SOFTRAM -Legal action? I want FEEDBACK!
Shannon Terry
I know that SoftRAM has been discussed here back and forth for months, but
now there seems to be ABSOLUTE PROOF that the software is a COMPLETE
FRAUD. It has been disassembled and examined line by line to prove that
it does virtually nothing (see references below for details). The
software engineers who disassembled it even give you examples of tests you
can perform yourself to see that it does not do what it claims to do. The
study shows there is NOT EVEN ANY COMPRESSION ALGORITHMS IN THE CODE!!!!
Anyone in doubt should visit the following site for articles that
thoroughly explain why a few people have had results even though the
software fails to do what it says as well as a very detailed look into the
code of SOFTRAM.
http://www.ix.de/ct/ (site of German C'T' Computer Magazine)
Check out recent articles in PC MAGAZINE (11/7 Special Report) TIME
Magazine (11/27, p.81), and the NEW YORK TIMES (?) if you still need
convinced. Also, Mark Russinovich, a computer scientist at the UNIVERSITY
of OREGON who also researched SOFTRAM, had this to say:
"the thing is a fraud"
He also confirms the German study by saying that SOFTRAM's main component is:
"little more than copies of the sample programs provided in
Microsoft's development kit"
[referring to the Device Driver Development Kit and how SOFTRAM uses hard
disk space instead of performing any actual RAM compression]
QUESTIONS:
A) WHY HASN'T SOMEONE TAKEN LEGAL ACTION TO STOP THE SALE OF THIS SOFTWARE?
B) HOW DID THIS SOFTWARE GET THE M$ LOGO IF IT DOESN'T WORK?
C) WHY HASN'T M$ TAKEN ACTION AGAINST SOFTRAM FOR APPARENTLY USING M$
SAMPLE CODE FROM THE DDK TO MAKE THE BULK OF THE SOFTRAM DRIVERS AND
FAILING TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE CODE?
I'm sick of walking into every computer store in town and seeing junk
software being sold to consumers who are being lied to. I simply cannot
believe that they are getting away with this.
POST OR EMAIL ME IF YOU'VE BEEN SCREWED INTO BUYING ONE OF THE 650,000
COPIES OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE BIGGEST MONEY-MAKING HOAX IN SOFTWARE
HISTORY!!!!!!
PLEASE... NO DEFENDERS OF SOFTRAM NEED RESPOND UNLESS THEY HAVE READ THE
ABOVE REPORTS AND CAN PERSONALLY SHOW ME THAT THE SOFTWARE DOES WHAT IT
SAYS. IT DID NOTHING ON MY SYSTEM.
(Angry consumer...)
Shannon Terry
terr...@osu.edu
Rob Mayhew
>I WANT FEEDBACK!!! I'M OUTRAGED, AND FRANKLY PI@#ED OFF!
>I know that SoftRAM has been discussed here back and forth for months, but
>now there seems to be ABSOLUTE PROOF that the software is a COMPLETE
>FRAUD.
> ... snip ...
>QUESTIONS:
>A) WHY HASN'T SOMEONE TAKEN LEGAL ACTION TO STOP THE SALE OF THIS SOFTWARE?
Why haven't you? Same reason, probably -- it costs.
>B) HOW DID THIS SOFTWARE GET THE M$ LOGO IF IT DOESN'T WORK?
At least one report has stated that Microsoft is now claiming that
Syncronys did not have proper authorization to use the Windows 95
logo. Another report has stated that the authorization was granted,
but the staffer responsible left Microsoft very suddenly on November
3.
>C) WHY HASN'T M$ TAKEN ACTION AGAINST SOFTRAM FOR APPARENTLY USING M$
>SAMPLE CODE FROM THE DDK TO MAKE THE BULK OF THE SOFTRAM DRIVERS AND
>FAILING TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE CODE?
Ask Microsoft that question. Nobody out here is likely to have an
answer.
I'm sure that you're not the only onewho's p----ed off. Consumer law
where I live made it easy to get my money back from the retailer who
sold SoftRAM to me, but that only pushes the problem onto the
retailer, who is (usually) also an innocent party.
Some suggestions:
Check with the consumer authorities in your state or province. They
may or may not be able to act against Syncronys SoftCorp. (the makers
of SoftRAM), but they should be able to tell you what you can do about
getting your money back from the retailer. If enough retailers are
forced to refund the purchase price, they'll stop carrying the
product.
Syncronys is a California company. That state has some of the most
vigorous consumer protection legislation on the continent -- their
consumer legislation makes most Canadian consumer legislation look
kind of puny. Get in touch with the California authorities, and see
what they can do about Syncronys, and what they'll need to pursue it.
Contact information is as follows:
California Department of Consumer Affairs
400 R St., Suite 1040
Sacramento, CA 95814 phone (916) 445-1254
Whether you're talking to your consumer authorities or your retailer,
don't expect them to take your word for it. Provide them with copies
of appropriate reports -- the NSTL report is a good one. It's
available at <http://www.pcworld.com/connectix/nstl_report.html>.
Also, retailers aren't fond of refunding the purchase price on an
opened software package -- too many people have claimed
dissatisfaction, returned the manuals and distribution disks, but kept
copies of the software. The retailer is much more likely to play ball
with you if you offer to exchange the product for a similar product
from another supplier instead of demanding a cash refund.
for other supporting reports, check out the following, and get copies:
http://www.zdnet.com/~pcmag/special/reports/sr1107.htm
http://www.ix.de/ct/Artikel/CT9511/SoftRAM_eng.htm
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/business/95/09/24/silverman.html
http://starbase.neosoft.com/~dwights/colm1029.htm
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/business/95/09/03/dwight.html
http://www.cnet.com/Central/Hands/softram.html
If you're REALLY serious, talk to a lawyer about a class-action suit.
But don't sit there and wonder why nobody's done it; if you're not
prepared to do it yourself, why do you think you can expect someone
else to do it for you?
Rob Mayhew Problems worthy of attack
Vancouver, B.C. prove their worth by hitting back.
Canada - - Piet Hein, 1969
wizw...@mindlink.bc.ca - - or - - rlma...@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
sa...@computek.net
terr...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Shannon Terry) wrote:
Snip!
>
>I'm sick of walking into every computer store in town and seeing junk
>software being sold to consumers who are being lied to. I simply cannot
>believe that they are getting away with this.
>
Snip!
>(Angry consumer...)
>Shannon Terry
>terr...@osu.edu
Shannon, I stop buying software without trying it first in 1983.
Show me a software package and I will show you a lie in print.
Big business has got it all figured out, The general public is a bunch
of damm idiots.
All we have to do is stop buying the software and sooner or later they
will want to come to your house to demonstrate it.
What do you think Shannon?
Sammy
[iadfw.general] Gateway to the Porn Groups and one or two Nuts.
MKoenecke
The most recent issue of Byte has a review of these products, and
concluded pretty much the same thing. SoftRAM and MagnaRAM had virtually
no discernible effect. Helix's Hurricane and Connectix's RAMDoubler
performed as advertised. The general conclusion was that for better
performance, go with Hurricane, though it may interfere with some
programs' stability due to its more comprehensive nature. For better
overall stability, go with RAMDoubler. Personally, I've had better results
with Hurricane.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mike Koenecke
|
| Who will continue to say "ni" to you if you do not appease us. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Michael E. Carver
this fraud. But my mother always told me that if something sounded too
good to be true, it probably was. This is exactly how I felt about this
product when I first saw it advertised. How can this be? I decided to
stand by and wait for the experts to weigh in on this one. Glad I did.
--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
mca...@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver/bus_stop.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Max Winkler
[...][...]
>
>You seem a little *too* bitter over a $27 piece of software. It's not
>like you shelled out an actual $400 on bad RAM. Really, if you had any
>common sense you would realize that a software program is NOT going to
>give the same effect as true hardware. That's almost like buying a
>software based HDD or CD-ROM drive. It may do *something*, but it won't
>be the same as a real thing. All of you SoftRAM whiners should either
>sue or shut up. I am tired of hearing about it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Monika DeMire
>
>(How about comp.i.hate.softram .... create the newsgroup and whine over
>there.)
>--
Hi Monika,
this case is not primarily about a not so good software package. There are
a lot of utilities which do not deliver very much. What makes the SoftRAM
case so special is that the producer obviously didn't even make an
attempt to write good software and was aiming right from the beginning for
fraud. So we are not talking about someone aiming at writing a software
delivering functionality X and failing or partly failing to deliver despite
his attempts. All the facts, especially the financial and organisational
backround of the Synchronous Software Corp., indicate that it was never
intended to write anything useful.
Maybe you should check out the above URL before attacking people
trying to defend themselves against fraud.
