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
![](RCgrnicon.20x20.gif)
Connectix vs. SoftRAM
![](RCclip.42x42.gif)
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:
|