Cris Mooney A Personal Web Page: Though I work for Jump Development Group, the opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of Jump Development Group, nor its employees.

Last Updated Sept 12, 1996 Connectix vs. SoftRAM It is extremely important to note that the RAM Charger product has no relation to the SoftRAM product line. We have entered into an agreement with Syncronys to sell RAM Charger. However, RAM Charger is still maintained, and owned, by Jump Development Group. Syncronys has no responsibility for the development of RAM Charger. Moreover, contrary to some false reports, RAM Charger is the direct continuation of the work OptiMem. We have always understood the clear difference between RAM Charger and RAM compression enhancements (explaining this seems to be my major job in life). It was never our intention that RAM Charger be a "Mac" SoftRAM. In fact, a completely disjoint Mac-SoftRAM project was started in parallel to the continued development of RAM Charger. That said, I still feel compelled to talk about the SoftRAM conflict since I probably know as much or more than all the other people who claim to have some clue... Andrew Schulman, who had consulted for Connectix, and who had recently written "Unauthorized Windows 95," was quick to criticize SoftRAM. His technique, to backwards engineer software, was the same as that used in "Unauthorized Windows 95." Personally, spending my life tracking down bugs in other people's software, I can testify that this is a very controversial approach. After 15 years of programming, I am convinced that most programmers do not have a full understanding about how their software works, never mind those who have no access to the source code. Anyone who says otherwise is hopelessly idealistic, or a liar. Andrew Schulman and friends successfully derailed the SoftRAM phenomenon. However, despite the fact that they may have had some grounds, their credibility is shaky for two important reasons: First, they regularly failed to draw differences between the two products SoftRAM and SoftRAM95 (applying statements about the new SoftRAM95 which was insignificant in sales, to the original SoftRAM offering). Second, they assumed guilty until proven innocent, claiming Syncronys intentionally ripped off the public, rather than allowing the possibility of confusion about details, or unintentional negligence on behalf of Syncronys. Someday I expect to write more on this issue... Hit Count: