大陸強者修改kernel並實做成功，將Windows7（32bit）成功的修改為最高支援128G的Ram了
原文請參見友站PCBETA中的文章
1.成功patch kernel, 32位win7使用4G內存,最多128G
2.timchenyx大俠關於修改核心讓32位系統支持4G以上內存的補充
有條件的玩看看吧
原來，當錯過了結婚的衝動，結婚就變得遙遙無期~ 除非搞出了一條人命~
柚幫柚子 wrote:
Windows7(vista？)僅能支援3.2G？？？
大陸強者修改kernel並實做成功，將Windows7（32bit）成功的修改為最高支援128G的Ram了
原文請參見友站PCBETA中的文章
1.成功patch kernel, 32位win7使用4G內存,最多128G
2.timchenyx大俠關於修改核心讓32位系統支持4G以上內存的補充
有條件的玩看看吧
...(恕刪)
呵呵！文中提到Windows Vista 32家族作業系統的Kernel最主要是根據一個License Value（就是微軟授權你能用多少記憶體）、來決定使用者手中的Windows版本可以管理多少實體記憶體/實體位址....因此對岸網友也對Win 7依樣畫葫蘆patch一下，試試看Win 7是否仍然可突破這個限制，結果仍然適用.....
從這篇對岸文章看來，最早對Vista核心的修改來自這個國外強者的網站GeoffChappell.com：
http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
針對核心檔案C:\Windows\Syetem32\ntkrnlpa.exe的修改如下（有兩處，改法一樣）
找到 7C (xx) 8B 45 FC 85 C0 74 (yy)
改成 7C (xx) B8 00 00 02 00 90 90
紅色那段寫成x86組合語言意義是：
mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-4]
test eax,eax
je default
原本未修改前執行到此，eax暫存器會被放入ZwQueryLicenseValue所得到的值，也就是每一版Windows作業系統所被授權使用的可管理記憶體大小，如果得到該值為0，則啟動封印程序.....
藍色那段寫成x86組語意義是：
mov eax,00020000h
nop
nop
修改後直接把一個立即值指定給eax暫存器，因此就不去管實際ZwQueryLicenseValue讀到的被授權值是多少了。00020000h就是十進位的131072，單位應該是MB，除以1024，就會算出128，單位則變成GB。
這位強者除動手修改外，對微軟2005年那一篇"為何Windows x86不適合使用4GB以上實體位址"、且發佈後從此不再更新的"技術"文章吐嘈如下：
================================================================
Another paragraph of what Microsoft’s article presents as More Information is even worse. It talks of drivers that directly modify the page tables and “cause system instability” because they “expect 32-bit page table entries but receive 64-bit PTEs in PAE mode instead.” Put aside that you, as a security-minded user, ought not want (and surely don’t have) such drivers executing on your system even when you have 32-bit PTEs. Consider instead that these drivers will likely do the same mischief if PAE is enabled just for DEP. The PTEs are still 64-bit even if they never hold a physical address above 4GB. These errant drivers will still miscalculate the location of a PTE that they want to modify. If fear of this is an argument against using memory above 4GB, then it is just as much an argument against enabling DEP (which Microsoft recommends should always be enabled).
Perhaps the following, from Pushing the Limits of Windows: Physical Memory by Mark Russinovich at a Microsoft website, ends with a more accurate description of Microsoft’s thinking about this 4GB limit than can be found in anything written directly by Microsoft:
Because device vendors now have to submit both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers to Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Laboratories (WHQL) to obtain a driver signing certificate, the majority of device drivers today can probably handle physical addresses above the 4GB line. However, 32-bit Windows will continue to ignore memory above it because there is still some difficult to measure risk, and OEMs are (or at least should be) moving to 64-bit Windows where it's not an issue.
See that the difficult-to-measure risk is merely asserted despite an acknowledgement that it seems implausible for new computers. As with Microsoft’s own literature, no comment is ventured about why this particular risk, among all the things that can go wrong with drivers, is so special that it must be handled as a licensing matter rather than letting users and manufacturers choose for themselves if they trust their hardware and drivers. It has the look of providing cover for moving the consumer base to 64-bit Windows. Just accept it without question and be glad for the new business as consumers buy 64-bit Windows and start wanting 64-bit applications. Who in the computer industry—whether a manufacturer of hardware or software, or even a commentator whom some might think is an independent analyst—is going to criticise Microsoft for a sleight of hand that brings forward a cycle of upgrades!