(BTW the documents about SoftRAM in this URL are in english)
Max Winkler
win...@ifwsn4.ifw.uni-hannover.de
Institute of Production Engineering and Machine Tools (IFW)
University of Hannover
Eldon Webb
>I WANT FEEDBACK!!! I'M OUTRAGED, AND FRANKLY PI@#ED OFF!
>QUESTIONS:
>I'm sick of walking into every computer store in town and seeing junk
>software being sold to consumers who are being lied to. I simply cannot
>believe that they are getting away with this.
>POST OR EMAIL ME IF YOU'VE BEEN SCREWED INTO BUYING ONE OF THE 650,000
>COPIES OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE BIGGEST MONEY-MAKING HOAX IN SOFTWARE
>HISTORY!!!!!!
>PLEASE... NO DEFENDERS OF SOFTRAM NEED RESPOND UNLESS THEY HAVE READ THE
>ABOVE REPORTS AND CAN PERSONALLY SHOW ME THAT THE SOFTWARE DOES WHAT IT
>SAYS. IT DID NOTHING ON MY SYSTEM.
Probably one way to stop the sale of this product is to post a copy of
the program to every location you can think of. If it's "free", people
thinking of buying it will not have to and can discover this "piece of
crap" without lining the pockets of SoftRAM.
****************************************************************
Eldon B Webb Calgary, Alberta, Canada
email: we...@cadvision.com
Promotional Products Online / Calgary Specialty Advertising
****************************************************************
DeMoNiKa
: Maybe you should check out the above URL before attacking people
: trying to defend themselves against fraud.
: (BTW the documents about SoftRAM in this URL are in english)
: Max Winkler
: win...@ifwsn4.ifw.uni-hannover.de
: Institute of Production Engineering and Machine Tools (IFW)
: University of Hannover
Like I said... really, sue and shut up. Call the BBB! Picket! Shoot
the product developer! Just stop spamming this group with this garbage.
You guys don't even have the decency to keep the topics tha same, so my
killfile is worthless for this subject.
Regards,
Monika DeMire
--
Monika
\---------------------\
+ demo...@netcom.com +
\---------------------\
DeMire
ba...@netrunner.net
>Shannon Terry (terr...@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu) said:
>: I WANT FEEDBACK!!! I'M OUTRAGED, AND FRANKLY PI@#ED OFF!
>: I know that SoftRAM has been discussed here back and forth for months, but
>: now there seems to be ABSOLUTE PROOF that the software is a COMPLETE
>: FRAUD. It has been disassembled and examined line by line to prove that
>: it does virtually nothing (see references below for details). The
>: software engineers who disassembled it even give you examples of tests you
>: can perform yourself to see that it does not do what it claims to do. The
>: study shows there is NOT EVEN ANY COMPRESSION ALGORITHMS IN THE CODE!!!!
>: Anyone in doubt should visit the following site for articles that
>: thoroughly explain why a few people have had results even though the
>: software fails to do what it says as well as a very detailed look into the
>: code of SOFTRAM.
>: http://www.ix.de/ct/ (site of German C'T' Computer Magazine)
>: Check out recent articles in PC MAGAZINE (11/7 Special Report) TIME
>: Magazine (11/27, p.81), and the NEW YORK TIMES (?) if you still need
>: convinced. Also, Mark Russinovich, a computer scientist at the UNIVERSITY
>: of OREGON who also researched SOFTRAM, had this to say:
>: "the thing is a fraud"
>: He also confirms the German study by saying that SOFTRAM's main component is:
>:
>: "little more than copies of the sample programs provided in
>: Microsoft's development kit"
>: [referring to the Device Driver Development Kit and how SOFTRAM uses hard
>: disk space instead of performing any actual RAM compression]
>: QUESTIONS:
>: A) WHY HASN'T SOMEONE TAKEN LEGAL ACTION TO STOP THE SALE OF THIS SOFTWARE?
>: B) HOW DID THIS SOFTWARE GET THE M$ LOGO IF IT DOESN'T WORK?
>: C) WHY HASN'T M$ TAKEN ACTION AGAINST SOFTRAM FOR APPARENTLY USING M$
>: SAMPLE CODE FROM THE DDK TO MAKE THE BULK OF THE SOFTRAM DRIVERS AND
>: FAILING TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE CODE?
>: I'm sick of walking into every computer store in town and seeing junk
>: software being sold to consumers who are being lied to. I simply cannot
>: believe that they are getting away with this.
>: POST OR EMAIL ME IF YOU'VE BEEN SCREWED INTO BUYING ONE OF THE 650,000
>: COPIES OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE BIGGEST MONEY-MAKING HOAX IN SOFTWARE
>: HISTORY!!!!!!
>: PLEASE... NO DEFENDERS OF SOFTRAM NEED RESPOND UNLESS THEY HAVE READ THE
>: ABOVE REPORTS AND CAN PERSONALLY SHOW ME THAT THE SOFTWARE DOES WHAT IT
>: SAYS. IT DID NOTHING ON MY SYSTEM.
>: (Angry consumer...)
>: Shannon Terry
>: terr...@osu.edu
>You seem a little *too* bitter over a $27 piece of software. It's not
>like you shelled out an actual $400 on bad RAM. Really, if you had any
>common sense you would realize that a software program is NOT going to
>give the same effect as true hardware. That's almost like buying a
>software based HDD or CD-ROM drive. It may do *something*, but it won't
>be the same as a real thing. All of you SoftRAM whiners should either
>sue or shut up. I am tired of hearing about it.
>Regards,
>Monika DeMire
>(How about comp.i.hate.softram .... create the newsgroup and whine over
>there.)
>--
> Monika
> \---------------------\
> + demo...@netcom.com +
> \---------------------\
> DeMire
Too much software has flaws of all sizes. When I pay for something it
should perform as advertised.
I'm wondering if the (auto) lemmon laws that apply to software? If
autos were designed like software the worlds population would be cut
in half.
Baloo
Mike Wright
>demo...@netcom.com (DeMoNiKa) wrote:
>>Regards,
>>Monika DeMire
>Baloo
The allegations here are not about flaws, but about FRAUD. It's one
thing for a program to perform poorly; it's another thing for it not
to have any code that even attempts to perform what the product is
advertised to do. The idea that "it's cheap so you shouldn't complain"
is nonsense. No matter how cheap it is, a product should do what it
claims to do.
Mike Wright
wri...@lds.loral.com
mdwr...@packet.net
Jonathan Campbell
addition to all consumers affected). It is plain irresponsible for those
companies in the know to continue distribution to uninformed consumers. If
the product is truly a fraud, send it back to the source. Send a voice of
non-acceptance. Any Internet based consumer advocacy groups? How about a
web page consisting of objective, quantifiable software reviews. Anyone
interested? Drop me a note.
I guarantee one thing, none of this will change on its own.
mark eugene russinovich
out Andrew Schulman's (Unauthorized Windows 95, etc.) Web page
on it:
ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/examples/windows/win95.update/softram.html
Incidentally, if your definition of fraud is selling something that
does nothing close to what it advertises as doing, and there is
no way its shortcoming could be a "bug," then you would call
SoftRAM a fraud.
The best defense against fraudulant software is a strong offense:
make sure as many people as possible know about what is going on.
-Mark
Dave Hensley
> This is not to say that I do not feel sorry for those who bought into to
> this fraud. But my mother always told me that if something sounded too
> good to be true, it probably was. This is exactly how I felt about this
> product when I first saw it advertised. How can this be? I decided to
> stand by and wait for the experts to weigh in on this one. Glad I did.
This unfairly implies that those who have been victimized by Softram's
alleged fraud are partially responsible, because they were gullible
enough to believe something that's "too good to be true". However,
products such as Ram Doubler by Connectix, and Hurricane by Helix
Software, have been confirmed to deliver the RAM compression and
system improvement that Softram and Magnaram promise but fail to
deliver.
The technology is sound, it's not voodoo. Some products deliver,
apparently some others don't. Softram victims are guilty only of bad
luck in picking the wrong vendor out of a group of competitors.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Dave Hensley
dhen...@connect.net
////////////////////////////////////
Jeff Teolis
says...
>The allegations here are not about flaws, but about FRAUD. It's one
>thing for a program to perform poorly; it's another thing for it not
>to have any code that even attempts to perform what the product is
>advertised to do. The idea that "it's cheap so you shouldn't complain"
>is nonsense. No matter how cheap it is, a product should do what it
>claims to do.
But, have you been harmed by the "fraud", if you have gotten your money back,
what is your damages? If you are "stuck" with the software (which I suspect
you are not) then you are out of $29.00 and that would be the extent of your
damages. Fraud is very difficult to prove, and also don't believe everything
that you read in the newsgroups either. I have a friend who cliams that
Softram95 makes his computer run better, believe it or not.
