SoftRAM95: "False and Misleading"

This web page contains links to a huge amount of news and information related to SoftRAM95 and Syncronys Softcorp, in more or less reverse chronological order. Click here for an introduction to the whole bizarre story of Syncronys Softcorp and SoftRAM 95.

Syncronys press release, August 22: "Syncronys Softcorp will begin external beta test of SoftRAM 3.0; seeks consumer feedback in beta process." SoftRAM 3.0 is the new name for what had previously been called SoftRAM96. The beta test began on Thursday, August 29. Interestingly, the initial beta includes no RAM compression software, and nothing for Windows 95. Instead, Syncronys boasts of how its "modular" approach will allow it to do an incremental release: "SoftRAM 3.0 is a modular program which lends itself quite effectively to an incremental beta test approach," Klausner explained. "This approach should enable Syncronys to gain maximum feedback from users and should enhance the final product. The first such module is a beta version of the resource enhancement driver for Windows 3.1. Indeed, a later Syncronys press release (August 29) makes no mention of either Windows 95 or RAM compression. In other words, they are still not ready. FTC Charges Syncronys with "False and Misleading" Claims (July 10, 1996). Syncronys, and three officers of the company (Rainer Poertner, Daniel Taylor, and Wendell Brown) has agreed to settle charges by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that Syncronys misrepresented SoftRAM and SoftRAM95: "The FTC's complaint alleges that the company did not possess a reasonable basis to substantiate the various performance claims contained on product packaging and in advertisements. The FTC also alleged that certain performance claims, as well as an endorsement claim, were false. Under the proposed settlement agreement, Syncronys Softcorp and its officers would be prohibited from making the same type of misrepresentations alleged in the complaint concerning SoftRAM95 for that product or any substantially similar product. They also would be prohibited from making representations about the performance, attributes, benefits, or effectiveness of SoftRAM, SoftRAM95 , or any substantially similar product unless the representations were true and substantiated. Further, the respondents would not be able to make claims that any product intended to improve computer performance had been licensed, endorsed, or certified by any other organization unless those representations were true. Finally, the respondents would be barred from making unsubstantiated claims about the performance, attributes, benefits, or effectiveness of any product intended to improve computer performance.... According to Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, "Syncronys promised consumers an inexpensive software fix' for a computer hardware problem -- inadequate RAM. Hundreds of thousands of consumers relied on Syncronys' claims to double Windows 95 computers' RAM. What they got was a snazzy looking software package that didn't increase RAM one bit." Bernstein added, "consumers shopping for high tech products often have to rely on sellers to have solid evidence to back up their claims. We will continue to monitor performance claims for high tech products to make sure that companies have sound reason to believe that consumers will get the promised performance." The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement for comment was 5-0. Agreement Containing Consent Order (Text of the consent decree agreed to by Syncronys and the FTC). This is a proposed consent decree, upon which the public has 60 days to comment. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Also available as WP and PDF files directly from the FTC. Complaint (FTC, In the Matter of Syncronys Softcorp, Rainer Poertner, individually and as an officer of the corporation, Daniel G. Taylor, ditto, Wendell Brown, ditto) Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment (FTC) "Syncronys Softcorp Resolves Ftc Product Inquiry" (press release, July 10, 1996). Syncronys's "spin" on the FTC consent decree. "Syncronys CEO seeks to put FTC complaint behind him" (by Maria Seminerio, PC Week Online, July 10, 1996). This article on the FTC consent decree has an interesting statement from Syncronys CEO Rainer Poertner: he still contends that SoftRAM for Windows 3.x "always worked perfectly." Note that the consent decree Syncronys just signed with the FTC prohibits officers of company "from making representations about the performance, attributes, benefits, or effectiveness of SoftRAM, SoftRAM95, or any substantially similar product unless the representations were true and substantiated." Does Poertner's claiming in an interview that SoftRAM "always worked perfectly" count as a "representation"? :-) The article also says that SoftRAM96 is "slated for release next month, Poertner said." So now, it seems, the much-awaited SoftRAM96 release date has been pushed back yet again, now to August 1996. Reuters News story on FTC action against Syncronys "Syncronys warns Dr. Dobbs over upcoming review" (PC Week Online, June 21, 1996). Dr. Dobb's Journal received a fax from Syncronys's lawyers regarding a then-upcoming article "Inside SoftRAM 95" (by Mark Russinovich, Bryce Cogswell, and Andrew Schulman) in the August 1996 issue of DDJ. The magazine went ahead with the article, despite the "warning" from Syncronys: the August 1996 is out now, and should soon be available on newsstands. Professor Jim Storer has filed (June 12, 1996) a "Declaration in support of defendant's opposition to plaintiff's emergency motion for authorization" in the Florida case of O'Seep vs. Syncronys (Fifth Judicial Circuit, Marion County FL, Case No. 96-613-CA-B). The declaration states, in part: "I have reviewed the SoftRAM 95 code and have performed numerous tests with the SoftRAM data compression algorithm. I can say without any hesitation that SoftRAM contains compression code and is capable of improving the performance and capability of the machine upon which it is installed.... "I have reviewed the allegations of Mr. Andrew Schulman which state that SoftRAM 95 does not have compression and does not enhance a machine's performance and capability. Based on my review of SoftRAM 95's code and performance, I can state categorically that Mr. Schulman's allegations are false." I have asked Dr. Storer for an explanation of how he reached these conclusions, which I find mind-boggling. Well, either mind-boggling, or meaningless. A number of readers have pointed out to me that the wording in Storer's declaration is somewhat odd: he doesn't claim that any possible benefits from SoftRAM are derived from RAM compression. He merely stated that (a) somewhere SoftRAM contains some compression code; and (b) (separate thought) it can do something. No one would dispute such a general claim as this: First, SoftRAM95 might well contain some compression code -- which, however, is never called during run-time (for example, there's a 3k block of code in SOFTRAM2.386 which looks like compression code, but which is never called -- you can overwrite it with HLT or illegal instructions, for example, without any effect). Second, as discussed elsewhere on this web page, SoftRAM actually can do something (albeit only under Win31) because of its incorporation of freely-available copyrighted code belonging to PC Magazine, and because of its use of some freely-available SYSTEM.INI settings. At first, I thought it was reading too much into Storer's declaration to view his declaration in this way. However, SoftRAM also filed a second declaration, by one David Klauser or David Klasner (his name is spelled both ways on his declaration), which uses almost identical wording to Prof. Storer's declaration: "I find that SoftRAM 95 contains compression code and is capable of improving the performance and capability of the machine upon which it is installed." The only difference is that Dr. Storer "can say without any hesitation that..." -- the rest of the sentence is identical. Given the identical wording of the two declarations, it seems likely that the precise wording does have some significance. I wonder if Dr. Storer and David Klauser/Klausner realize how little it is they are actually testifying to. I wonder if the judge realizes how little Syncronys's experts may be testifying to. Latest Syncronys press releases, from Yahoo! Business News. You can also get stock quotes. "Syncronys Softcorp issues SoftRAM96 Technology Progress Report" (press release, May 31, 1996): "SoftRAM96 is one of several Company software products to be released in the weeks ahead.... The results of this research and development and the successful integration of these features within SoftRAM96 remain the principal technical challenges. Contingent upon these factors, Syncronys believes that it is still on target for meeting its July introduction schedule for SoftRAM96. "Syncronys Software Completes Private Placement of $13 Million" (press release, May 23, 1996): "Syncronys Softcorp is a leader in the business of providing memory enhancement and other performance-improving software for PCs." "Syncronys Softcorp Posts Third Quarter Results" (press release, May 15, 1996): "The recent quarter's loss reflects minimal sales revenues following the Company's recall of SoftRam95." "SoftRAM 96 Delayed Until July" by Jodi Mardesich, Computer Reseller News Online: Poertner said the company "paid a high price for unforeseeable technical problems that were encountered with the introduction of SoftRAM 95 last year. We not only lost our momentum in the marketplace but we also lost credibility." ... Syncronys also is attempting to settle all outstanding litigation, including a shareholder class action suit filed by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach. That suit alleges that Syncronys drove up the price of its stock when it knew its primary product did not perform as advertised. Hmm. "Knew its primary product did not perform as advertised" seems like a mild understatement. But the mention of a shareholder lawsuit by the famous/infamous Lerach is important. All articles on Syncronys Softcorp by Jodi Mardesich (Computer Reseller News). William S. Lerach (a partner in Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach in San Diego) has brought a shareholder lawsuit against Syncronys. Lerach of course is well known for his shareholder lawsuits, which were recently the target of special legislation (see interview with Lerach, article "Legal Eagle or Modern Highwayman?" by Gina Smith, and report on congressional hearing). Syncronys would seem like the perfect opportunity for Lerach to show that not all high-flying hi-tech companies are national treasures deserving protection. On the other hand, Syncronys may not have sufficient funds to greatly interest Lerach. Anyway, here's what I've heard about the Lerach suit; I'll post details when I get them: The suit names Poertner, Taylor, Brown and O'Neill specifically, rather than just Syncronys the company. According to the Lerach suit, these "Individual Defendants" engaged in a "common course of misconduct to inflate the market price of Syncronys common stock in order to perpetuate the appearance of Syncronys as a growth company with excellent future prospects and unique innovative products." The suit claims that the defendants "employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, while in possession of material adverse non-public information" about the company and product. Syncronys is at it again! "Syncronys