What? It does not black list anything - it needs to use the graphics card memory for, well, graphics stuff - it cannot "black list" it.
Blacklist was just a phrase I use for lack of a better term. Since the system (not the OS) redirects the pointers and therefore "blacksout" the vram, it's still fairly accurate.
Unless you are just saying that you do not necessarily lose a whole gig of RAM like Windows often says, and I am sure you don't, but you do lose whatever your graphics cards have (often a gig these days), and a bit more for memory on other on-board devices.
If you have 4GB of RAM and a 512MB graphics card you will only have a bit under 3.5GB to use, and the other half a gig will be unavailable, you are not debating that surely?
Well, that's sort of the point Assuming, you do have a graphics card that big and you add in the swap file, which, I know Windows doesn't use like it used to, but it's still there, and the vram the system uses rom and logical outputs, that extra gig seems to vanish.
But in the case of system vram and swap, the real thing is always better. And, those large video cards still aren't all
that cheap and many of the 512 and 1 gig ones still use vram (In which case my point is still valid.)
Plus, in most cases people who are going to want a card that big are probably going to go with a 64-bit system, anyway, in which case the whole thing is moot.
So, if you're using a 256 card, or whatever. That's still the majority of the ram being use, and since it's cheap and it's always more efficient to have matched sim pairs, I think I still make a solid argument.
Oh and drop the "people who dont know any better" stuff please, I'm an IT Professional and Computer Science graduate.
That comment wasn't really aimed at you and I apologize if you took it as so. Ir was more of a general observation of misinformed Windows users. Perhaps, Microsoft could have done a better job with their system info program, but still, I haven't used Windows in eight years and I know better.