My theory (yes its just a theory) is that the Softram 95 is a legitimate
program that does little or nothing for many of us (including me), but FRAUD,
thats pretty serious stuff. Be careful what you accuse people of.
Dave Hensley
> Anybody interested in SoftRAM related developments should check
> out Andrew Schulman's (Unauthorized Windows 95, etc.) Web page
> on it:
>
> ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/examples/windows/win95.update/softram.html
Thanks for that URL; it is indeed an excellent compilation of all the
articles, independent tests, etc. that have been done on Softram.
> Incidentally, if your definition of fraud is selling something that
> does nothing close to what it advertises as doing, and there is
> no way its shortcoming could be a "bug," then you would call
> SoftRAM a fraud.
Personally I think the whole thing is a stock scam. I fully expect to
hear of a handful of people who have cashed in and skipped the
country, once this things finally hits the mainstream media.
> The best defense against fraudulant software is a strong offense:
> make sure as many people as possible know about what is going on.
I noticed only a couple of days ago that CompUSA, Computer City, and
Micro Center are still promoting the hell out of Softram, usually with
standalone point-of-purchase displays that make it far more visible
than its competitors.
Also, I noticed an ad for Softram 95 in a Tiger Direct software
catalog today. The ad copy had to have been produced over a month
ago, so imagine my dismay when I read that "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 ot the memory-gobbling demands of today's
most sizzling 32-bit applications. I'd recommend Softram to anyone,
hands down."
And fingers crossed, no doubt. I've bougt a lot of stuff from Tiger
Direct over the years, and it's disappointing to catch them in such a
shameless display of outright lying about a product.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Dave Hensley
dhen...@connect.net
////////////////////////////////////
John Gunn
live a couple of blocks from this so called company. I walked
over there and they appear to have just a small office in a
large building across from the Culver City Studios.
In California the news media is famous for breaking up sham
companies by exposing them on nightly news. Also there is a
very heavy consumer division in California. I think the best
way to expose these guys is to have someone start something
here in CA. I'll try to do a little more research.
Actually all these so called Ram doublers are a sham. The only
thing I ever saw them do was to increase resources. I think
they all should be required to represent their product for what
it does. There's no replacement for physical RAM. Of course
Soft Ram is just out and out fraudulent as it does absolutely
nothing. It's amazing how it could go on for so long without
being exposed. John
R&S Aldrich
> In article <1995Nov29.2...@lds.loral.com>, wri...@lds.loral.com·
> says...
>
> >The allegations here are not about flaws, but about FRAUD. It's one
> >thing for a program to perform poorly; it's another thing for it not
> >to have any code that even attempts to perform what the product is
> >advertised to do. The idea that "it's cheap so you shouldn't complain"
> >is nonsense. No matter how cheap it is, a product should do what it
> >claims to do.
>
> But, have you been harmed by the "fraud", if you have gotten your money back,
> what is your damages? If you are "stuck" with the software (which I suspect
> you are not) then you are out of $29.00 and that would be the extent of your
> damages. Fraud is very difficult to prove, and also don't believe everything
> that you read in the newsgroups either. I have a friend who cliams that
> Softram95 makes his computer run better, believe it or not.
>
> My theory (yes its just a theory) is that the Softram 95 is a legitimate
> program that does little or nothing for many of us (including me), but FRAUD,
> thats pretty serious stuff. Be careful what you accuse people of.
I agree with Jeff. FRAUD is inaccurate and potentially slanderous. In case
you hadn't heard, Dataquest did a survey of SoftRAM users and found more
than 85 percent were satisfied with the product and ranked it as one of
their best utility programs. You can't deny the product has been marketed
well and, it looks like in many cases, is doing what it says it will for a
large group of people. I've heard they've sold more than 600,000 copies.
mark eugene russinovich
Before anybody makes the claim that SoftRAM does anything, and anybody
defends it against allegations that it is a fraud, read Andrew Schulman's
web site on the topic. If you come away after reading all the data presented
and still think that its not a fraud, I've got some real-estate in
Florida for sale at a great price just for you....
ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/examples/windows/win95.update/softram.html
Fraud is a strong word, and in this case very applicable.
-Mark
========================================================================
Dr. Mark Russinovich
Dept. of Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403
Wk: (503) 346-4840 Hm: (503) 686-5830
========================================================================
tw...@albany.net
>Actually all these so called Ram doublers are a sham. The only
>thing I ever saw them do was to increase resources. I think
>they all should be required to represent their product for what
>it does. There's no replacement for physical RAM.
Take a look at Quarterdeck's MagnaRam. It doesn't promise to double
ram, it only compressed data currently in RAM, thus allowing more
applications to be run. They don't even mention speeding up your
system the way man of the RAM doublers seem to. I tried it and it
works, but it certainly doesn't speed things up. Ram Doubler just bit
dust on my system as it did nothing at all, barely freed up an extra
2% resources..whoopeeeeeeee...Memmaker can do that, and that's free
with Windows.
-T
Chris Richman
>I agree with Jeff. FRAUD is inaccurate and potentially slanderous. In case
The tests would seem to show that the program has little or no effect.
Whether or not there are happy customers, it can still be fraud if it
doesn't do what it claims to. Based on the data I've seen, "fraud" may
be exactly the right word.
chris
--
"Nuke gay baby | Chris Richman | The opinions stated above are
whales for Jesus." | cric...@uiuc.edu | not necessarily the opinions
- J. Pearson | mail for pgp key | of RSC or anyone else.
Hoang Pham
>Micro Center are still promoting the hell out of Softram, usually with
>standalone point-of-purchase displays that make it far more visible
>than its competitors.
Not sure about anywhere else, but the CompUSA store up here in Tukwila,
Washington has been putting SoftRAM on the bargain bin for $9.95. Seems
awfully expensive for a couple of floppies with viruses.
>Also, I noticed an ad for Softram 95 in a Tiger Direct software
>catalog today. The ad copy had to have been produced over a month
>ago, so imagine my dismay when I read that "We tried out Softram
>ourselves - what an incredible difference it makes! We installed
...
>And fingers crossed, no doubt. I've bougt a lot of stuff from Tiger
>Direct over the years, and it's disappointing to catch them in such a
>shameless display of outright lying about a product.
You've got to be kidding. Tiger Software is the hyperbole king, possibly
surpassed only by Damark, purveyor of obsoleted & liquidated electronic
equipment. Anything you can find in Tiger Software, it's either
liquidated (read: worthless if software, compatibility problem if
hardware) or overpriced.
Jeff Hanna
>program that does little or nothing for many of us (including me), but FRAUD,
>thats pretty serious stuff. Be careful what you accuse people of.
Your theory, unfortunately, is wrong. It's been proven by at least 3 different groups, and validated by Microsoft,
that SoftRAM95 is just a repackaging of the swap file drivers that come with Windows. New code is added to
these drivers, but it is never utilized in the running of the program.
SoftRAM, in essence, equates to spending $29.00 for a set of swap file drivers you already own.
To top it off, the Win95 driver they sell is a BETA version. Also all the drivers were recompiled with the debug
option of the compiler turned on so the code is larger and slower than the original drivers which SoftRAM95
replaces.
I just read a post from Microsoft which talks about the fact that they have asked Syncrosys to stop selling
all copies of the software with the MS drivers in it. The also mentioned that the Win95 compatibility logo on the
SoftRAM95 boxes was NOT obtained from MS and that the software does not pass Win95 certification. They
do not know where Syncrosys got the artwork for the logo but have said that it should NOT be on the boxes and
is not there with their permision.
Brien Sullivan
office (nothing serious), and found SoftRam featured there as
possibly (probably) a fraud.
BTW, I am using Hurricane 1.02 on a 386DX40/8megs, and am pleased
with it. If you like tweaking, give it a try.Helix gives users pretty
good support on Compu$erve.
-Brien-
{brie...@dorsai.org}
banerjee sarmistha
Dear Mr. Gunn:
More power to you!
Saunak Basu
On 3 Dec 1995, John Gunn wrote:
> I bought this product and it definitely is a sham. I happen to
> live a couple of blocks from this so called company. I walked
> over there and they appear to have just a small office in a
> large building across from the Culver City Studios.
>
> In California the news media is famous for breaking up sham
> companies by exposing them on nightly news. Also there is a
> very heavy consumer division in California. I think the best
> way to expose these guys is to have someone start something
> here in CA. I'll try to do a little more research.
>
> Actually all these so called Ram doublers are a sham. The only
> thing I ever saw them do was to increase resources. I think
> they all should be required to represent their product for what
Josh Ball
For those of you who are following the SoftRam95 situation look at
the following microsoft article on the WEB.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pr/softram.htm
Apparently, Syncronys was never licensed to use the windows 95
logo. It also talks about allegations that Microsoft beta code was
copied, and mentions that Microsoft sent a cease and desist letter to
Syncronys.