Softcorp Announces Series of Actions to Regain Market Leadership Position" (press release, April 23, 1996). While the release of SoftRAM96 has been pushed back yet again -- now the release date is July 1996 -- the company has meanwhile announced strategic alliances with two companies, the Jump Development Group (makers of RAM Charger Macintosh) and PowerPro Software (makers of Quick Restart). Syncronys also says it will release two products, Mac Access and RAM Charger, in June 1996. The press release also announces that Dr. James Storer (Brandeis University), author of a well-known textbook, Data Compression: Methods and Theory (1988), will "assemble a panel of leading computer and software technology experts that will serve to evaluate and review all new products." Proposed settlement of Siegal et al. vs. Syncronys and Computer City, a class-action suit in Chicago (March 15, 1996). If you purchased SoftRAM, "you are a member of the Settlement Class," and might want to download (from Syncronys's web site) and return the class action notice; or request a copy by calling 1-800-335-4059. "Syncronys Hustles to Fix SoftRAM, Find New Revenue", Los Angeles Daily News, February 22, 1996, by Dawn Yoshitake: "Syncronys Softcorp, once a high-flying maker of top-selling memory software SoftRAM, is running low on cash as it struggles to revamp its recalled product and get it back on store shelves. But can its top executives pull it off? ... "Virtually no cash has come into the company since mid-December, when it recalled SoftRAM, its main product.... "For now, sufficient funds to cover the company's needs are expected to last two to four months, unless new products are shipped or new cash-raising plans found.... "[SYCR CEO Rainer Poertner] and the vice president of technology, Wendell Brown, have a bankruptcy under their belt from when they ran computer component hardware developer Hydra Systems Inc. "The company filed for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1993 when it was determined that it could not remain viable, said Poertner, who added that he was hired to evaluate the company and close it down. "The bankruptcy and Brown's affiliation with Hydra, however, were not mentioned in Syncronys' prospectus given to shareholders. Poertner said he could not explain why the information was left out.... "A sale of the company's wholly owned subsidiary, Autoship Systems Corp., may soon be reached and would reap a quick $195,000 profit." Jodi Mardesich has an article on Syncronys's relations with a German retailer in the February 20, 1996 Computer Reseller News (the URL points to a number of articles; you'll have to page down a few times for Jodi's article): "... distributors in Europe are attempting to return their inventory for cash. Syncronys wants to issue these distributors a credit against future orders, but distributors in Germany, England and Holland will no longer carry the product.... "Softline GmbH, based in Germany, is faced with losing up to $600,000 because of the Syncronys controversy, according to one Softline official. "Under Germany's strict product liability laws, distributors are directly responsible for reimbursing consumers for defective products. "Softline is processing returns and refunding to customers the full purchase price, but Syncronys is refusing to return Softline's money, said Peer Blumenschein, managing director of Softline GmbH. Syncronys is not honoring its return policy, Softline officials said.... "About 14,000 boxes of SoftRAM 95 are sitting in a warehouse in Germany, according to Softline officials. Syncronys refuses to pay shipping costs for the return, and Softline is waiting for Syncronys to put money owed to Softline into an escrow account before returning the boxes." It's important to note that Softline had earlier sued c't magazine, which first reported that SoftRAM didn't work. Reverse-engineered disassembly of SoftRAM95, Win95 version by Mark Russinovich. Full details on the Syncronys "FakeCompress" scheme, which takes a buffer, copies it to a new buffer, and prefixes it with a three-byte header. Also see the disassemblies for the Win31 version of SoftRAM. Syncronys quarterly report (February 15, 1995) for period ending December 31, 1995. Syncronys sales for the three months ending Dec. 31 were $2.776 million, down sharply from with $10.543 million in the preceding three months. In addition, Syncronys has withdrawn its NASDAQ application. Things are looking very bad for SYCR. "SoftRAMGate: Placebo software. Who Is The Victim Of Channel Indifference?", Computer Reseller News, February 5, 1996, by Jodi Mardesich: "Why are some retailers and distributors still selling SoftRAM? ... If an auto dealership found out a type of car it was selling--even if it was a top seller--lacked an advertised feature, such as an engine, do you think the dealership would continue to sell the car? SoftRAM 95 was analagous to a car without an engine.... One distributor told me later that people wanted SoftRAM, so as long as there was interest, they would continue to sell it.... I wonder if the short-term gains from selling the popular but virtually worthless software can possibly offset the long-term legal costs, negative publicity and loss of trust from customers that continuing to sell the 'placebo software' has created." Syncronys Softcorp now has a web site. More or less a Potemkin Village: Nothing much there except large GIF files for two favorable reviews of SoftRAM that were scanned in from Multimedia World and PC Today. Like SoftRAM itself, Syncronys's web site is pretty, but with little behind it. Needless to say the "Download Files" section, where you might expect to find the much-promised "updates" to SoftRAM, is empty, except for a note stating that "A patch to upgrade SoftRAM95 to SoftRAM96 will be posted here as soon as it is released." Enter your email address to receive email whenever the SYCR "Download Files" page is updated: The latest news seems to be that Syncronys is now saying the "fixed" (i.e., first genuine) version of SoftRAM won't be available until July. I suppose if you wanted more information, you could try to contact Syncronys directly. Oh, the Syncronys web site does also have information on the class-action settlement in Illinois. The SYCR web site now has a picture of "SoftRAM96"; the box now says "expand your memory" instead of "double your memory" and it's called "Ram software" instead of "Ram doubling software." "Double, double, toil and trouble" from the UK magazine, Personal Computer World. The same issue of Personal Computer World also has an interesting article on the "Scandal of fake cache memory": it seems that some 486 motherboards are being sold with fake L2 cache chips, and that the BIOSes (such as Award BIOS) have been doctored to lie about them at boot time. And, speaking of placebos, see "The Bogus (Placebo) Cache Story" for a related fake cache for PowerMacs. "RAM Compression Analysis" by Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell. A detailed mathematical analysis of RAM compression. The Windows 95 logo department at Microsoft has issued a Q&A document, "Information Regarding Syncronys SoftRAM95" (November 30, 1995). One section reads: "There have been allegations that Syncronys copied Microsoft beta code. Is this true? "This is true. Syncronys used, without permission, beta code from a Microsoft virtual device driver- DYNAPAGE.VXD - in their product. This virtual device driver was delivered by Microsoft in the beta of the Windows 95 Software Developers Kit. "What actions has Microsoft taken for these issues? "Microsoft issued Syncronys a cease and desist letter demanding that Syncronys stop shipping the copied code and stop using the Windows 95 logo. Syncronys agreed to take the corrective actions demanded in the letter." Why is Microsoft upset about the use of the beta DYNAPAGE, but seemingly not upset about SoftRAM's failure to add significant functionality to Microsoft's own DYNAPAGE? The DDK license agreement permits use of Microsoft's sample code provided that the vendor complies with Microsoft's "distribution requirements," one of which is that the redistributed Microsoft code form "part of your software product which adds primary and significant functionality to the redistributable components" (Microsoft Development Platform software license, italics added). By no stretch of my imagination can I see how SoftRAM adds "primary and significant functionality" to the DYNAPAGE, PAGESWAP, or PAGEFILE code provided by Microsoft. I find Microsoft's position on SoftRAM at best confused. For one thing, the source code in DYNAPAGE\PAGEFILE.ASM has not changed since May 1995; what are the differences between the version Syncronys shipped and the version that Microsoft considers final? Second, it seems that SoftRAM95 failed to get the Win95 logo solely on a technicality. Microsoft is clearly trying to distance itself from SoftRAM95, while doing as little as possible to maintain meaningful standards for consumers. When I asked about what implications the SoftRAM fiasco has for the Win95 logo, one Microsoft employee told me that unfortunately some people seem to think the Win95 logo is some sort of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval," whereas all the logo means is that the software is (as the Microsoft employee put it) "kosher." And "kosher," they reminded me, is not an indication of goodness, but merely an indication that a certain procedure/ritual has been followed. In other words, Microsoft's logo program is worthless from a consumer's point of view. Speaking of the Win95 logo, there's an excellent article on the subject in the January 22, 1996 Computer Reseller News: "Microsoft plans market push as Win 95 sales lag --Focus on ISV appliactions bearing logo" by Deborah Gage (the article is available online at TechWebTechWeb, but doesn't have a unique URL; you'll have to search for it): "[Win95 product manager Suzi] Davidson said Microsoft is anxious to communicate both its own flexibility and the value of the logo. That task has been complicated by vendors like Synchronys SoftCorp. Synchronys recently admitted copying the logo for SoftRAM, which competitors say does not work." This article is also a good source of information on how the slower-than-expected sales of Win95 have affected ISVs, such as Touchstone Software Corp., who were recently named in a shareholder lawsuit brought by William Lerach. On Win95 sales, also see Deborah Gage's article in the January 8, 1996 Computer Reseller News: "Small ISVs felt pinch as year-end Windows 95 sales ran out of steam -- Sell-through swooned in fall, hurting second-tier software developers." This discussion of Win95 sales and their effect on ISVs is relevant to SoftRAM, because SoftRAM appears to have been the only Win95-related success for a non-Microsoft product: something worth thinking about. As one reader of this web page eloquently puts it, SoftRAM is only a particularly egregious example of the "bad, ineffective, incomplete software that the hype on Windows 95 empowers and indirectly supports." Yes, Microsoft does "empower" vendors to put out stuff like SoftRAM. PC Magazine review of Windows 3.1 Memory Enhancement Utilities by Matt Pietrek and Larry Seltzer. This is an extensive, in-depth comparison of SoftRAM95 2.0 (Syncronys Softcorp), Hurricane 1.02 (Helix Software), RAM Doubler 1.02 (Connectix), and QEMM 8/MagnaRAM2 (Quarterdeck): "Among the products that claim to boost resources, we found that Hurricane's methods are both the most interesting and the most effective. Under