Misrepresentation
There is much that’s unsatisfactory about Microsoft’s hand-waving over imposing a 4GB limit to 32-bit Windows Vista. If nothing else, when consumers pay for a software product in an edition that the manufacturer describes as Ultimate, they surely have a reasonable expectation that the software is licensed to do everything that its code is capable of. If you buy only the Home Basic edition instead of Home Premium, you expect to get less software and be licensed to use fewer features. Surely the point to an edition that is called Ultimate is that you get the whole package and are licensed to use it all. If you pay the extra for Ultimate but you’re not licensed for everything that the software can do, then how is Ultimate ultimate?
No License To Test
Especially unsatisfactory is that Microsoft says something about its product but uses the licensing mechanism to deny the means to test the claim. Whatever you think of software licensing, in general or as practised particularly by Microsoft, I trust you will agree that its use to frustrate a licensee’s testing of a manufacturer’s claim about a software product is low.
===========================================================
這位強者不但技術強，也沒忘記自己身為消費者的權益，更沒忘記獨立思考能力、因此不會對微軟所公布的說法當教科書一樣一五一十照單全收，而是先去存疑：為何微軟沒有照正常商業邏輯來作？你微軟應該站在提供足夠資訊跟機制協助大客戶/獨立技術單位/強人個體戶評估你單方面所說的風險的角度，而不是直接封殺使用Windows 32的全部消費者的權益，Vista 32 Ultimate版為何功能仍然不Ultimate、照樣被封印？FreeBSD怎麼作的？Solaris怎麼作的？
台灣作OEM/ODM太久了，從業人員對於微軟跟Intel的說法跟Roadmap已經到直接"遵旨"的地步了，君不見每年Intel IDF跟MSFT WinHEC盛況空前？因為不能質疑，久而久之似乎連質疑的本能都忘了；因為OEM/ODM不用直接面對消費者，所以也忘了自己身為消費者時是怎樣對買到的東西吹毛求疵的：我可以罵Nokia的最新N系列高階手機組裝爛到姥姥家，可以罵Sony VAIO P東西貴卻機構品質差，但微軟怎麼可能會是錯的！！對微軟Vista 32不爽，你不會去用Linux唷！你不會去付錢買一套Vista 64唷！微軟既然說往64位元出發，那還有什麼好懷疑的？電腦大廠、ISV/IHV、消費者到現在還不跟上的，當然是他們自己的錯....膽敢發"4GB為何只抓到3.xGB"月經文亂我眼者，若非被潛意識自動過濾當成垃圾郵件從不存在、便是回文以冷嘲熱諷之....
唉！台灣要轉型作OBM前，先訓練從業人員跟下一世代獨立思考、站到"多數"消費者立場去想一想的能力吧！否則永遠被這些有能力直接面對消費者的品牌大廠玩得團團轉。不想去/沒能力瞭解最前端掏出錢的消費者真正想說什麼，就乖乖去賺Value Chain中附加價值最低、天天爆肝的那一環。
lee0715 wrote:
那現在是要等MS怎麼自己打嘴巴嗎?
用愛的小手?
...(恕刪)
這我在另一篇中有建議過，公司跟微軟有業務往來的網友可以考慮透過跟微軟的溝通管道或定期問卷去反應.......至於愛的小手.......
http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=300&t=894214&p=15#9771207
事實上小弟之後還確實有接到私訊，任職於微軟某大客戶公司的網友，希望能夠多瞭解一些原文的背景資料，好去跟他的老外同事討論，以便在微軟針對大客戶定期所發、對作業系統功能建議的問卷中反映給微軟....
不作當然不會有結果，要作就要讓多一些人瞭解現實，至於認不認同在各人，就算微軟最後始終在Win7 32、甚至Win8 32也都不開放，我會少塊肉嗎？而Windows x64就會因32位元版被封印而加快接班速度、而不用去根本解決Windows x64本身目前還不被大客戶認同之處嗎？答案都是否定的...
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X