Eric A. Raymond
own products? I suspect it does not go through VeriTest like the rest
of us.
Microsoft Visual C++ 4.0 is a case in which they have a logo'd product
that fails basic requirements of the logo.
I *think* VC++ falls down in two areas which are required for the
Win95 logo. It's possible there are others....
- No support for MAPI (no mail support)
- Not an OLE container or server (I'm not 100% sure on this one)
[I've got two shipping logo'd products under my belt, so I have a
pretty good understanding of the requirements.]
Now you might argue whether or not these would be useful for the
program to support, but the logo requirements don't provide this
leeway. I ran across this when I wanted to mail a file to someone
from inside of VC++, so I would have found that useful.
Please email me and I will post a summary
--
Eric A. Raymond - ray...@btw.com
Rob Mayhew
You got the last one right!
But there are some responsible distributors around. Egghead has
stopped selling ALL Windows-based RAM doubler software, and I have
heard that they are refunding purchases of SoftRAM -- all you need is
the original materials and proof of purchase.
But that's in western Canada. I don't know what they're doing south of
the 49th.
Rob Mayhew Problems worthy of attack
Vancouver, B.C. prove their worth by hitting back.
Canada - - Piet Hein, 1969
wizw...@mindlink.bc.ca - - or - - rlma...@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
Rico Lelina
Is Microsoft taking legal action against Syncrosys? They should not be
allowed to get away with fraud!!!
Bob Holloway
>John Gunn <jaga...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually all these so called Ram doublers are a sham. The only
>>thing I ever saw them do was to increase resources. I think
>>they all should be required to represent their product for what
>>it does. There's no replacement for physical RAM.
>
>ram, it only compressed data currently in RAM, thus allowing more
>applications to be run. They don't even mention speeding up your
>system the way man of the RAM doublers seem to. I tried it and it
>works, but it certainly doesn't speed things up. Ram Doubler just bit
>dust on my system as it did nothing at all, barely freed up an extra
>2% resources..whoopeeeeeeee...Memmaker can do that, and that's free
>with Windows.
>-T
The way Ram Doubler seems to work, it's deceiving if you look at the resource
utilization at only one point. e.g. without RD: 51%, with RD 49%. As you
continue to start more tasks and use more resources, it seems to do a better job
of compressing. e.g. at 12 tasks - without RD: 39%, with RD 34%; 13 tasks -
without RD: 29%, with RD: 37%; 14 tasks - without RD: 18%, with RD: 29%; 15
tasks - without RD: 9%, with RD: 24% (BTW, w/o RD, I'd have crashed trying to
bring up task 14). It's also deceiving with tasks that use only a small
percentage. e.g. If a task uses only 2% w/o RD, it seems to also use 2% with
RD.
Rick Jones
>In article <49pr41$m...@a3bsrv.nai.net>, jte...@nai.net (Jeff Teolis) wrote:
>I agree with Jeff. FRAUD is inaccurate and potentially slanderous. In case
>you hadn't heard, Dataquest did a survey of SoftRAM users and found more
>than 85 percent were satisfied with the product and ranked it as one of
>their best utility programs. You can't deny the product has been marketed
>well and, it looks like in many cases, is doing what it says it will for a
>large group of people. I've heard they've sold more than 600,000 copies.
How's this:
I advertise a breast enlargment kit. You order it and receive a box of
tissue paper. Is this FRAUD or MISREPRESENTATION?
This software company could have sold a piece of paper saying "Change
your temporary swap file to permanent and make it huge".
John Gunn
today regarding my posting of last Sunday:
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 00:33:02 -0700
From: 72143...@compuserve.com (Rainer Poertner)
To: John Gunn <jaga...@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: SOFTRAM -Legal action? I want FEEDBACK!
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps.utilities
John Gunn <jaga...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I bought this product and it definitely is a sham. I happen to
> live a couple of blocks from this so called company. I walked
> over there and they appear to have just a small office in a
> large building across from the Culver City Studios.
>
> In California the news media is famous for breaking up sham
> companies by exposing them on nightly news. Also there is a
> very heavy consumer division in California. I think the best
> way to expose these guys is to have someone start something
> here in CA. I'll try to do a little more research.
>
> Actually all these so called Ram doublers are a sham. The only
> thing I ever saw them do was to increase resources. I think
> they all should be required to represent their product for what
> it does. There's no replacement for physical RAM. Of course
> Soft Ram is just out and out fraudulent as it does absolutely
> nothing. It's amazing how it could go on for so long without
> being exposed. John
John,
It is a shame that you walked over to our building and stopped
short from
coming in to see us. If you had come into our offices, I am
sure that one
of us would have taken the time to talk to you. I believe it
always useful
to get to know the facts. You could have also found out that
these are
only our provisonal offices, while are new office (a whole
8,000 square
foot building right next door, built by Eric Moss) is just in
the final
stages of being built out, so we can move in next week.
We invite you to come back across the street again and meet us,
so we can
convince you that we are for real and that there are a lot of
people
(although we are still a small company) working every day to
make good
products. I hope you will take advantage of this offer and
then inform
your collegues on the net accordingly.
Rainer Poertner
CEO, Syncronys
kenm1
I was at a COMP USA today and noticed that new boxes of SoftRAM state
that is not for WIN95 and that registered users will receive an update
when availble. Now they seem to be admitting the truth for a change.
Mike Wright
>John Gunn <jaga...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>John,
>Rainer Poertner
>CEO, Syncronys
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting; or, the proof of the
software is in its performance. Who cares how big someone's office
space is? That's almost as pointless as saying, "it must be good
software because so many people bought it".
Mike Wright
wri...@lds.loral.com
mdwr...@packet.net
Bill Clay
writes:
#
# For some lab homepage illustrations, we would like to take scans
#of old botanical woodcuts (black & white line art) and add some gentle
#colorization. What comes off the scanner is a 2-color .BMP. Can anyone
#give us a method of promoting this to 16 colors so we can touch it up
#in Win31 Paintbrush (the only paint program the lab happens to have,
#since it came with Windows.)? Or point us to a utility that will
#increase the palette in a .BMP like this?
#
# Thanks very much!
#
# - Jim
Jim,
Open the 2-color BMP in Paintbrush and copy it to the clipboard. Now,
open a new 16-color file of the right size in Paintbrush and paste the image
back in. You will be able to then save the image as a 16-color BMP.
Only drawback of this method is that the image has to be small enough
to fit completely within the viewable area of the Paintbrush window as
Paintbrush truncates images to the viewable area on a Paste operation. If this
is a problem for you try looking at the shareware package PaintShop Pro.
-- Bill
Oliver Voelckers
<jaga...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> So, I got the following response from the CEO of Syncronys
> today regarding my posting of last Sunday:
>
> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 00:33:02 -0700
> From: 72143...@compuserve.com (Rainer Poertner)
> To: John Gunn <jaga...@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: SOFTRAM -Legal action? I want FEEDBACK!
> Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.apps.utilities
>
> John Gunn <jaga...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I bought this product and it definitely is a sham. I happen to
> > live a couple of blocks from this so called company. I walked
> > over there and they appear to have just a small office in a
> > large building across from the Culver City Studios.
> We invite you to come back across the street again and meet us,
> so we can
> convince you that we are for real and that there are a lot of
> people
>
> Rainer Poertner
> CEO, Syncronys
What are these people doing?
Designing new packages and marketing strategies for non-working products?
___
||| Oliver Voelckers, Berlin, Germany, 10041...@compuserve.com
Tim Hunter
In article <30c1359c...@news.connect.net>, dhen...@connect.net (Dave Hensley) writes:
|> Personally I think the whole thing is a stock scam. I fully expect to
|> hear of a handful of people who have cashed in and skipped the
|> country, once this things finally hits the mainstream media.
After reading the descriptions of SoftRAM's internals, I wonder if
Syncronys itself wasn't sold a bill of goods by some lone programmer,
either one who was on their staff or perhaps simply a contract programmer.
It just smells like some smart guy figured out how to make a quick buck
by selling this fictitous product to Syncronys, maybe for a simple one-time
fee, and then disappearing. Certainly the product could have been "written"
by one programmer in a week or two. If so, then Syncronys is not so much
guilty of outright fraud as they are of plain (if profound) stupidity.
|> And fingers crossed, no doubt. I've bougt a lot of stuff from Tiger
|> Direct over the years, and it's disappointing to catch them in such a
|> shameless display of outright lying about a product.
Perhaps in a way whoever perpetuated this fraud is doing us all a favor
by making us a bit more skeptical about claims made by software vendors.
Perhaps this same person or persons is doing other vendors a favor by
making them be more responsible to their audience. Do you think Tiger
Direct is going to continue making up claims about untested software in
the future? I don't think so.