Hurricane, we simply could not make the test system run out of resources. At the other end of the spectrum, SoftRAM95 once again floored us. In spite of explicit indications from its gauge software indicating that it expands resources, we could find no evidence that SoftRAM95 does anything to affect system resources in any way." SoftRAM95 2.00: "We've rarely seen such a big gap between what a product claims to do and what it actually delivers. After careful testing, we found no evidence that SoftRAM95 performs any of the main functions it claims to perform." Hurricane 1.02: "In testing, [Hurricane] provided effectively unlimited Windows resources and noticeably better performance than plain Windows or any competing product. Hurricane also gives you an intelligent set of installation and tuning tools. Its only downside is that setup can be challenging, and getting optimal results often requires manual tweaking and mastering of some technical concepts.... Hurricane is a complex product that will work best in the hands of a proactive user. But for squeezing every ounce of capacity and performance out of 16-bit Windows, it's hands-down the best package around." RAM Doubler 1.02: "Where Hurricane gives you extreme flexibility in configuration and requires that you master technical concepts to use it, RAM Doubler is as simple as possible. It has no configuration options whatsoever, just installed and uninstalled states." QEMM 8 and MagnaRAM 2: "Our tests clearly demonstrated that MagnaRAM 2 performs RAM compression, but its value to the end user is questionable. We were unable to load additional applications above and beyond what plain Windows allowed, and the product measurably slowed down the system under heavy load conditions." "Software allegedly doubles trouble instead of memory," CNN Interactive Technology (January 19, 1996): "Three independent tests arrived -- after SoftRAM was en route to becoming a market hit -- that gave the program a resounding thumbs down. One of those tests was conducted by the labs at a bible of the industry, PC Magazine. 'I've never seen a product that was so devoid of value as SoftRAM,' said PC [Magazine]'s technical editor Larry Seltzer.... in the long run there are questions about the product claims of software markers. PC Magazine's Seltzer said that the case of SoftRAM is unique, and most software makers deliver what they promise. Still, befudled computer owners are often on their own, left to sort out the megabytes from the mega-hype." "SoftRAM: fails to deliver," London Daily Telegraph (January 17, 1996) by Paul Mullen: "According to the box, '4Mb becomes 8Mb, 8Mb becomes 16Mb...' With these claims the product has sold some 750,000 copies since last May. The only drawback is an increasing number of critical reviews in the computer press. One well-respected magazine after another has said it could find no benefit in the program.... My test was hampered by an unusual reluctance of the company to send me a review copy. I had to buy one, and came to the similar conclusions.... The only 'memory' gains were achieved by copying more data to disk - something you can tell Windows to do without using SoftRAM, provided you can stand the resulting loss in speed. I found no truth in its maker's claims." "SoftRAM95 still on shelves. Recall? Software is for sale," San Jose Mercury News (January 16, 1996) by Dan Gillmor: "Almost a month after its publisher announced a recall of the controversial SoftRAM95 software, the product was still being sold during the weekend at several major computer, office-supply and mail-order outlets.... Several major mail-order software outlets, meanwhile, were more than willing to sell SoftRAM95. A telephone salesperson at PC Zone said the product was for users of Windows 3.1 only, but a salesperson at PC Mall did not." An attorney in Orange County CA, Martin Anderson, has filed (January 1996) a class-action suit against Syncronys in Orange County Superior Court before Judge Francisco F. Firmat. The key paragraphs appear to be 20 through 26. Another class-action suit has been filed in Oakland CA by Don Driscoll. The January 1996 issue of Marketing Computers has a long article by David Evans, "Software That Wasn't: Why has the industry reacted so slowly in the SoftRAM case?" The article quotes some amazing praise for SoftRAM95 from the trade press (such as the October 1995 issue of CMP's HomePC and the December 1995 issue of IDG's Electronic Entertainment), and subsequent explanations from the editors as to how such credulous articles could have appeared. For example, asked why HomePC was so enthusiastic about SoftRAM, the editor-in-chief explained that "the story was intended to inform our readers of the manufacturer's claim for its product. It was not an editorial judgement." Hopefully the SoftRAM affair will urge the computer trade press to take a more journalistic and consumer-oriented approach in the future. Right now the trade press is very much part of the computer industry; its first instinct is to believe vendor's claims for their products. The absurd praise given SoftRAM in the trade press is only an extreme example of standard industry practice: I found the same credulity when I reviewed the computer press coverage of Windows 95 for my book Unauthorized Windows 95; p. 459 refers, for example, to "the supposedly independent oversight of an easily confused, cajoled, and hoodwinked trade press." Little then did I know how easily. At the same time, it's important to note that some computer journalists did do their job: Ingo T. Storm of c't magazine in Germany wrote the first in-depth technical expose of SoftRAM, and Larry Seltzer of PC Magazine wrote the first in-depth examination of SoftRAM in the US. Both journalists have campaigned heavily to publicize the SoftRAM story. David Strom's Web Informant has an interesting article, "Syncronys' SoftRAM Scam: What took us so long?" (January 2, 1996). In addition to giving this page his "Be.Here.Now Award" (thanks!), Strom uses the SoftRAM mess to ask some interesting questions about the PC software industry: "This week, I look at how our industry tests products and tracks breaking news about these tests using print and on-line resources.... "I decided to go on-line and see if I could get to the bottom of this, and came to the conclusion that the print trade pubs have done our readers a tremendous disservice. The best reporting is happening on-line... on-line is the place to be for tracking this issue." Also see the follow-up in the January 8, 1996 issue of Web Informant. Family PC (February 1996) article on SoftRAM95 by Deborah Branscum: "Is SoftRAM heaven-sent or the devil's handiwork? On December 18, Syncronys recalled all SoftRAM inventory and offered customers refunds even as it continued to claim that the program delivers compression under Windows 3.1. The Federal Trade Commission has made inquiries into SoftRAM. The company also faces a class-action lawsuit. It appears that SoftRAM's memory compression, like the Emperor's new clothes, simply doesn't exist." All messages posted to Usenet newsgroups by Syncronys CEO Rainer Poertner: list generated by DejaNews. Actually, not all messages, because Poertner also posts messages from the address poert1@ix.netcom.com and for some reason DejaNews doesn't seem to be picking these up. Also see Poertner's Win95 message board message (October 23, 1995): "I thought I let you know that the benefits of SR95 especially in its 3.1 version have now been confirmed by XXCAL Labs, one of the largest labs in the US and also according to a glowing review in Windows sources, November issue, page 324." But what does Syncronys say, now that Windows Sources has retracted its glowing review, which apparently was based on superficial and casual observation of SoftRAM, and now that XXCAL has "clarified" that its tests were conducted entirely under direction from Syncronys? (The SoftRAM story reveals a lot about the PC software industry, including the role of the trade press and the testing labs. The industry is definitely not yet ready for the average consumer.) Rainer doesn't seem to have been posting anything in the newsgroups recently. But by combining the web services provided by DejaNews and NetMind, you can register to receive an email notification if Rainer ever gets back on Usenet: Enter your email address to receive email if Rainer Poertner posts anything new on Usenet: While it's amusing to know you'll receive email if Rainer posts again, my real purpose here was to demonstrate one of the cool things that are possible because of the web's Common Gateway Interface (CGI). In this case, I've combined DejaNews (CGI method=GET access to a .tcl script running under Apache/1.0.3) with the NetMind URL-minder (CGI method=POST to a machine running NCSA/1.5). This is distributed computation, folks! And it's available today, using utterly simple tools: I suspect that most of what developers think they need ActiveX or DCOM or even Java for, they could be doing with some silly CGI script (server) and an HTML form (client). So what's that have to do with SoftRAM? Well, SoftRAM seems to epitomize (in an admittedly extreme way) how limited conventional Windows desktop software is. In contrast, by using the absurdly simple client-server programming web provided by the web, you can produce a new kind of application. This web page on SoftRAM is a good example, I think, of the new sort of application that the web makes possible. Yes, it's a document, but it's also an application: note the embedded stock-quote button, the forms to fill in to receive email notifications, and so on. For some further thoughts on all this, see my little slide show on Windows and the Web: Which API Do You Want to Use Today? and my ongoing article, Can Microsoft Catch Up to the Internet? A Software Developer's Perspective. SoftRAM -- Frequently Asked Questions from PC Magazine Trends Online (December 14, 1995). For example: "Q: We've read that SoftRAM95 copies code from a PC Magazine utility. Is this true? "A: ... We examined the code ourselves to determine whether it was the same as our utility, and it does appear to be the same one. We are currently evaluating our alternatives. PC Magazine did not, and does not, license these utilities for inclusion in commercial products." An attorney in Oakland CA, Don Driscoll (510-834-4500), has filed suit against Syncronys and a large number of major retailer defendants: CompUSA, the QVC Network, Wal-Mart (owners of Sam's Clubs), Tiger Direct, and Ingram Micro, on behalf of a class composed of customer purchasers of SoftRAM95 on November 1, under California's private "FTC" act. Interestingly, Driscoll also does homeopathy cases. Driscoll has a web page solicitation: "Giving Vaporware a Bad Name". A copy of the complaint (January 2, 1996) is available here. The case of Tiger Direct is particularly interesting. As of January 5, 1996, Tiger Direct was still selling SoftRAM (1-800-395-TIGER, item #S97-1100, $34.99, or $129.99 bundled with Windows 95); however, on January 9 I received a call from a TigerDirect salesman asking me to return the product to them. Tiger has made claims for SoftRAM apart from those contained in the regular Syncronys advertising. For example, the "Tiger Direct" software catalog says: "We tried out Softram ourselves - what an incredible difference it makes! We installed Softram in our Tiger lab 486 after having beta-tested Windows 95 without it - and found that we could run even more applications, and at greater speeds, than with Windows 95 alone.... Rick Catarineau, who heads up our lab, called it 'One of the most effective - and cost-effective - solutions to the memory-gobbling demands of today's most sizzling 32-bit applications. I'd recommend Softram to anyone, hands down.'" The financial side of the Syncronys SoftRAM story was first picked up by the New York Times: Floyd Norris, "A Great Wall St. Success Story Unravels," New York Times, October 10, 1995. A copy of the article was posted to the newsgroup comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.memory. EDGAR Database documents on Syncronys (US Securities and Exchange Commission) Also see my rough notes on the financial history of Syncronys Softcorp. XXCAL Testing Laboratories press release (November 29, 1995) to "clarify various issues concering its role in the testing of SoftRAM95." The copy here was provided with permission to reprint by Troy Sukert of XXCAL. The clarification states: "In the case of SoftRAM95, XXCAL's conclusion of utility is valid only within the context of the observed test results upon specific test configurations.... The conclusion reached was based upon specific test configurations as proffered by Syncronys for use in testing.... Syncronys specified the desired 8MB physical RAM and 4MB temporary swap file configurations under which observed results led to a conclusion of substantial utility." In other words, the XXCAL testing, the results of which Syncronys has been so fond of referring to in its press releases, was based entirely on test configurations created by Syncronys. Analysis of disassembled code in SOFTRAM1.386: "Softram1.386 is virtually identical to pagefile.386 from the Windows 3.1 DDK." Analysis of disassembled code in SOFTRAM2.386: "Softram2.386 is virtually identical to pageswap.386 from the Windows 3.1 DDK." Detailed comparison of code in SR-START.EXE with copyrighted code from PC Magazine. Some interesting tidbits about SoftRAM95: Well-disguised compression code? SoftRAM version 1.03 The XXCAL report Growing the swap file In a press release dated December 11, Syncronys Softcorp is still claiming that "SoftRAM is an innovative software product that effectively doubles the amount of memory available to Windows applications. Unique among memory products, SoftRAM uses proprietary technology that actually enhances physical RAM." According to Syncronys CEO Rainer Poertner, "XXCAL Labs, an internationally recognized software testing lab, also said that SoftRAM effectively doubles RAM for the configurations it tested." It is interesting to contrast this statement with the "clarification" issued by XXCAL on November 29. Syncronys's December 11 press release also states that SoftRAM "was rated first in a review of its SoftRAM product against all competitors in the November issue of PC Today, a prestigious national computer publication. Another competitor, RAM Doubler, received the lowest rating with PC Today stating that RAM Doubler has no interface and failed to open key test applications." The Syncronys press release also notes that "For the fourth time, SoftRAM was ranked number one on PC Magazine's Top Retail Software chart. The listing appeared in the Dec. 19 issue of PC Magazine. In its most recent issue, SoftRAM's shipment volume ranked ahead of Netscape Navigator and WordPerfect 6.1. The list is compiled by Ingram Micro". Unfortunately, the press release doesn't mention something else that's appeared recently in PC Magazine: the magazine's testing labs (which actually are prestigious) found no evidence that SoftRAM performs RAM compression under either Windows 95 or 3.1. Nor does Syncronys mention that Windows Sources magazine has retracted the favorable review it originally gave SoftRAM. Now, another magazine -- PC Novice -- appears to be backing away from SoftRAM. Many shrinkwrapped SoftRAM boxes on store shelves have a sticker with a quotation from PC Novice, hailing SoftRAM as the "real RAM doubler for Windows." But now, in the January 1996 issue of PC Novice, Alan Phelps asks the question "Fake RAM: Does it Fulfill Real RAM Promises?," and answers NO. Without getting into the merits of "Fake RAM" products in general, it's certainly interesting to see what PC Novice says of SoftRAM: "A computer limping along on 4MB of RAM won't automatically operate at 8MB by installing SoftRAM95. In fact, the program didn't appear to make much difference whatsoever on the computers we tested." "The SoftRAM95-equipped machine did no better than the machine alone." PC Today (whose favorable review Syncronys holds up) and PC Novice (whose initial favorable review appears on the SoftRAM box, but which now can't find any evidence that SoftRAM does anything) are published by the same company, Peed Corporation. Its publications at times appear somewhat more advertiser-driven that most computer publications. What's next, a favorable review on Bunting's Window? (In case you haven't seen this, Bunting's Window is an "advertorial" featured by United Airlines.) Speaking of Bunting's Window, a direct-mail piece sent out by a company called DataCal (Brent Payne, president; 1-800-521-8769; fax 602-545-8090) includes many wonderful claims for SoftRAM, and some "rave reviews" -- including one from Mark Bunting of Bunting's Window: "Here is one of the greatest new products I have seen in a long time. Whether you use a desktop PC or a notebook computer, you're gonna love SoftRAM". Continuing with the "Bunting's World" theme, a reader of this page sent in an "article" he typed in from "Bunting's World" in the November 1995 issue of United Airlines' barf-bag mag ("in-flight magazine"), Hemispheres. PC Magazine Trends Online (December 1, 1995): "SoftRAM95 Fails PC Labs Tests, Again": "On another test, PC Labs used Nu-Mega Technologies Inc.'s Soft-Ice for Windows to analyze SoftRAM95 as it was executing. The test found no evidence that SoftRAM95 did anything to affect system resources." Windows Sources retraction/correction to its initial favorable review of SoftRAM95. In its November 1995 issue, Windows Sources reviewed SoftRAM95: "This one-trick pony works as advertised." Now the magazine has issued this correction: "After further discussion with PC Magazine Labs, we have concluded that the results of our SoftRAM testing cited in the November 1995 issue were aberrant and we cannot directly attribute them to any specific activity taken by the product." Also see the November 7 online discussion from the Microsoft Network (MSN) between Syncronys CEO Rainer Poertner, Windows Sources reviewer Lori Grunin, and PC Magazine Technical Director Larry Seltzer. Time magazine (November 27, 1995) article, "A Trick of Memory?" by Julian Dibbell; reporting by William Dowell: "One of the most dazzlingly successful new software companies faces charges that it is peddling thin air.... if the harshest of these attacks are true, SoftRAM95 isn't just one more computer product that fails to live up to its hype; it's a hollow piece of Potemkin programming, devoid of the advanced, patent-pending compression technology touted in its packaging. In short, says Mark Russinovich, a University of Oregon computer scientist, 'the thing is a fraud.'" National Software Testing Labs (NSTL) report on Windows Memory Managers, November 1995. This report was prepared under contract for Connectix. In addition to SoftRAM95, the report also discusses Quarterdeck's MagnaRAM2 product. PC Magazine special report, "SoftRAM95 Does Not Compress RAM In PC Magazine Lab Tests" (November 7, 1995); by Larry Seltzer: "Just-completed PC Magazine Lab tests indicate Syncronys Softcorp's top-selling SoftRAM95 product, which the company calls a 'RAM doubling and resource expansion' product, does not compress memory or increase systems resources under Microsoft Windows 3.x. "The company, which has received numerous criticisms of the product, already has stated that SoftRAM95 does not deliver RAM compression under Windows 95." Article on SoftRAM95 from the great German computer magazine, Magazine fur computer technik (c't) (October 12, 1995). By Ingo T. Storm. This was the first in-depth technical expose of SoftRAM. Update (October 30) to c't article: "SoftRAM is a bluff". By Ingo T. Storm. A major in-depth analysis of SoftRAM95 from c't. By Ingo T. Storm and Christian Persson: "A software product is being sold a couple of hundred thousand times. Nevertheless c't lab tests indicate that it is useless. We therefore found it appropriate to call it 'Placebo Software'. The distributor sued us. In a summary proceeding the court decides that the short review lacked sufficient facts to enable the reader to assess our judgement. Thus we will now provide more data. We have disassembled the program: it does not even contain code that would be able to provide the advertised functionality." Latest Syncronys (SYCR) stock quote (using the Security APL Quote Server). Summary of results from "Double Scan", a "RAM Doubler" performance/compression analyzer, by Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell. (Russinovich and Cogswell are authors of an excellent Dr. Dobb's Journal article on the Windows 95 file system.) "Double Scan": In addition to the DblScan program (December 15, 1995 version), this zip file also includes sample output from the analyzer with SoftRAM: "From the results, it is clear that no compression at all is detected for SoftRAM, while MagnaRAM, and RAM Doubler compress so well that no paging to disk is necessary. This of course, leads to dramatic time savings versus the native and identical to native SoftRAM case." "Double Scan" including all source code (December 15, 1995 version). Syncronys Softcorp press release, October 20, 1995: "Syncronys has, however, indicated that a problem exists with the Windows 95 version, the net result of which is that RAM compression is not being delivered to the operating system." (A month later, Syncronys CEO Rainer Portner added the phrase "on a consistent basis.") Syncronys press release, November 13: XXCAL says that "SoftRAM95 effectively doubles system RAM." Dataquest says most SoftRAM users are happy with the product. Yes, most SnakeOil users prefer SnakeOil 2-to-1 over the other leading placebo. "SoftRAM95: the RAM doubler that doesn't" from c|net (November 4, 1995) by Tinoo Singh. Associated Press wire story, November 2, 1995: "Microsoft has quietly removed SoftRAM95 from its list of companies licensed to carry the Windows 95 logo on their products, a company spokeswoman said Wednesday in answer to a query.... The president of the Software Council of Southern California, Bill Manassero, was surprised to hear the criticism. He said he had tried SoftRAM's product for Windows 3.1 and it freed up memory. 'What do you say to all of the reviewers out there who say this is the greatest thing since sliced bread?' he asked." What indeed. SoftRAM archives page: includes some rough notes on the financial history of Syncronys Softcorp. The digits.com Web-Counter claims that this page has been accessed times since February 4, 1996. Enter your email address to receive email when this page is updated (on approximately a weekly basis). This uses the free URL-minder service ("Your own personal web robot!") from NetMind. Your Internet email address: NOTE: I have done some paid consulting for Connectix, whose RAM Doubler product competes directly with SoftRAM. For more information, visit these other O'Reilly online areas: Our homepage, with product information, feature articles, and more. WebSite Central, home of O'Reilly's hot, new, Windows Web server. The O'Reilly Windows Center has Win 95 programming information, articles, and links.

