Intel and compatible 64bit processors are of architecture x64 (also called amd64, as AMD had it first). Intel had also Itanium 64bit processors with architecture IA64. These are not x64 nor x86 compatible and can not run 32bit software.
I'm honestly impressed by your ignorance and lack of basic computer architecture knowledge at this point. Please repent. IA64 is not a processor it's an architecture. Neither 32-bit x86 nor 64-bit x86 (x86_64/amd64) that we're talking about. IA64 has no PAE. You cannot "cross-optimize" the same kernel for completely different architectures. It's not even close to PAE (though their use is similar). EMS was implemented by a piece of hardware that did operations with the extended RAM region through driver software or (extremely slowly) by utilizing a paging driver that MS-DOS by itself never supported.
I sure didn't mean to start a war of words and insults here. Anyway, this is what the system properties and task manager looks like after deploying the patch in my Dell OptiPlex 980 which has 16 GB of DDR3 RAM.
and after all these decades, we learned that an IA64 is a processor however this forum is great for sharing all the official MSDN ISOs ... for these topics there are other forums Windows 95 was unable to start it on processors above 2.1Ghz, FALSE Windows 9x was unable to boot with more than 1-2GB of RAM, FALSE Windows XP 32bit recognizes no more than 3GB, FALSE ... In all these years, on other forums many patches have been released that overcome these barriers that Microsoft itself believed "impossible"!
seem obvious here are some people believe on to the Santa Claus I would not dissuaded from his opinion (would be pointless) you have found the Columbus' egg
@vanelle do you want a tip? limited to releasing SHA1 by continuing to say that it has but not from for the rest I think you don't even know how the inside of a PC is made ... let alone the difference between various architectures and memories. I have no more time to waste on topics covered years ago and which on other forums are full of information and methodology
This is precisely why every single of your replies up to this point made absolutely no sense. Everyone is throwing facts at you - you reply with your opinion. There is no room for groundless opinions when discussing purely technical topics. If you think you're above that, you're not - you're just wrong.
you're not the only one who has used MS-DOS heavily ... many of us were born with this operating system ... those who understood memory never used the EMM386.EXE driver, for example with the MEMMAKER.EXE program but much more advanced software such as QEMM the 600KB that used some games, with EMM386 were practically a mirage ... instead easy to obtain with QEMM Here we are not talking about strengths and weaknesses, the question is simple ... Can 32-bit Windows XP use more than 4GB of RAM ?! The answer is yes! Then other problems such as stability come out ... that's another story ...
My friend, if you don't understand anything from the images I published ... your problem is much more serious than I thought If Windows XP as you say it doesn't work with more than 3GB of RAM ... how can I use multiple Virtual Machines at the same time, using more than 5GB of RAM in a 32-bit system ?! Don't worry, don't answer ... better keep quiet than keep making bad figures
I followed the same procedure and used it in my Dell Precision M6400 17.3" laptop which is running Windows XP Professional SP3 32-bit(updated to May 2019) and has these specs: Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 2.53 GHz processor 8 GB(2 GB x 4) DDR3-1066 RAM 128 GB SSD Before the procedure was used, the laptop had 3.48 GB of usable RAM. After the procedure was used, the laptop has 7.98 GB of usable RAM.