Rainer Poertner
>
> The proof of the pudding is in the tasting; or, the proof of the
> software is in its performance. Who cares how big someone's office
> space is? That's almost as pointless as saying, "it must be good
> software because so many people bought it".
>
> Mike Wright
> wri...@lds.loral.com
> mdwr...@packet.net
I agree Mike, office space does not matter that much. We just need enough
space to do a good job and that is what we are trying to do.
Many people are very happy with our performance. We have been rated #1
now in two comparisons of all RAM doubling ppducts, in PC Today and
Multimedia World (receiving their All Star Award), in addition to the PC
Mag (France)
excellency award. DataQuest says that more then 80% of our customers are
happy with the performance and benefits of SoftRAM.
Rainer Poertner
Mike Shull
>
>>> I bought this product and it definitely is a sham. I happen to
>>> In California the news media is famous for breaking up sham
>>> companies by exposing them on nightly news. Also there is a
>>> very heavy consumer division in California. I think the best
>>> way to expose these guys is to have someone start something
>>> here in CA. I'll try to do a little more research.
>>>
>>> Actually all these so called Ram doublers are a sham. The only
>>> thing I ever saw them do was to increase resources. I think
>>> they all should be required to represent their product for what
>>> it does. There's no replacement for physical RAM. Of course
>>> Soft Ram is just out and out fraudulent as it does absolutely
>>> nothing. It's amazing how it could go on for so long without
>>> being exposed. John
>
>>John,
>The proof of the pudding is in the tasting; or, the proof of the
>software is in its performance. Who cares how big someone's office
>space is? That's almost as pointless as saying, "it must be good
>software because so many people bought it".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Mike Wright
>wri...@lds.loral.com
>mdwr...@packet.net
>
So--how many of you out there bought the Windows game Outpost? Now how many
opened the package to find the slip of paper saying that half the features of
the game didn't work the the current version, but would be released soon as a
patch?
OK--Here's the clincher--how many of you have gotten the patch? Last I
heard, the patch wasn't even available yet, and I bought the game about a
year and a half or so ago.
This is the way software companies make the big bucks off suckers like us.
We ignorantly trust that the software will do everything that the box says it
will.
SoftRAM was one of those items you just had to assume worked. You buy it
knowing that it is the solution it advertises to be to your resource
problems, and it will speed you machine up. You spent the bucks, so you
don't want to admit that you were suckered, so you actually imagine that
"maybe it is going faster." You look at your bill again and say "Yeah! It's
just zooming along!" People ask you if you bought this software and, to
prevent embarrassment, you say "Heheh, it's the best thing since sliced
bread! It turned my 386 into a P6! All my marital problems and my
complexion have cleared up!"
Keep saying it. Maybe one day even you'll believe it. I don't know if it is
a fraud, but I have worked with it before, and am not convinced it does more
than add a few icons to your Windows.
You _are_ perfectly welcome to your own opinion, though.
As a matter of fact--All you people who have seen significant performance
increases from SoftRAM (or other RAM booster/doubler/tweaker) speak up now!
We'd all like to hear that it helped someone.
Brendan Farthing
>Jonathan Campbell <jon...@texas.net> wrote:
Out here in Australia,
The biggest computer retailer here, Harvey-Norman Computer
Superstores, has also recalled all soft-ram from it's shelves and is
offering full refunds for purchasers.
Brendan.
Mike Wright
>In article <1995Dec7.1...@lds.loral.com>, wri...@lds.loral.com wrote:
>>
>> The proof of the pudding is in the tasting; or, the proof of the
>> software is in its performance. Who cares how big someone's office
>> space is? That's almost as pointless as saying, "it must be good
>> software because so many people bought it".
>>
>> Mike Wright
>I agree Mike, office space does not matter that much. We just need enough
>space to do a good job and that is what we are trying to do.
The last place I got any real credit for "trying hard" is in High
School.
>Many people are very happy with our performance. We have been rated #1
>now in two comparisons of all RAM doubling ppducts, in PC Today and
>Multimedia World (receiving their All Star Award), in addition to the PC
>Mag (France)
Hey, it must be good if you got an award, right? What does #1 mean, #1
in sales, or in paid advertising? Just a testament to marketing, not
actual product performance. Let's see some actual test results with
specific details. Typically, most of the reviews I see in the computer
magazines read like they were written by the geek at the local Radio
Shack, "I used software XYZ and it was good".
>excellency award. DataQuest says that more then 80% of our customers are
>happy with the performance and benefits of SoftRAM.
>Rainer Poertner
I'm sure most sick people in the Middle Ages were "happy" with the
results of being bled by the barber/surgeon. In short, they didn't
know any better. I suspect the folks who are "happy" with your product
don't have a clue as to what is *really* going on; that is, it didn't
crash their system, so they're not particularly unhappy with it. The
placebo effect works here, too.
Please answer the specific points raised by SoftRam's critics, and
stop giving us vague political-speak about surveys and awards.
Mike Wright
wri...@lds.loral.com
mdwr...@packet.net
Eric Dowdy
Christopher K.
On Date - Wed, 13 Dec 1995 00:09:24 -0700
The Author - 72143...@compuserve.com (Rainer Poertner)
Posted this Message
ID# <72143.2726-13...@lax-ca24-09.ix.netcom.com>
> In article <48um92$e...@fountain.mindlink.net>, wizw...@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob
> Mayhew) wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure that you're not the only onewho's p----ed off. Consumer law
> > where I live made it easy to get my money back from the retailer who
> > sold SoftRAM to me, but that only pushes the problem onto the
> > retailer, who is (usually) also an innocent party.
> >
> > Some suggestions:
> >
> > Check with the consumer authorities in your state or province. They
> > may or may not be able to act against Syncronys SoftCorp. (the makers
> > of SoftRAM), but they should be able to tell you what you can do about
> > getting your money back from the retailer. If enough retailers are
> > forced to refund the purchase price, they'll stop carrying the
> > product.
> >
> > Syncronys is a California company. That state has some of the most
> > vigorous consumer protection legislation on the continent -- their
> > consumer legislation makes most Canadian consumer legislation look
> > kind of puny. Get in touch with the California authorities, and see
> > what they can do about Syncronys, and what they'll need to pursue it.
> > Contact information is as follows:
> >
> > California Department of Consumer Affairs
> > 400 R St., Suite 1040
> > Sacramento, CA 95814 phone (916) 445-1254
> >
> > Whether you're talking to your consumer authorities or your retailer,
> > don't expect them to take your word for it. Provide them with copies
> > of appropriate reports -- the NSTL report is a good one. It's
> > available at <http://www.pcworld.com/connectix/nstl_report.html>.
> > Also, retailers aren't fond of refunding the purchase price on an
> > opened software package -- too many people have claimed
> > dissatisfaction, returned the manuals and distribution disks, but kept
> > copies of the software. The retailer is much more likely to play ball
> > with you if you offer to exchange the product for a similar product
> > from another supplier instead of demanding a cash refund.
> >
> > for other supporting reports, check out the following, and get copies:
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/~pcmag/special/reports/sr1107.htm
> > http://www.ix.de/ct/Artikel/CT9511/SoftRAM_eng.htm
> > http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/business/95/09/24/silverman.html
> > http://starbase.neosoft.com/~dwights/colm1029.htm
> > http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/business/95/09/03/dwight.html
> > http://www.cnet.com/Central/Hands/softram.html
> >
> > If you're REALLY serious, talk to a lawyer about a class-action suit.
> > But don't sit there and wonder why nobody's done it; if you're not
> > prepared to do it yourself, why do you think you can expect someone
> > else to do it for you?
The Syncronys response from Rainer Poertner begins here:
> Rob Mayhew,
> Sometimes I have to wonder about the motivations and the backgrounds
> of the people involved in this issue.
The motivation: Anger -- an understandable reaction to being taken
advantage of and lied to...
The background: Average computer users who expect a product to
perform as it claims to perform -- especially when it has "Designed
for Windows95" written on it... Again, understandable...
> I would suggest that if you have an issue with us, to also fight it
> directly with us.
He never claimed he had "an issue" with you -- he had already
resolved the "issue" by returning it to the store...
> If you want a refund, you are welcome to it, like anybody else who
> has asked and we have already refunded. There is no issue here, we
> have made it clear in public numerous times what we are going to do
> about all this. It seems that most of our customers are completetly
> satisfied with the action we have taken.
Why not explain the "refund" policy right here, right now... How
exactly does it work? How is a person guaranteed payment? Do you
send a *written* "IOU" to the customer before the person returns the
"software"?
> I would kindly ask you to refrain from portraying a situation that
> does not exist the way you show it. No one needs to use a lawyer to
> get a refund or the new patch, we are already doing it and we have
> taken all other necessarry actions to avoid confusion for the
> customer.