Syncronys press release, August 22: "Syncronys Softcorp will begin external beta test of SoftRAM 3.0; seeks consumer feedback in beta process." SoftRAM 3.0 is the new name for what had previously been called SoftRAM96. The beta test began on Thursday, August 29. Interestingly, the initial beta includes no RAM compression software, and nothing for Windows 95. Instead, Syncronys boasts of how its "modular" approach will allow it to do an incremental release: "SoftRAM 3.0 is a modular program which lends itself quite effectively to an incremental beta test approach," Klausner explained. "This approach should enable Syncronys to gain maximum feedback from users and should enhance the final product. The first such module is a beta version of the resource enhancement driver for Windows 3.1. Indeed, a later Syncronys press release (August 29) makes no mention of either Windows 95 or RAM compression. In other words, they are still not ready. FTC Charges Syncronys with "False and Misleading" Claims (July 10, 1996). Syncronys, and three officers of the company (Rainer Poertner, Daniel Taylor, and Wendell Brown) has agreed to settle charges by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that Syncronys misrepresented SoftRAM and SoftRAM95: "The FTC's complaint alleges that the company did not possess a reasonable basis to substantiate the various performance claims contained on product packaging and in advertisements. The FTC also alleged that certain performance claims, as well as an endorsement claim, were false. Under the proposed settlement agreement, Syncronys Softcorp and its officers would be prohibited from making the same type of misrepresentations alleged in the complaint concerning SoftRAM95 for that product or any substantially similar product. They also would be prohibited from making representations about the performance, attributes, benefits, or effectiveness of SoftRAM, SoftRAM95 , or any substantially similar product unless the representations were true and substantiated. Further, the respondents would not be able to make claims that any product intended to improve computer performance had been licensed, endorsed, or certified by any other organization unless those representations were true. Finally, the respondents would be barred from making unsubstantiated claims about the performance, attributes, benefits, or effectiveness of any product intended to improve computer performance.... According to Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, "Syncronys promised consumers an inexpensive software fix' for a computer hardware problem -- inadequate RAM. Hundreds of thousands of consumers relied on Syncronys' claims to double Windows 95 computers' RAM. What they got was a snazzy looking software package that didn't increase RAM one bit." Bernstein added, "consumers shopping for high tech products often have to rely on sellers to have solid evidence to back up their claims. We will continue to monitor performance claims for high tech products to make sure that companies have sound reason to believe that consumers will get the promised performance." The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement for comment was 5-0. Agreement Containing Consent Order (Text of the consent decree agreed to by Syncronys and the FTC). This is a proposed consent decree, upon which the public has 60 days to comment. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Also available as WP and PDF files directly from the FTC. Complaint (FTC, In the Matter of Syncronys Softcorp, Rainer Poertner, individually and as an officer of the corporation, Daniel G. Taylor, ditto, Wendell Brown, ditto) Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment (FTC) "Syncronys Softcorp Resolves Ftc Product Inquiry" (press release, July 10, 1996). Syncronys's "spin" on the FTC consent decree. "Syncronys CEO seeks to put FTC complaint behind him" (by Maria Seminerio, PC Week Online, July 10, 1996). This article on the FTC consent decree has an interesting statement from Syncronys CEO Rainer Poertner: he still contends that SoftRAM for Windows 3.x "always worked perfectly." Note that the consent decree Syncronys just signed with the FTC prohibits officers of company "from making representations about the performance, attributes, benefits, or effectiveness of SoftRAM, SoftRAM95, or any substantially similar product unless the representations were true and substantiated." Does Poertner's claiming in an interview that SoftRAM "always worked perfectly" count as a "representation"? :-) The article also says that SoftRAM96 is "slated for release next month, Poertner said." So now, it seems, the much-awaited SoftRAM96 release date has been pushed back yet again, now to August 1996. Reuters News story on FTC action against Syncronys "Syncronys warns Dr. Dobbs over upcoming review" (PC Week Online, June 21, 1996). Dr. Dobb's Journal received a fax from Syncronys's lawyers regarding a then-upcoming article "Inside SoftRAM 95" (by Mark Russinovich, Bryce Cogswell, and Andrew Schulman) in the August 1996 issue of DDJ. The magazine went ahead with the article, despite the "warning" from Syncronys: the August 1996 is out now, and should soon be available on newsstands. Professor Jim Storer has filed (June 12, 1996) a "Declaration in support of defendant's opposition to plaintiff's emergency motion for authorization" in the Florida case of O'Seep vs. Syncronys (Fifth Judicial Circuit, Marion County FL, Case No. 96-613-CA-B). The declaration states, in part: "I have reviewed the SoftRAM 95 code and have performed numerous tests with the SoftRAM data compression algorithm. I can say without any hesitation that SoftRAM contains compression code and is capable of improving the performance and capability of the machine upon which it is installed.... "I have reviewed the allegations of Mr. Andrew Schulman which state that SoftRAM 95 does not have compression and does not enhance a machine's performance and capability. Based on my review of SoftRAM 95's code and performance, I can state categorically that Mr. Schulman's allegations are false." I have asked Dr. Storer for an explanation of how he reached these conclusions, which I find mind-boggling. Well, either mind-boggling, or meaningless. A number of readers have pointed out to me that the wording in Storer's declaration is somewhat odd: he doesn't claim that any possible benefits from SoftRAM are derived from RAM compression. He merely stated that (a) somewhere SoftRAM contains some compression code; and (b) (separate thought) it can do something. No one would dispute such a general claim as this: First, SoftRAM95 might well contain some compression code -- which, however, is never called during run-time (for example, there's a 3k block of code in SOFTRAM2.386 which looks like compression code, but which is never called -- you can overwrite it with HLT or illegal instructions, for example, without any effect). Second, as discussed elsewhere on this web page, SoftRAM actually can do something (albeit only under Win31) because of its incorporation of freely-available copyrighted code belonging to PC Magazine, and because of its use of some freely-available SYSTEM.INI settings. At first, I thought it was reading too much into Storer's declaration to view his declaration in this way. However, SoftRAM also filed a second declaration, by one David Klauser or David Klasner (his name is spelled both ways on his declaration), which uses almost identical wording to Prof. Storer's declaration: "I find that SoftRAM 95 contains compression code and is capable of improving the performance and capability of the machine upon which it is installed." The only difference is that Dr. Storer "can say without any hesitation that..." -- the rest of the sentence is identical. Given the identical wording of the two declarations, it seems likely that the precise wording does have some significance. I wonder if Dr. Storer and David Klauser/Klausner realize how little it is they are actually testifying to. I wonder if the judge realizes how little Syncronys's experts may be testifying to. Latest Syncronys press releases, from Yahoo! Business News. You can also get stock quotes. "Syncronys Softcorp issues SoftRAM96 Technology Progress Report" (press release, May 31, 1996): "SoftRAM96 is one of several Company software products to be released in the weeks ahead.... The results of this research and development and the successful integration of these features within SoftRAM96 remain the principal technical challenges. Contingent upon these factors, Syncronys believes that it is still on target for meeting its July introduction schedule for SoftRAM96. "Syncronys Software Completes Private Placement of $13 Million" (press release, May 23, 1996): "Syncronys Softcorp is a leader in the business of providing memory enhancement and other performance-improving software for PCs." "Syncronys Softcorp Posts Third Quarter Results" (press release, May 15, 1996): "The recent quarter's loss reflects minimal sales revenues following the Company's recall of SoftRam95." "SoftRAM 96 Delayed Until July" by Jodi Mardesich, Computer Reseller News Online: Poertner said the company "paid a high price for unforeseeable technical problems that were encountered with the introduction of SoftRAM 95 last year. We not only lost our momentum in the marketplace but we also lost credibility." ... Syncronys also is attempting to settle all outstanding litigation, including a shareholder class action suit filed by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach. That suit alleges that Syncronys drove up the price of its stock when it knew its primary product did not perform as advertised. Hmm. "Knew its primary product did not perform as advertised" seems like a mild understatement. But the mention of a shareholder lawsuit by the famous/infamous Lerach is important. All articles on Syncronys Softcorp by Jodi Mardesich (Computer Reseller News). William S. Lerach (a partner in Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach in San Diego) has brought a shareholder lawsuit against Syncronys. Lerach of course is well known for his shareholder lawsuits, which were recently the target of special legislation (see interview with Lerach, article "Legal Eagle or Modern Highwayman?" by Gina Smith, and report on congressional hearing). Syncronys would seem like the perfect opportunity for Lerach to show that not all high-flying hi-tech companies are national treasures deserving protection. On the other hand, Syncronys may not have sufficient funds to greatly interest Lerach. Anyway, here's what I've heard about the Lerach suit; I'll post details when I get them: The suit names Poertner, Taylor, Brown and O'Neill specifically, rather than just Syncronys the company. According to the Lerach suit, these "Individual Defendants" engaged in a "common course of misconduct to inflate the market price of Syncronys common stock in order to perpetuate the appearance of Syncronys as a growth company with excellent future prospects and unique innovative products." The suit claims that the defendants "employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, while in possession of material adverse non-public information" about the company and product. Syncronys is at it again! "Syncronys Softcorp Announces Series of Actions to Regain Market Leadership Position" (press release, April 23, 1996). While the release of SoftRAM96 has been pushed back yet again -- now the release date is July 1996 -- the company