely on its popularity.

Either way, its just an unsafe practice to run around installing programs from random places on the bowels of the internet, if it was a download direct from microsoft.com, I would not be so negative on the whole subject.  I hope you understand.

BTW I only use 64-bit OS's on all my machines.

[martijn1803]

SS396, on April 17 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

i could not find a official site of the creators, but there are MANY youtube videos of these, and a wikipedia page, and if you google it you will find even a bigger bunch of them. i dont think that many people would deploy a virus on you

Original creators website.  Took 5 seconds to search google for it.
http://wj32.org/wp/2...-for-windows-7/

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

and a question to you: i know viruses, i know hacks, i know how hackers hack, but whats a trojan virus exactly_ i heard of it, but i dont know what it is exactly.

http://en.wikipedia....orse_(computing)

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

EDIT: i scanned PtachPae folder with windows defender (for some reason, i cant install microsoft secirty essentials >.<) and it said it was alright

That is one of the problems with anti-virus scanners, they can only detect something that the antivirus research company has analyzed and determined to be a "bad" program.  Therefor if you scan a newly created or modified virus it will pass and go undetected, until the research company adds the new strain to its detection list, which could take weeks based solely on its popularity.

Either way, its just an unsafe practice to run around installing programs from random places on the bowels of the internet, if it was a download direct from microsoft.com, I would not be so negative on the whole subject.  I hope you understand.

BTW I only use 64-bit OS's on all my machines.

thank you.

however, i still use it, it worked for me and all of my friends

and i have a proof it is not a hacker, nor a keylogger, nor a virus... i will explain you how:

how i confirmed its not a hacker: i checked with command prompt.

how i confirm its not a keylogger or a trojan: trojans and keyloggers are obviously hidden, and they need to start up together with your computer to work. by enabling view hidden files and going to msconfig > startup and not seeing any non recognized file in there, im pretty sure this one is safe

you are good to go

and do you really think microsoft would put it on thier site_ the only reason people upgrade to 64-bit is because of the RAM, if they release this on thier site, nobody will buy 64-bit OS systems, wich equals less money.

best regards,
martijn1803

Edited by martijn1803, April 17 2013 - 11:19 AM.

[SS396]

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

thank you.

however, i still use it, it worked for me and all of my friends

and i have a proof it is not a hacker, nor a keylogger, nor a virus... i will explain you how:

how i confirmed its not a hacker: i checked with command prompt.

I'm sorry but you can sit here and say over and over about how safe it is and again I just don't trust you, the website you referenced, the person that uploaded that file to the website, or the original creator.  Its nothing personal, I don't know you.  I just follow strict computing practices and policies.

I wasn't aware you could check whether or not a file was "dangerous" by the command prompt.  Any executable file can be dangerous, even non executable files like .DLL's can be dangerous.  I'm afraid you just don't understand how easy it would be to insert a payload in your "solution".

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

how i confirm its not a keylogger or a trojan: trojans and keyloggers are obviously hidden, and they need to start up together with your computer to work. by enabling view hidden files and going to msconfig > startup and not seeing any non recognized file in there, im pretty sure this one is safe

you are good to go

Seriously_  All you are going to do is check one area in windows for filenames you don't recognize_   See the people that create these things have already thought of that a long time ago, they change the name of dangerous files to names that are not unrecognizable, like

• windows.exe
  
• _exp1orer.exe
  
• desktop.exe
  
• recycler.exe
  
• winlogon.exe

The average uninformed computer user will not detect anything wrong with those filenames, however experienced users will.  
Also there are about 10 other ways to get processes started without using the locations you mention in msconfig.

For example, your search in windows startup areas will not show anything out of the ordinary if you are infected with a virus that is attached to the boot record, just to name simple way off the top of my head.  It will be loaded BEFORE windows even starts booting.   I'd go into it in detail, but I'd just be wasting my time.  Please read about boot record viruses on your own.  Here is a recent article on one, that has some "how it works" information.  http://cleanbytes.ne...boot-record-mbr

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

and do you really think microsoft would put it on thier site_ the only reason people upgrade to 64-bit is because of the RAM, if they release this on thier site, nobody will buy 64-bit OS systems, wich equals less money.

The RAM limit is not the only reason to use a 64-bit OS, you are forgetting the simple fact that you can RUN 64-bit AND 32-bit applications, where as in your case, you cannot run both, and never will be able to.

The simple way to keep any computer system running without exposing your system to malicious activities is to just never trust anyone.

Edited by SS396, April 17 2013 - 01:54 PM.

[ArnieF4440]

XD, I'm with SS396 here. IMHO you should just stick with 64-bit OS's. All hardware and software will work without compatibility issues with 64bit NP. If they're designed for a lower 'bit' that means that they just run using whatever bit they have and they can only address the amount of ram they need depending on that bit value, as long as its lesser than or equal to whatever bit your OS is. I'm also implying here that since Hawken only has a 32-bit build, you can only address 32-bit of ram anyway, so its essentially pointless unless you have 64-bit applications.

As per the 4GB thing, technically 32-bit addresses 4GB of ram, but its usually restricted to about 3.6GB because of the OS saving stuff for as you said, other hardware and OS reserved usage. Sometimes hardware like the GPU uses RAM for storage if it cant store it within its own VRAM but that's only if you don't have enough VRAM

Also, in terms of cost, you can buy an upgrade version of windows (fraction of the cost of a full install version) in 64-bit and do a "double install". That'll allow you to do, essentially, a clean and then an upgrade on the same OS, allowing you to use your upgrade key NP. TBH, I'd rather invest my time (and I have) in installing 64-bit OS's

edit: no need, I've said enough, lol
edit 2: okies, well this then:

Edited by ArnieF4440, April 18 2013 - 12:26 AM.

[martijn1803]

guys, take it easy XD i dont force anyone to use it XD


normally i dont either download things randomly, but this one has many revieuws by many people, and a friend of me recommended this, so i did

i dont force ANYONE to do it!

but since the negative reviews here, i think its better to delete this thread, since if somoene does anything wrong ,i will be blamed. the question is: how i delete this thread_

[Beefsweat]

martijn1803, on April 17 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

the only reason people upgrade to 64-bit is because of the RAM

That's just straight-up ignorant. Audio engineer, here.

Edited by Beefsweat, April 18 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[SS396]

You can report your own post and ask the mods to delete the entire thread as you no longer want it to be available anymore.