The "situation" exists exactly as *everyone* portrays it... It's now
December 13 as I write this -- Does Syncronys even have a Web Site
yet? And, about the "new patch" -- what is the estimated release
date now?
> Why don't you give us some credit for all the credible actions we
> have taken. I must ask you to refrain from further slander.
Credible??... I have seen no evidence of anything "credible" in your
business operations since Day 1...
Slander??... In no way, whatsoever, did Rob Mayhew "slander" you in
his very well written post. What Rob did was offer some very
intelligent information to disgruntled customers...
Perhaps you should ask Microsoft to "refrain from further slander"
also -- not to mention numerous leading magazines, universities,
programmers, ask most importantly - the consumers...
You know... the last time I checked, this was still the United
States of America -- a land where you could freely voice your
opinions and exchange information without oppression...
> We are standing up for our mistakes and trying hard to make everybody
> happy.
> Rainer Poertner
> CEO, Syncronys Softcorp
We would all like to believe that you are "standing up for your
mistakes" and "trying hard to make everybody happy" - just as we all
wanted to believe that SoftRAM95 worked as advertised...
Only time will tell -- you have a tough crowd to convince...
Disclaimer:
I know Rainer's message was not directed at Me -- it was directed at
Rob Mayhew... However - I just hate this guy -- and I become
INFURIATED anytime I hear him talk his SoftRAM95 propaganda...
========================================================
Christopher K. - c...@carroll.com
Bergen County, New Jersey
========================================================
Stephen Cheung
Is it true that your company threatened to sue Microsoft because they
were telling customers on their product support line that SoftRam was
useless? (same story discusses similar problems with Norton '95, both
from MS-CP's.)
To: Anyone who works at Microsoft Tech Support
Can anyone there corroborate this with an memo from Bill? As a consumer,
I would certainly want to get good information from my OS manufacturer,
and if you know that a product's gonna be useless/cause headaches, I
wanna know!
-- a concerned consumer!
Michael P. Deignan
...
> If you're REALLY serious, talk to a lawyer about a class-action suit.
> But don't sit there and wonder why nobody's done it; if you're not
> prepared to do it yourself, why do you think you can expect someone
> else to do it for you?
Of course, you could always do what some local people are apparently
doing -- they're taking photocopies of an article that ran in Time(?)
magazine, and taping it to SoftRAM boxes and display shelves at the
local Computer superstores, complete with the appropriate paragraphs
highlighted so misinformed consumers will not mistakenly purchase a
program that doesn't do what it claims.
I have to admit, it was pretty funny when I saw it.... It reminds me
of a suggestion people used to make on comp.dcom.telecom about COCOTs
that didn't function according to tarrif regulations... They used to
recommend carrying a supply of big red stickers that said "OUT OF
ORDER -- MALFUNCTIONING ACCORDING TO TARIFF". It would be pretty
amusing if people started slapping similar stickers on all the
SoftRAM boxes in their local computer superstores.
MD
--
--
-- "Who needs looks when you've got taste?"
--
Ed Hanway
:
: |> Personally I think the whole thing is a stock scam. I fully expect to
: |> hear of a handful of people who have cashed in and skipped the
: |> country, once this things finally hits the mainstream media.
:
: After reading the descriptions of SoftRAM's internals, I wonder if
: Syncronys itself wasn't sold a bill of goods by some lone programmer,
: either one who was on their staff or perhaps simply a contract programmer.
: It just smells like some smart guy figured out how to make a quick buck
: by selling this fictitous product to Syncronys, maybe for a simple one-time
: fee, and then disappearing. Certainly the product could have been "written"
: by one programmer in a week or two. If so, then Syncronys is not so much
: guilty of outright fraud as they are of plain (if profound) stupidity.
If that's the case (and I doubt it), then they still deserve the consequences,
since it would mean that they shipped a product to paying customers with
absolutely zero quality control, then refused to acknowledge the problems
(except for the partial admission about Windows95). It's a shade better than
being outright crooks, but I still wouldn't buy any of their products.
: Perhaps in a way whoever perpetuated this fraud is doing us all a favor
: by making us a bit more skeptical about claims made by software vendors.
: Perhaps this same person or persons is doing other vendors a favor by
: making them be more responsible to their audience.
It should really send a wakeup call to users, reviewers, and resellers
that they shouldn't take product claims at face value. It's a sad comment
on the state of the software industry that the product is still on the
shelves. If we weren't so used to late shipping software laden with bugs and
missing promised features, this thing would have been pulled within a week
and state attorney generals offices would probably be investigating.
: Do you think Tiger
: Direct is going to continue making up claims about untested software in
: the future? I don't think so.
Only if enough people return the package to cause them some grief.
--
Ed Hanway <han...@ekfido.kodak.com>
Eastman Kodak - Motion Picture & Television Imaging, Cineon Development
Opinions expressed are my own, except the ones which aren't.
Michael Carpenter
performance. Much like the Polk auto surveys of customer
satisfaction.
On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 23:51:40 -0700, 72143...@compuserve.com
(Rainer Poertner) wrote:
> DataQuest says that more then 80% of our customers are
>happy with the performance and benefits of SoftRAM.
Michael Carpenter-------------------------------------------------
mc...@ionet.net / mc...@qns.com / mc...@well.com
mc...@cis.compuserve.com
Mr. Slippery
Carpenter) wrote:
Oh, come on. This is Synchronys we're talking about! The distortion
level is much worse than that!
Read the DataQuest Survey results -- they only counted the owners who
were still using Window 3.x, even though the vast bulk of SoftRAM sales
were the "SoftRAM95" version (before the news that it did literally
_nothing_ under Win'95 leaked out). Under Windows 3.x, Softram at least
manages to ignore the user's requested limit of the swapfile size, so it
can appear to have (for the naive) some effect.
But it took Syncronous' spin to extend this perceived "satisfaction
level" (by this subset of Win3.x users) to _all_ customers! Gee, I wonder
why they didn't publish the satisfaction levels of Win'95 users?
Jim
two times the Windows 95 version would be released
on 12-15-95. I just got off the phone with them
1-(800)-808-0064 and guess what!!! Now they say the
updates will not ne ready until January 1996!!!!
They did say I could have a refund by sending SoftRan
to:
Syncronous
C/O Starpak
237 22 Street
Greeley Co 80631
What's going on with this company anyway and who is
Starpak?
Jim
James
> Of course, this is a measure of consumer perception, not actual
> performance. Much like the Polk auto surveys of customer
> satisfaction.
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 23:51:40 -0700, 72143...@compuserve.com
> (Rainer Poertner) wrote:
>
> > DataQuest says that more then 80% of our customers are
> >happy with the performance and benefits of SoftRAM.
>
> Michael Carpenter-------------------------------------------------
> mc...@ionet.net / mc...@qns.com / mc...@well.com
> mc...@cis.compuserve.com
I'm one of the 80% DataQuest must be talking about. I took SoftRAM
back and demanded (and GOT!) a refund!
Rich Graves
In article <72143.2726-13...@lax-ca24-09.ix.netcom.com>,
72143...@compuserve.com (Rainer Poertner) wrote:
> In article <48um92$e...@fountain.mindlink.net>, wizw...@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob
> Mayhew) wrote:
> >
> > If you're REALLY serious, talk to a lawyer about a class-action suit.
> > But don't sit there and wonder why nobody's done it; if you're not
> > prepared to do it yourself, why do you think you can expect someone
> > else to do it for you?
>
> Rob Mayhew,
>
> Sometimes I have to wonder about the motivations and the backgrounds of
> the people involved in this issue. I would suggest that if you have an
> issue with us, to also fight it directly with us. If you want a refund,
> you are welcome to it, like anybody else who has asked and we have already
> refunded. There is no issue here, we have made it clear in public numerous
> times what we are going to do about all this. It seems that most of our
> customers are completetly satisfied with the action we have taken.
>
> I would kindly ask you to refrain from portraying a situation that does
> not exist the way you show it. No one needs to use a lawyer to get a
> refund or the new patch, we are already doing it and we have taken all
> other necessarry actions to avoid confusion for the customer. Why don't
> you give us some credit for all the credible actions we have taken. I must
> ask you to refrain from further slander.
>
> We are standing up for our mistakes and trying hard to make everybody
> happy.
>
> Rainer Poertner
> CEO, Syncronys Softcorp
Rainer,
Until I read this, I had been more or less on your side, because of
certain irregularities in Microsoft's account of this affair and my
knowledge of Microsoft's history. However, now I think you're a crook.
Mr. Mayhew has said absolutely nothing that is in any way libelous. He has
pointed out a Consumer Affairs line (a toll call) and has provided several
good technical references, most of which have links to your side of the
story.