has meanwhile announced strategic alliances with two companies, the Jump Development Group (makers of RAM Charger Macintosh) and PowerPro Software (makers of Quick Restart). Syncronys also says it will release two products, Mac Access and RAM Charger, in June 1996. The press release also announces that Dr. James Storer (Brandeis University), author of a well-known textbook, Data Compression: Methods and Theory (1988), will "assemble a panel of leading computer and software technology experts that will serve to evaluate and review all new products." Proposed settlement of Siegal et al. vs. Syncronys and Computer City, a class-action suit in Chicago (March 15, 1996). If you purchased SoftRAM, "you are a member of the Settlement Class," and might want to download (from Syncronys's web site) and return the class action notice; or request a copy by calling 1-800-335-4059. "Syncronys Hustles to Fix SoftRAM, Find New Revenue", Los Angeles Daily News, February 22, 1996, by Dawn Yoshitake: "Syncronys Softcorp, once a high-flying maker of top-selling memory software SoftRAM, is running low on cash as it struggles to revamp its recalled product and get it back on store shelves. But can its top executives pull it off? ... "Virtually no cash has come into the company since mid-December, when it recalled SoftRAM, its main product.... "For now, sufficient funds to cover the company's needs are expected to last two to four months, unless new products are shipped or new cash-raising plans found.... "[SYCR CEO Rainer Poertner] and the vice president of technology, Wendell Brown, have a bankruptcy under their belt from when they ran computer component hardware developer Hydra Systems Inc. "The company filed for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1993 when it was determined that it could not remain viable, said Poertner, who added that he was hired to evaluate the company and close it down. "The bankruptcy and Brown's affiliation with Hydra, however, were not mentioned in Syncronys' prospectus given to shareholders. Poertner said he could not explain why the information was left out.... "A sale of the company's wholly owned subsidiary, Autoship Systems Corp., may soon be reached and would reap a quick $195,000 profit." Jodi Mardesich has an article on Syncronys's relations with a German retailer in the February 20, 1996 Computer Reseller News (the URL points to a number of articles; you'll have to page down a few times for Jodi's article): "... distributors in Europe are attempting to return their inventory for cash. Syncronys wants to issue these distributors a credit against future orders, but distributors in Germany, England and Holland will no longer carry the product.... "Softline GmbH, based in Germany, is faced with losing up to $600,000 because of the Syncronys controversy, according to one Softline official. "Under Germany's strict product liability laws, distributors are directly responsible for reimbursing consumers for defective products. "Softline is processing returns and refunding to customers the full purchase price, but Syncronys is refusing to return Softline's money, said Peer Blumenschein, managing director of Softline GmbH. Syncronys is not honoring its return policy, Softline officials said.... "About 14,000 boxes of SoftRAM 95 are sitting in a warehouse in Germany, according to Softline officials. Syncronys refuses to pay shipping costs for the return, and Softline is waiting for Syncronys to put money owed to Softline into an escrow account before returning the boxes." It's important to note that Softline had earlier sued c't magazine, which first reported that SoftRAM didn't work. Reverse-engineered disassembly of SoftRAM95, Win95 version by Mark Russinovich. Full details on the Syncronys "FakeCompress" scheme, which takes a buffer, copies it to a new buffer, and prefixes it with a three-byte header. Also see the disassemblies for the Win31 version of SoftRAM. Syncronys quarterly report (February 15, 1995) for period ending December 31, 1995. Syncronys sales for the three months ending Dec. 31 were $2.776 million, down sharply from with $10.543 million in the preceding three months. In addition, Syncronys has withdrawn its NASDAQ application. Things are looking very bad for SYCR. "SoftRAMGate: Placebo software. Who Is The Victim Of Channel Indifference?", Computer Reseller News, February 5, 1996, by Jodi Mardesich: "Why are some retailers and distributors still selling SoftRAM? ... If an auto dealership found out a type of car it was selling--even if it was a top seller--lacked an advertised feature, such as an engine, do you think the dealership would continue to sell the car? SoftRAM 95 was analagous to a car without an engine.... One distributor told me later that people wanted SoftRAM, so as long as there was interest, they would continue to sell it.... I wonder if the short-term gains from selling the popular but virtually worthless software can possibly offset the long-term legal costs, negative publicity and loss of trust from customers that continuing to sell the 'placebo software' has created." Syncronys Softcorp now has a web site. More or less a Potemkin Village: Nothing much there except large GIF files for two favorable reviews of SoftRAM that were scanned in from Multimedia World and PC Today. Like SoftRAM itself, Syncronys's web site is pretty, but with little behind it. Needless to say the "Download Files" section, where you might expect to find the much-promised "updates" to SoftRAM, is empty, except for a note stating that "A patch to upgrade SoftRAM95 to SoftRAM96 will be posted here as soon as it is released." Enter your email address to receive email whenever the SYCR "Download Files" page is updated: The latest news seems to be that Syncronys is now saying the "fixed" (i.e., first genuine) version of SoftRAM won't be available until July. I suppose if you wanted more information, you could try to contact Syncronys directly. Oh, the Syncronys web site does also have information on the class-action settlement in Illinois. The SYCR web site now has a picture of "SoftRAM96"; the box now says "expand your memory" instead of "double your memory" and it's called "Ram software" instead of "Ram doubling software." "Double, double, toil and trouble" from the UK magazine, Personal Computer World. The same issue of Personal Computer World also has an interesting article on the "Scandal of fake cache memory": it seems that some 486 motherboards are being sold with fake L2 cache chips, and that the BIOSes (such as Award BIOS) have been doctored to lie about them at boot time. And, speaking of placebos, see "The Bogus (Placebo) Cache Story" for a related fake cache for PowerMacs. "RAM Compression Analysis" by Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell. A detailed mathematical analysis of RAM compression. The Windows 95 logo department at Microsoft has issued a Q&A document, "Information Regarding Syncronys SoftRAM95" (November 30, 1995). One section reads: "There have been allegations that Syncronys copied Microsoft beta code. Is this true? "This is true. Syncronys used, without permission, beta code from a Microsoft virtual device driver- DYNAPAGE.VXD - in their product. This virtual device driver was delivered by Microsoft in the beta of the Windows 95 Software Developers Kit. "What actions has Microsoft taken for these issues? "Microsoft issued Syncronys a cease and desist letter demanding that Syncronys stop shipping the copied code and stop using the Windows 95 logo. Syncronys agreed to take the corrective actions demanded in the letter." Why is Microsoft upset about the use of the beta DYNAPAGE, but seemingly not upset about SoftRAM's failure to add significant functionality to Microsoft's own DYNAPAGE? The DDK license agreement permits use of Microsoft's sample code provided that the vendor complies with Microsoft's "distribution requirements," one of which is that the redistributed Microsoft code form "part of your software product which adds primary and significant functionality to the redistributable components" (Microsoft Development Platform software license, italics added). By no stretch of my imagination can I see how SoftRAM adds "primary and significant functionality" to the DYNAPAGE, PAGESWAP, or PAGEFILE code provided by Microsoft. I find Microsoft's position on SoftRAM at best confused. For one thing, the source code in DYNAPAGE\PAGEFILE.ASM has not changed since May 1995; what are the differences between the version Syncronys shipped and the version that Microsoft considers final? Second, it seems that SoftRAM95 failed to get the Win95 logo solely on a technicality. Microsoft is clearly trying to distance itself from SoftRAM95, while doing as little as possible to maintain meaningful standards for consumers. When I asked about what implications the SoftRAM fiasco has for the Win95 logo, one Microsoft employee told me that unfortunately some people seem to think the Win95 logo is some sort of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval," whereas all the logo means is that the software is (as the Microsoft employee put it) "kosher." And "kosher," they reminded me, is not an indication of goodness, but merely an indication that a certain procedure/ritual has been followed. In other words, Microsoft's logo program is worthless from a consumer's point of view. Speaking of the Win95 logo, there's an excellent article on the subject in the January 22, 1996 Computer Reseller News: "Microsoft plans market push as Win 95 sales lag --Focus on ISV appliactions bearing logo" by Deborah Gage (the article is available online at TechWebTechWeb, but doesn't have a unique URL; you'll have to search for it): "[Win95 product manager Suzi] Davidson said Microsoft is anxious to communicate both its own flexibility and the value of the logo. That task has been complicated by vendors like Synchronys SoftCorp. Synchronys recently admitted copying the logo for SoftRAM, which competitors say does not work." This article is also a good source of information on how the slower-than-expected sales of Win95 have affected ISVs, such as Touchstone Software Corp., who were recently named in a shareholder lawsuit brought by William Lerach. On Win95 sales, also see Deborah Gage's article in the January 8, 1996 Computer Reseller News: "Small ISVs felt pinch as year-end Windows 95 sales ran out of steam -- Sell-through swooned in fall, hurting second-tier software developers." This discussion of Win95 sales and their effect on ISVs is relevant to SoftRAM, because SoftRAM appears to have been the only Win95-related success for a non-Microsoft product: something worth thinking about. As one reader of this web page eloquently puts it, SoftRAM is only a particularly egregious example of the "bad, ineffective, incomplete software that the hype on Windows 95 empowers and indirectly supports." Yes, Microsoft does "empower" vendors to put out stuff like SoftRAM. PC Magazine review of Windows 3.1 Memory Enhancement Utilities by Matt Pietrek and Larry Seltzer. This is an extensive, in-depth comparison of SoftRAM95 2.0 (Syncronys Softcorp), Hurricane 1.02 (Helix Software), RAM Doubler 1.02 (Connectix), and QEMM 8/MagnaRAM2 (Quarterdeck): "Among the products that claim to boost resources, we found that Hurricane's methods are both the most interesting and the most effective. Under Hurricane, we simply could not make the test system run out of resources. At the other end of the spectrum, SoftRAM95 once again floored us. In spite