This misinformation and fake files have been promoted for at least 5+ years, but the interesting thing is that during these 5+ years, no one has discovered that it is not working. Remember that one thing is what you see and another thing is what it really is. It's not enough, if You see large number, but in real everything is the same. All wrong things are very permanent. (principle: if you want to be believed, lie.)
yes, all this Simpsons ignore that - a 32 bit system can only point (32bit pointer) to the 1th 4GB - to point behind this 4GB a 64bit pointer is needed (like a 64bit systen does) - a 32 bit system can create a 64bit memory block / buffer (long long / ulong ulong) inside the 1th 4GB ( because the pointer can only adress 32bit ) realy funny, if you belive that your 32bit system can use the RAM between 4GB an 15.92GB you are also a Simpson Member Basically: A 32-bit operating system can theoretically maximum of 2 ^ 32 memory addresses á 8 bit - address so exactly 4 Gibibyte Ram. (2 ^ 32 addresses a memory 8 bit = 4,294,967,296 bits = 4 GIB) A 64-bit operating system can theoretically maximum of 2 ^ 64 memory addresses á 8 bit - address ie exactly 16 Exbibyte Ram. (2 ^ 64 addresses a memory 8 bit = 1.84467441 × 10 ^ 19 bits = 16 EIB)
awuctl: Thanks for your reply and detailed explanation. And thanks for the 2 webpage links. This Dell OptiPlex 980 minitower has an Intel Core i7-860 2.80 GHz quad core processor and 16 GB of DDR3 RAM, and has run Windows 7 and 10 pretty good. Because I now have 3 faster Dell OptiPlex 9020 minitowers set up to dual boot Windows 7 and 10, I decided to use the Dell OptiPlex 980 for testing Windows XP. Most of the apps that I installed and use in Windows 7 and 10 are also being used in Windows XP. The apps that aren't supported have been replaced with other apps that are supported. Regardless of whether this Dell OptiPlex 980 is actually using 3.55 GB or 15.92 GB of RAM, it's fast and snappy.
i can only repeat what kaljukass say the xp patch from the OP - is not from Microsoft - has nothing to do with PAE - OP dont talk in the 1 post about vista win7 and above only a new spetial new xp kernel from microsoft can fully support PAE the contribution of awuctl is interesting (I know the microsoft documentation already) Physical Memory Limits: Windows XP Windows XP 4 GB all these contribution have absolutely nothing to do with the patch of post #1 but it's like in real life: fake news always win more likes
Windows Server 2003 R2 32bit Enterprise Supported 64GB of Memory. 2003 is based of XP. Code: Physical Memory Limits: Windows Server 2003 R2 Version Limit on X86 Limit on X64 Windows Server 2003 R2 Datacenter Edition 64 GB (16 GB with 4GT) 1 TB Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition 64 GB (16 GB with 4GT) 1 TB Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition 4 GB 32 GB I remember there were patches & plenty of discussion. Why would anyone run 32bit these days is beyond me...
Flipp3r: I haven't used a 32-bit operating system since 2009 when I started using Windows 7 64-bit. I've been primarily using Windows 10 64-bit since 2015. I use Windows XP 32-bit only for testing purposes, so I experiment a lot with it. The 4 GB+ patch is the most recent experiment with it.
If you want to use XP to do XP stuff (like retro gaming), 4 GB of fast RAM on the last chipset to support XP and a modern SATA III SSD is going to make the RAM limit completely irrelevant for anything from that era as ALL of it was coded with the 32bit hard cap in mind. Fast RAM and a SSD make the occasional swapping/paging so fast that it will be imperceptible.
@awuctl i suggest you first code a smal prog in c / c++ - optimiced for win XP - that use PAE only then you can contribute something serious windows XP itself do not use PAE !!! windows XP only support the user to code something that use PAE ( which allows 32-bit Windows systems to use more than 4 GB of physical memory) and then please answer me, HOW MUCH maximal physical Memory XP your prog can use behind the 4GB ? You will be surprised - how little that is - how slow such prog is running - how many side effects EDIT: @ALL please only talk about Windows XP 32 bit and the patch
Given that PAE is not officially supported on NT 5.1, and thus can lead to problems (as more than 4GiB memory simply isn't expected by any OS part and process), you shouldn't bother too much. The Server 2003 32bit being able to use 64GiB RAM is expected, servers run a lot of processes and need it. Official recommendation was always to use the 64bit whenever possible. For the processes, it's actually worse, the 4GiB virtual memory space is further divided, and only 2GiB are available for free use. It is possible to extend this using the /3G switch, but, well, expect more problems down the road.
@Carlos Detweiller thanks this is the one of the rare postins here wich discribe the problematic right i try to explain by a second way wich make clear why xp kernel is extreme proplematic ;[RTM] xp_pro_i64 bit (Version 2002 - based on XP-Kernel) B3A7363B01F16C8B07501CDF46B7681D4707F387 *[ENU] en_winxp_pro_i64_build2002_FPP_20010818.iso this is only a normal windows xp 32 bit - ported to 64 bit and optimiced for i64 Microsoft stop this developmend because all that limitations on xp kernel code (wich can adress behind the 4GB , but dont use itself much of that memory) and then continue to develop a i64 bit xp client based on the server 2003 kernel wich has not as much limitations as xp kernel !!! ;Windows XP Professional x64 2003 RTM - English (Version 2003 - based on Server2003-Kernel) DEFC235255C9B92792199E0001ABDB755E463C0C *[ENU] en_winxp_pro_i64_build2003_FPP_20030325.iso later on (2004) they first release a beta version for xp x64 (64bit) the rtm release for xp x64 was 2005 03 25
@vanelle now you're just joking. i64 is IA64 (Itanium) and that is a completely different architecture. You're not even trying. Maybe breathe for a second instead of spewing nonsense? I might sound repetitive but where are your sources for all that..?
@awuctl you woud joking me i64 is a processor the kernel is a different thing i explicide write please read before post
As I have heavily used MS-DOS in the past, I know what memory paging is. MS-DOS, in its virgin state, could only use 1MiB of RAM. 384KiB of that RAM were reserved, the usable rest are the famous 640KiB we all know. Then, there came the memory expansion boards - that memory was known as EMS. Exactly as it is in the PAE case, EMS memory couldn't be used directly and hat to be paged in through an EMS page frame. The EMM386.EXE driver (or any other proprietary one) was responsible for paging in and out. Thus, EMS was always slower, and software had to be prepared for using it.. Exactly the same thing for PAE, just with other limits. Otherwise unusable memory is mapped into an area inside the usable address space and transparently paged in and out. It works, but its benefits are somewhat limited, as you need software that's prepared to use it.