You, on the other hand, have said nothing helpful. You have not posted
anything that would help anyone obtain the refunds or patches you claim
you are willing to provide. You have not given any specifics about what
the public statements of your company have been, or how one might find
them. All you have posted is a vague assertion of responsibility, with no
evidence to back it up, and a wholly unjustified slander threat.
This simply smells rotten to me. Your only motivation appears to be to
discourage users from contacting the relevant consumer protection
authorities.
I hadn't planned to follow this issue at all -- I never bought SoftRAM,
and I'm not close to anyone who did -- but I believe I will follow this
issue now.
Posted and emailed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Windows PGP tools at http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/
iQCVAwUBMNU7To3DXUbM57SdAQFZgAP/cCVTIVQg8FWzlEYSxNEK4SNFw8Z7qtS+
kY0TI8mh5xq79GPjuh2s9sL87ffDLANOXdPIcANlJwSD9uKi2F7pAiZhimCLeEq5
viQM8PgXIa3LYikwPEXBaAIC8ipgJe/5NFAFWenXskyjgr1jLoozni6j7wcc/ss2
meybe0t8zss=
=KmQj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
rich
owner-win...@lists.stanford.edu
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/mailing-lists/win95netbugs/
gopher://quixote.stanford.edu/1m/win95netbugs
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/win95netbugs/faq.html
Joe Heugly
>us some credit for all the credible actions we have taken. I must ask you
>to refrain from further slander.
>
>We are standing up for our mistakes and trying hard to make everybody
>happy.
>
>Rainer Poertner
>CEO, Syncronys Softcorp
Why did you use the Windows 95 logo without meeting Microsoft's requirements?
Why does the box say it works with Win95, when it doesn't?
I, like many other software buyers, feel you deliberately misled the buyers
with false claims on your packaging and in your advetisements, just to make a
fast profit using "95" on your product. Giving refunds to those who took the
time to discover your deception, and writing patches to try to rectify the
situation after being caught, does not make things all right.
My opinion,
Joe Heugly
Ed Ellers
says...
>Of course, you could always do what some local people are apparently doing
>-- they're taking photocopies of an article that ran in Time(?) magazine,
>and taping it to SoftRAM boxes and display shelves at the local Computer
>superstores, complete with the appropriate paragraphs highlighted so
>misinformed consumers will not mistakenly purchase a program that doesn't do
>what it claims.
>
>I have to admit, it was pretty funny when I saw it.... It reminds me of a
>suggestion people used to make on comp.dcom.telecom about COCOTs that didn't
>function according to tarrif regulations... They used to recommend carrying
>a supply of big red stickers that said "OUT OF ORDER -- MALFUNCTIONING
>ACCORDING TO TARIFF". It would be pretty amusing if people started slapping
>similar stickers on all the SoftRAM boxes in their local computer
>superstores.
Of course it would probably get you thrown out of the store, if not arrested.
(This brings to mind the people who supposedly were running a campaign
against pay toilets -- the story has it that they carried rolls of white
tape, and when they came across a pay toilet they'd tape the lock so that it
would not lock, and wrote "No Pay To Pee" on the tape.)
Oliver Voelckers
(Rob Mayhew) wrote:
> .. there are some responsible distributors around. Egghead has
> stopped selling ALL Windows-based RAM doubler software, and I have
> heard that they are refunding purchases of SoftRAM
RAM Doubler is a product by Connectix which came out for the Mac first. It
works fine on the Mac, still good in the Win 3.1 version, but doesn't help
under Win95. It is NOT comparable to the "SoftRAM" vaporware.
Oliver Voelckers
72143...@compuserve.com (Rainer Poertner) wrote:
> I agree Mike, office space does not matter that much. We just need enough
> space to do a good job and that is what we are trying to do.
Obviously, SoftRAM has NOT been a good job for the customers. Only for
those who made money with it.
> Many people are very happy with our performance. We have been rated #1
> now in two comparisons of all RAM doubling ppducts, in PC Today and
> Multimedia World (receiving their All Star Award), in addition to the PC
> Mag (France)
> excellency award. DataQuest says that more then 80% of our customers are
> happy with the performance and benefits of SoftRAM.
Several German magazines have written about SoftRAM and others. While
those with no technical background obviously believed everything they were
told, the more technical magazines agree that SoftRAM has *NO* positive
effect except for what you can set yourself without paying.
I don't believe a word of what Mr. Poertner writes.
Michael P. Deignan
Ed Ellers <edel...@shivasys.com> wrote:
>(This brings to mind the people who supposedly were running a campaign
>against pay toilets -- the story has it that they carried rolls of white
>tape, and when they came across a pay toilet they'd tape the lock so that it
>would not lock, and wrote "No Pay To Pee" on the tape.)
Well, that's not exactly the same, since there is no indication that the
toilet is not working as is intended for your $0.10.
A more accurate analogy would be: I could see putting white stickers across the
front of the door if the door said: "Toilet inside - pay $0.10" and when
you opened the stall door, you got a urinal.
Mulder
SLOW MY SYSTEM DOWN IF IT DID ANYTHING
ITS A JOKE
Rainer Poertner
(Mr. Slippery) wrote:
> In article <30d10cb3....@ion2.ionet.net>, mc...@qns.com (Michael
> Carpenter) wrote:
>
> > Of course, this is a measure of consumer perception, not actual
> > performance. Much like the Polk auto surveys of customer
> > satisfaction.
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 23:51:40 -0700, 72143...@compuserve.com
> > (Rainer Poertner) wrote:
> >
> > > DataQuest says that more then 80% of our customers are
> > >happy with the performance and benefits of SoftRAM.
> >
> > Michael Carpenter-------------------------------------------------
> > mc...@ionet.net / mc...@qns.com / mc...@well.com
> > mc...@cis.compuserve.com
>
> Oh, come on. This is Synchronys we're talking about! The distortion
> level is much worse than that!
> Read the DataQuest Survey results -- they only counted the owners who
> were still using Window 3.x, even though the vast bulk of SoftRAM sales
> were the "SoftRAM95" version (before the news that it did literally
> _nothing_ under Win'95 leaked out). Under Windows 3.x, Softram at least
> manages to ignore the user's requested limit of the swapfile size, so it
> can appear to have (for the naive) some effect.
> But it took Syncronous' spin to extend this perceived "satisfaction
> level" (by this subset of Win3.x users) to _all_ customers! Gee, I wonder
> why they didn't publish the satisfaction levels of Win'95 users?
Mr. Slippery,
We have always clearly stated that the DataQuest survey only applied to
SoftRAM users under Windows 3.1. In October, We already publically
announced that the Windows 95 version is not working properly and that we
will release an upgrade in the near future. By now everybody out there
knows about the problem with SoftRAM 95 for Windows 95 .
Rainer Poertner
Rainer Poertner
llu...@networking.stanford.edu (Rich Graves) wrote:
>
> Rainer,
>
> Until I read this, I had been more or less on your side, because of
> certain irregularities in Microsoft's account of this affair and my
> knowledge of Microsoft's history. However, now I think you're a crook.
>
> Mr. Mayhew has said absolutely nothing that is in any way libelous. He has
> pointed out a Consumer Affairs line (a toll call) and has provided several
> good technical references, most of which have links to your side of the
> story.
>
> You, on the other hand, have said nothing helpful. You have not posted
> anything that would help anyone obtain the refunds or patches you claim
> you are willing to provide. You have not given any specifics about what
> the public statements of your company have been, or how one might find
> them. All you have posted is a vague assertion of responsibility, with no
> evidence to back it up, and a wholly unjustified slander threat.
>
> This simply smells rotten to me. Your only motivation appears to be to
> discourage users from contacting the relevant consumer protection
> authorities.
>
> I hadn't planned to follow this issue at all -- I never bought SoftRAM,
> and I'm not close to anyone who did -- but I believe I will follow this
> issue now.
>
We are not discouraging anybody from anything. We have posted many times
all kinds of opportunites on how to get a refund if you are dissatisfied.
This has been widely publized (like never before) in the press throughout
the US. As a matter of fact, it always has been our policy to process
refunds for dissatisfied customers.
I think this issue has gotten more attetion than anyhting else lately.
Rainer Poertner
Rainer Poertner
jca...@unconfigured.xvnews.domain wrote:
Jim,
We have not lied, we have just simply extended our testing cycle and the
number of people involved, since we need to make very sure that there is no
issue this time. I believe this should be in yours and in the consumers' best
interest. We have been burned badly one time, and we are hard at work to avoid
the second burn. We will make the new release date available as soon as we
know better.
Starpack, is our turn-key manufacturer and tech support company. They also
do Broderbund and Hewlett Packard.
Rainer Poertner
Oliver Voelckers
Holloway) wrote:
> tw...@albany.net wrote:
> >John Gunn <jaga...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Actually all these so called Ram doublers are a sham. There's no
replacement for physical RAM.