of explicit indications from its gauge software indicating that it expands resources, we could find no evidence that SoftRAM95 does anything to affect system resources in any way." SoftRAM95 2.00: "We've rarely seen such a big gap between what a product claims to do and what it actually delivers. After careful testing, we found no evidence that SoftRAM95 performs any of the main functions it claims to perform." Hurricane 1.02: "In testing, [Hurricane] provided effectively unlimited Windows resources and noticeably better performance than plain Windows or any competing product. Hurricane also gives you an intelligent set of installation and tuning tools. Its only downside is that setup can be challenging, and getting optimal results often requires manual tweaking and mastering of some technical concepts.... Hurricane is a complex product that will work best in the hands of a proactive user. But for squeezing every ounce of capacity and performance out of 16-bit Windows, it's hands-down the best package around." RAM Doubler 1.02: "Where Hurricane gives you extreme flexibility in configuration and requires that you master technical concepts to use it, RAM Doubler is as simple as possible. It has no configuration options whatsoever, just installed and uninstalled states." QEMM 8 and MagnaRAM 2: "Our tests clearly demonstrated that MagnaRAM 2 performs RAM compression, but its value to the end user is questionable. We were unable to load additional applications above and beyond what plain Windows allowed, and the product measurably slowed down the system under heavy load conditions." "Software allegedly doubles trouble instead of memory," CNN Interactive Technology (January 19, 1996): "Three independent tests arrived -- after SoftRAM was en route to becoming a market hit -- that gave the program a resounding thumbs down. One of those tests was conducted by the labs at a bible of the industry, PC Magazine. 'I've never seen a product that was so devoid of value as SoftRAM,' said PC [Magazine]'s technical editor Larry Seltzer.... in the long run there are questions about the product claims of software markers. PC Magazine's Seltzer said that the case of SoftRAM is unique, and most software makers deliver what they promise. Still, befudled computer owners are often on their own, left to sort out the megabytes from the mega-hype." "SoftRAM: fails to deliver," London Daily Telegraph (January 17, 1996) by Paul Mullen: "According to the box, '4Mb becomes 8Mb, 8Mb becomes 16Mb...' With these claims the product has sold some 750,000 copies since last May. The only drawback is an increasing number of critical reviews in the computer press. One well-respected magazine after another has said it could find no benefit in the program.... My test was hampered by an unusual reluctance of the company to send me a review copy. I had to buy one, and came to the similar conclusions.... The only 'memory' gains were achieved by copying more data to disk - something you can tell Windows to do without using SoftRAM, provided you can stand the resulting loss in speed. I found no truth in its maker's claims." "SoftRAM95 still on shelves. Recall? Software is for sale," San Jose Mercury News (January 16, 1996) by Dan Gillmor: "Almost a month after its publisher announced a recall of the controversial SoftRAM95 software, the product was still being sold during the weekend at several major computer, office-supply and mail-order outlets.... Several major mail-order software outlets, meanwhile, were more than willing to sell SoftRAM95. A telephone salesperson at PC Zone said the product was for users of Windows 3.1 only, but a salesperson at PC Mall did not." An attorney in Orange County CA, Martin Anderson, has filed (January 1996) a class-action suit against Syncronys in Orange County Superior Court before Judge Francisco F. Firmat. The key paragraphs appear to be 20 through 26. Another class-action suit has been filed in Oakland CA by Don Driscoll. The January 1996 issue of Marketing Computers has a long article by David Evans, "Software That Wasn't: Why has the industry reacted so slowly in the SoftRAM case?" The article quotes some amazing praise for SoftRAM95 from the trade press (such as the October 1995 issue of CMP's HomePC and the December 1995 issue of IDG's Electronic Entertainment), and subsequent explanations from the editors as to how such credulous articles could have appeared. For example, asked why HomePC was so enthusiastic about SoftRAM, the editor-in-chief explained that "the story was intended to inform our readers of the manufacturer's claim for its product. It was not an editorial judgement." Hopefully the SoftRAM affair will urge the computer trade press to take a more journalistic and consumer-oriented approach in the future. Right now the trade press is very much part of the computer industry; its first instinct is to believe vendor's claims for their products. The absurd praise given SoftRAM in the trade press is only an extreme example of standard industry practice: I found the same credulity when I reviewed the computer press coverage of Windows 95 for my book Unauthorized Windows 95; p. 459 refers, for example, to "the supposedly independent oversight of an easily confused, cajoled, and hoodwinked trade press." Little then did I know how easily. At the same time, it's important to note that some computer journalists did do their job: Ingo T. Storm of c't magazine in Germany wrote the first in-depth technical expose of SoftRAM, and Larry Seltzer of PC Magazine wrote the first in-depth examination of SoftRAM in the US. Both journalists have campaigned heavily to publicize the SoftRAM story. David Strom's Web Informant has an interesting article, "Syncronys' SoftRAM Scam: What took us so long?" (January 2, 1996). In addition to giving this page his "Be.Here.Now Award" (thanks!), Strom uses the SoftRAM mess to ask some interesting questions about the PC software industry: "This week, I look at how our industry tests products and tracks breaking news about these tests using print and on-line resources.... "I decided to go on-line and see if I could get to the bottom of this, and came to the conclusion that the print trade pubs have done our readers a tremendous disservice. The best reporting is happening on-line... on-line is the place to be for tracking this issue." Also see the follow-up in the January 8, 1996 issue of Web Informant. Family PC (February 1996) article on SoftRAM95 by Deborah Branscum: "Is SoftRAM heaven-sent or the devil's handiwork? On December 18, Syncronys recalled all SoftRAM inventory and offered customers refunds even as it continued to claim that the program delivers compression under Windows 3.1. The Federal Trade Commission has made inquiries into SoftRAM. The company also faces a class-action lawsuit. It appears that SoftRAM's memory compression, like the Emperor's new clothes, simply doesn't exist." All messages posted to Usenet newsgroups by Syncronys CEO Rainer Poertner: list generated by DejaNews. Actually, not all messages, because Poertner also posts messages from the address poert1@ix.netcom.com and for some reason DejaNews doesn't seem to be picking these up. Also see Poertner's Win95 message board message (October 23, 1995): "I thought I let you know that the benefits of SR95 especially in its 3.1 version have now been confirmed by XXCAL Labs, one of the largest labs in the US and also according to a glowing review in Windows sources, November issue, page 324." But what does Syncronys say, now that Windows Sources has retracted its glowing review, which apparently was based on superficial and casual observation of SoftRAM, and now that XXCAL has "clarified" that its tests were conducted entirely under direction from Syncronys? (The SoftRAM story reveals a lot about the PC software industry, including the role of the trade press and the testing labs. The industry is definitely not yet ready for the average consumer.) Rainer doesn't seem to have been posting anything in the newsgroups recently. But by combining the web services provided by DejaNews and NetMind, you can register to receive an email notification if Rainer ever gets back on Usenet: Enter your email address to receive email if Rainer Poertner posts anything new on Usenet: While it's amusing to know you'll receive email if Rainer posts again, my real purpose here was to demonstrate one of the cool things that are possible because of the web's Common Gateway Interface (CGI). In this case, I've combined DejaNews (CGI method=GET access to a .tcl script running under Apache/1.0.3) with the NetMind URL-minder (CGI method=POST to a machine running NCSA/1.5). This is distributed computation, folks! And it's available today, using utterly simple tools: I suspect that most of what developers think they need ActiveX or DCOM or even Java for, they could be doing with some silly CGI script (server) and an HTML form (client). So what's that have to do with SoftRAM? Well, SoftRAM seems to epitomize (in an admittedly extreme way) how limited conventional Windows desktop software is. In contrast, by using the absurdly simple client-server programming web provided by the web, you can produce a new kind of application. This web page on SoftRAM is a good example, I think, of the new sort of application that the web makes possible. Yes, it's a document, but it's also an application: note the embedded stock-quote button, the forms to fill in to receive email notifications, and so on. For some further thoughts on all this, see my little slide show on Windows and the Web: Which API Do You Want to Use Today? and my ongoing article, Can Microsoft Catch Up to the Internet? A Software Developer's Perspective. SoftRAM -- Frequently Asked Questions from PC Magazine Trends Online (December 14, 1995). For example: "Q: We've read that SoftRAM95 copies code from a PC Magazine utility. Is this true? "A: ... We examined the code ourselves to determine whether it was the same as our utility, and it does appear to be the same one. We are currently evaluating our alternatives. PC Magazine did not, and does not, license these utilities for inclusion in commercial products." An attorney in Oakland CA, Don Driscoll (510-834-4500), has filed suit against Syncronys and a large number of major retailer defendants: CompUSA, the QVC Network, Wal-Mart (owners of Sam's Clubs), Tiger Direct, and Ingram Micro, on behalf of a class composed of customer purchasers of SoftRAM95 on November 1, under California's private "FTC" act. Interestingly, Driscoll also does homeopathy cases. Driscoll has a web page solicitation: "Giving Vaporware a Bad Name". A copy of the complaint (January 2, 1996) is available here. The case of Tiger Direct is particularly interesting. As of January 5, 1996, Tiger Direct was still selling SoftRAM (1-800-395-TIGER, item #S97-1100, $34.99, or $129.99 bundled with Windows 95); however, on January 9 I received a call from a TigerDirect salesman asking me to return the product to them. Tiger has made claims for SoftRAM apart from those contained in the regular Syncronys advertising. For example, the "Tiger Direct" software catalog says: "We tried out Softram ourselves - what an incredible difference it makes! We installed Softram in our Tiger lab 486 after having beta-tested Windows 95 without it - and found that we could run even more applications, and at greater speeds, than with Windows 95 alone.... Rick Catarineau, who heads up our lab, called it 'One of the most effective - and cost-effective - solutions