> >
> >Take a look at Quarterdeck's MagnaRam. It doesn't promise to double
> >ram, it only compressed data currently in RAM
>
> The way Ram Doubler seems to work...
Please note that the product "RAMdoubler" from the company Connectix is
NOT comparable to some bad imitations. The original RAMdoubler was written
for the Macintosh, where I am just now using it. It works fine. There is
also a Win3.1 version of this software, but no Win95 version.
Connectix has been producing high-quality software for years. It is not a
one-product-company. They did not promote RAMdoubler for Windows very much
because it doesn't help with Win95, so they did NOT promise it would.
The producer of SoftRAM did obviously not have a finished product, just an
empty box. Large numbers of these boxes were sold on the basis of unheld
promises.
RAMdoubler has a good name among those who can differentiate. This is why
SoftRAM boxes got a sticker "The true RAMdoubler" to add to the confusion.
Very bad business.
(A satisfied customer of the Original RAMdoubler)
Jon Biddell
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jon Biddell & Associates Pty Ltd | jbid...@ozemail.com.au |
James Moore
Poertner) wrote:
Dear Sir,
Your attitude appears a little disingenious,first you allow a product
to be released that does not perform the function to which it was
intended,then you allow the product to stay on the store shelves
allowing more customers to be duped. I'm just a simple electrical
contractor in N.C. but if I did the on one of my contracts not mention
thousands I would be hauled before the State Board of Examiners my
license would be revolted and I would probably be prosecuted by the
State Attorneys Office. Does the term fraud have any meaning to you?
You would be hard pressed to explain why you released this product
without extensive testing on the released version of win95 (testing is
such a relative term don't you think)or why its still on the stores
shelves at all the major computer stores at here in Charlotte they
are. Now to Quote my grand mother( If it don't come out the
wash,it'll come out in the rinse)
I'm dancing as fast asI can
Stephen R. Davis
Since when has it been slander to tell the truth?
(or, are you having trouble with "truth" these days??)
-Steve
Stephen R. Davis
Even if Connectix or other software companies are producing
quality products that do as advertised, the fraud perpertrated
upon the public by the folks who brought the world SoftRam will
make consumers such as myself VERY skeptical about claims of
RAM doubling. I had been considering trying one of the many RAM
doublers on the market today; Now, it might be more prudent to
save my money and buy that bridge in Brooklyn....
-Steve
Eric A. Wenger
past two weeks. Syncronys says that the product works for
Win 3.1 etc. but not for Win 95. It has issued a recall. If you
bought the product to use for Win 95 you can get a refund.
Syncronys also claims that the FTC has opened an investigation into
SoftRAM95, but the FTC will neither confirm nor deny this.
kki...@online.dct.com (Karl Kilian) wrote:
>The other day, when I was at the checkout of my local Best Buy store, I
>couldn't help but notice a message posted next to the register, where the
>clerks could see it. It said that employees shouldn't sell SoftRAM95 to
>anyone for any reason...
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Karl ("Mad Dog") Kilian | Web: http://online.dct.com/~kkilian/
>kki...@online.dct.com | BBS: The UPS Depot, 414-339-9377
>mad...@depot.netnet.net | or telnet to depot.netnet.net
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>I am Pentium of Borg. Division is useless. You will be approximated.
Karl Kilian
Walter Dowis
Windows 95?
joe simmer
kki...@online.dct.com (Karl Kilian) wrote:
>The other day, when I was at the checkout of my local Best Buy store, I
>couldn't help but notice a message posted next to the register, where the
>clerks could see it. It said that employees shouldn't sell SoftRAM95 to
>anyone for any reason...
SoftRAM95 (it was on their shelf of top ten software). I informed the manager
on duty that Softram was recalling the software but their attitude was along
the line of "we haven't heard about it so it stays". Told them to check out
this Usenet group if they don't belive me. Maybe I'll check back today and
find out if they believe me now.
Joe
Mike Wright
This manager probably does not even know what Usenet is. If he does
know, he probably doesn't care. I can't imagine a store manager (who
is probably answerable to some profit-oriented corporate higher-ups)
making a decision to pull a top-selling item based on what some
unknown people are saying in some discussion group.
Mike Wright
wri...@lds.loral.com
mdwr...@packet.net
wri...@sabu.ebay.sun.com
-----------------------------------------------------
The SoftRAM story has been featured in newspapers and trade
publications for over a month. CRN has printed many
articles about the problem. It is amazing that Media Play
would still sell this software.
It is not "unknown people in some discussion group!"
Sabu
Louis M. Fegan
>>>The other day, when I was at the checkout of my local Best Buy store, I
>>>couldn't help but notice a message posted next to the register, where the
>>>clerks could see it. It said that employees shouldn't sell SoftRAM95 to
>>>anyone for any reason...
>>I was at the local Media Play store New Years Eve and they were STILL selling
>>SoftRAM95 (it was on their shelf of top ten software). I informed the manager
>>on duty that Softram was recalling the software but their attitude was along
>>the line of "we haven't heard about it so it stays". Told them to check out
>>this Usenet group if they don't belive me. Maybe I'll check back today and
>>find out if they believe me now.
>
>This manager probably does not even know what Usenet is. If he does
>know, he probably doesn't care. I can't imagine a store manager (who
>is probably answerable to some profit-oriented corporate higher-ups)
>making a decision to pull a top-selling item based on what some
>unknown people are saying in some discussion group.
Regards,
lmf
If it were only a few "unknown" people, I would agree, but anyone in the business
should have already seen the industry wide criticism of SoftRAM95. Besides, EVERY
package of SoftRAM95 I have seen recently, is very clearly marked to indicate that
it does not work with '95, but that a free upgrade will be available. This manager
may be answerable to "higher-ups", but they are answerable to the customers who
will take the product back, and never do business there again.
Dave Hensley
> Any information if Connectix is going to produce a RAMdoubler for
> Windows 95?
They have said they are working on a Win 95 version, but as far as I
know there's been no announced ship date.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Dave Hensley
dhen...@connect.net
////////////////////////////////////
Derek Wild
> 8 MB of RAM in order to get my machine to boot up long enough to unistall the shit
software. If you're going to buy it, take 30 buck out of your wallet and wipe
your ass with it.
>
Mike Wright
>>>I was at the local Media Play store New Years Eve and they were STILL selling
>>>SoftRAM95 (it was on their shelf of top ten software). I informed the manager
>>>on duty that Softram was recalling the software but their attitude was along
>>>the line of "we haven't heard about it so it stays". Told them to check out
>>>this Usenet group if they don't belive me. Maybe I'll check back today and
>>>find out if they believe me now.
>>
>>This manager probably does not even know what Usenet is. If he does
>>know, he probably doesn't care. I can't imagine a store manager (who
>>is probably answerable to some profit-oriented corporate higher-ups)
>>making a decision to pull a top-selling item based on what some
>>unknown people are saying in some discussion group.
>If it were only a few "unknown" people, I would agree, but anyone in the business
>should have already seen the industry wide criticism of SoftRAM95. Besides, EVERY
>package of SoftRAM95 I have seen recently, is very clearly marked to indicate that
>it does not work with '95, but that a free upgrade will be available. This manager
>may be answerable to "higher-ups", but they are answerable to the customers who
>will take the product back, and never do business there again.
I agree with you that anyone who is paying attention to the industry
publications knows about SoftRAM's problems, but my post was in
response to the somewhat ludicrous idea that a retail store manager
would remove a top-selling product based solely on a Usenet
discussion. I wasn't trying to vindicate the manager, I was only
pointing out that he was probably clueless.
Mike Wright
wri...@lds.loral.com
mdwr...@packet.net
Steven Fischer
>If it were only a few "unknown" people, I would agree, but anyone in the business
>should have already seen the industry wide criticism of SoftRAM95. Besides, EVERY
>package of SoftRAM95 I have seen recently, is very clearly marked to indicate that
>it does not work with '95, but that a free upgrade will be available. This manager
>may be answerable to "higher-ups", but they are answerable to the customers who
>will take the product back, and never do business there again.
A friend of mine was having trouble getting his money back at a store, so
I gave him my copy of InfoWorld with the article to show to the
dealer....he got is money back.
--------------------------GO BIG RED--------------------------------
Regards, Steven Fischer, PE sfis...@televar.com
Nebraska Cornhuskers - 1994 & 1995 National Champs
#1, again!!!!!!!
Ric Shipley
72143...@compuserve.com says.......
..>
..>We have not lied, we have just simply extended our testing cycle and the
..>number of people involved, since we need to make very sure that there is no
..>issue this time. I believe this should be in yours and in the consumers' best
..>interest. We have been burned badly one time, and we are hard at work to avoid
..>the second burn. We will make the new release date available as soon as we
..>know better.
..>
What is the best estimate of the new release date?