to the memory-gobbling demands of today's most sizzling 32-bit applications. I'd recommend Softram to anyone, hands down.'" The financial side of the Syncronys SoftRAM story was first picked up by the New York Times: Floyd Norris, "A Great Wall St. Success Story Unravels," New York Times, October 10, 1995. A copy of the article was posted to the newsgroup comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.memory. EDGAR Database documents on Syncronys (US Securities and Exchange Commission) Also see my rough notes on the financial history of Syncronys Softcorp. XXCAL Testing Laboratories press release (November 29, 1995) to "clarify various issues concering its role in the testing of SoftRAM95." The copy here was provided with permission to reprint by Troy Sukert of XXCAL. The clarification states: "In the case of SoftRAM95, XXCAL's conclusion of utility is valid only within the context of the observed test results upon specific test configurations.... The conclusion reached was based upon specific test configurations as proffered by Syncronys for use in testing.... Syncronys specified the desired 8MB physical RAM and 4MB temporary swap file configurations under which observed results led to a conclusion of substantial utility." In other words, the XXCAL testing, the results of which Syncronys has been so fond of referring to in its press releases, was based entirely on test configurations created by Syncronys. Analysis of disassembled code in SOFTRAM1.386: "Softram1.386 is virtually identical to pagefile.386 from the Windows 3.1 DDK." Analysis of disassembled code in SOFTRAM2.386: "Softram2.386 is virtually identical to pageswap.386 from the Windows 3.1 DDK." Detailed comparison of code in SR-START.EXE with copyrighted code from PC Magazine. Some interesting tidbits about SoftRAM95: Well-disguised compression code? SoftRAM version 1.03 The XXCAL report Growing the swap file In a press release dated December 11, Syncronys Softcorp is still claiming that "SoftRAM is an innovative software product that effectively doubles the amount of memory available to Windows applications. Unique among memory products, SoftRAM uses proprietary technology that actually enhances physical RAM." According to Syncronys CEO Rainer Poertner, "XXCAL Labs, an internationally recognized software testing lab, also said that SoftRAM effectively doubles RAM for the configurations it tested." It is interesting to contrast this statement with the "clarification" issued by XXCAL on November 29. Syncronys's December 11 press release also states that SoftRAM "was rated first in a review of its SoftRAM product against all competitors in the November issue of PC Today, a prestigious national computer publication. Another competitor, RAM Doubler, received the lowest rating with PC Today stating that RAM Doubler has no interface and failed to open key test applications." The Syncronys press release also notes that "For the fourth time, SoftRAM was ranked number one on PC Magazine's Top Retail Software chart. The listing appeared in the Dec. 19 issue of PC Magazine. In its most recent issue, SoftRAM's shipment volume ranked ahead of Netscape Navigator and WordPerfect 6.1. The list is compiled by Ingram Micro". Unfortunately, the press release doesn't mention something else that's appeared recently in PC Magazine: the magazine's testing labs (which actually are prestigious) found no evidence that SoftRAM performs RAM compression under either Windows 95 or 3.1. Nor does Syncronys mention that Windows Sources magazine has retracted the favorable review it originally gave SoftRAM. Now, another magazine -- PC Novice -- appears to be backing away from SoftRAM. Many shrinkwrapped SoftRAM boxes on store shelves have a sticker with a quotation from PC Novice, hailing SoftRAM as the "real RAM doubler for Windows." But now, in the January 1996 issue of PC Novice, Alan Phelps asks the question "Fake RAM: Does it Fulfill Real RAM Promises?," and answers NO. Without getting into the merits of "Fake RAM" products in general, it's certainly interesting to see what PC Novice says of SoftRAM: "A computer limping along on 4MB of RAM won't automatically operate at 8MB by installing SoftRAM95. In fact, the program didn't appear to make much difference whatsoever on the computers we tested." "The SoftRAM95-equipped machine did no better than the machine alone." PC Today (whose favorable review Syncronys holds up) and PC Novice (whose initial favorable review appears on the SoftRAM box, but which now can't find any evidence that SoftRAM does anything) are published by the same company, Peed Corporation. Its publications at times appear somewhat more advertiser-driven that most computer publications. What's next, a favorable review on Bunting's Window? (In case you haven't seen this, Bunting's Window is an "advertorial" featured by United Airlines.) Speaking of Bunting's Window, a direct-mail piece sent out by a company called DataCal (Brent Payne, president; 1-800-521-8769; fax 602-545-8090) includes many wonderful claims for SoftRAM, and some "rave reviews" -- including one from Mark Bunting of Bunting's Window: "Here is one of the greatest new products I have seen in a long time. Whether you use a desktop PC or a notebook computer, you're gonna love SoftRAM". Continuing with the "Bunting's World" theme, a reader of this page sent in an "article" he typed in from "Bunting's World" in the November 1995 issue of United Airlines' barf-bag mag ("in-flight magazine"), Hemispheres. PC Magazine Trends Online (December 1, 1995): "SoftRAM95 Fails PC Labs Tests, Again": "On another test, PC Labs used Nu-Mega Technologies Inc.'s Soft-Ice for Windows to analyze SoftRAM95 as it was executing. The test found no evidence that SoftRAM95 did anything to affect system resources." Windows Sources retraction/correction to its initial favorable review of SoftRAM95. In its November 1995 issue, Windows Sources reviewed SoftRAM95: "This one-trick pony works as advertised." Now the magazine has issued this correction: "After further discussion with PC Magazine Labs, we have concluded that the results of our SoftRAM testing cited in the November 1995 issue were aberrant and we cannot directly attribute them to any specific activity taken by the product." Also see the November 7 online discussion from the Microsoft Network (MSN) between Syncronys CEO Rainer Poertner, Windows Sources reviewer Lori Grunin, and PC Magazine Technical Director Larry Seltzer. Time magazine (November 27, 1995) article, "A Trick of Memory?" by Julian Dibbell; reporting by William Dowell: "One of the most dazzlingly successful new software companies faces charges that it is peddling thin air.... if the harshest of these attacks are true, SoftRAM95 isn't just one more computer product that fails to live up to its hype; it's a hollow piece of Potemkin programming, devoid of the advanced, patent-pending compression technology touted in its packaging. In short, says Mark Russinovich, a University of Oregon computer scientist, 'the thing is a fraud.'" National Software Testing Labs (NSTL) report on Windows Memory Managers, November 1995. This report was prepared under contract for Connectix. In addition to SoftRAM95, the report also discusses Quarterdeck's MagnaRAM2 product. PC Magazine special report, "SoftRAM95 Does Not Compress RAM In PC Magazine Lab Tests" (November 7, 1995); by Larry Seltzer: "Just-completed PC Magazine Lab tests indicate Syncronys Softcorp's top-selling SoftRAM95 product, which the company calls a 'RAM doubling and resource expansion' product, does not compress memory or increase systems resources under Microsoft Windows 3.x. "The company, which has received numerous criticisms of the product, already has stated that SoftRAM95 does not deliver RAM compression under Windows 95." Article on SoftRAM95 from the great German computer magazine, Magazine fur computer technik (c't) (October 12, 1995). By Ingo T. Storm. This was the first in-depth technical expose of SoftRAM. Update (October 30) to c't article: "SoftRAM is a bluff". By Ingo T. Storm. A major in-depth analysis of SoftRAM95 from c't. By Ingo T. Storm and Christian Persson: "A software product is being sold a couple of hundred thousand times. Nevertheless c't lab tests indicate that it is useless. We therefore found it appropriate to call it 'Placebo Software'. The distributor sued us. In a summary proceeding the court decides that the short review lacked sufficient facts to enable the reader to assess our judgement. Thus we will now provide more data. We have disassembled the program: it does not even contain code that would be able to provide the advertised functionality." Latest Syncronys (SYCR) stock quote (using the Security APL Quote Server). Summary of results from "Double Scan", a "RAM Doubler" performance/compression analyzer, by Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell. (Russinovich and Cogswell are authors of an excellent Dr. Dobb's Journal article on the Windows 95 file system.) "Double Scan": In addition to the DblScan program (December 15, 1995 version), this zip file also includes sample output from the analyzer with SoftRAM: "From the results, it is clear that no compression at all is detected for SoftRAM, while MagnaRAM, and RAM Doubler compress so well that no paging to disk is necessary. This of course, leads to dramatic time savings versus the native and identical to native SoftRAM case." "Double Scan" including all source code (December 15, 1995 version). Syncronys Softcorp press release, October 20, 1995: "Syncronys has, however, indicated that a problem exists with the Windows 95 version, the net result of which is that RAM compression is not being delivered to the operating system." (A month later, Syncronys CEO Rainer Portner added the phrase "on a consistent basis.") Syncronys press release, November 13: XXCAL says that "SoftRAM95 effectively doubles system RAM." Dataquest says most SoftRAM users are happy with the product. Yes, most SnakeOil users prefer SnakeOil 2-to-1 over the other leading placebo. "SoftRAM95: the RAM doubler that doesn't" from c|net (November 4, 1995) by Tinoo Singh. Associated Press wire story, November 2, 1995: "Microsoft has quietly removed SoftRAM95 from its list of companies licensed to carry the Windows 95 logo on their products, a company spokeswoman said Wednesday in answer to a query.... The president of the Software Council of Southern California, Bill Manassero, was surprised to hear the criticism. He said he had tried SoftRAM's product for Windows 3.1 and it freed up memory. 'What do you say to all of the reviewers out there who say this is the greatest thing since sliced bread?' he asked." What indeed. SoftRAM archives page: includes some rough notes on the financial history of Syncronys Softcorp. The digits.com Web-Counter claims that this page has been accessed times since February 4, 1996. Enter your email address to receive email when this page is updated (on approximately a weekly basis). This uses the free URL-minder service ("Your own personal web robot!") from NetMind. Your Internet email address: NOTE: I have done some paid consulting for Connectix, whose RAM Doubler product competes directly with SoftRAM. For more information, visit these other O'Reilly online areas: Our homepage, with product information, feature articles, and more. WebSite Central, home of O'Reilly's hot, new, Windows Web server. The O'Reilly Windows Center has Win 95 programming information, articles, and links.

Leave a Comment