                    Dr. Mark Russinovich
                    Department of Computer Science
                    University of Oregon
                    Eugene, OR 97403
                    (503) 343-6584
                    mer@cs.uoregon.edu
        
                    October 23, 1995

Dear Sirs:

I am writing in regard to your SoftRAM 95 product and possible
misrepresentation of the product's capabilities and features. Let me
introduce myuself by saying that I have a PhD in computer engineering,
am employed as a research scientist in the Computer Science Department at
the University of Oregon, and have several years of Windows device
driver experience including two pending publications in Dr. Dobb's Journal.

I recently purchased SoftRAM 95 based on its high visibility in Egg Head 
Software's poduct catalog and a television advertisement. Over the course
of the first week that I used the program I detected no change in the memory
characteristics of my Winbdows 95 computer system. However, I was lead to
believe from the advertising and the product documentation that the memory
resources I would perceive would be approximately double that of my
computer's physical memory capacity. I therefore decided to investigate by
stepping through the SoftRAM 95 device driver codee (called dynapage.vxd)
with Nu Mega Technologies' Soft-ICE 95 advanced Windows debugger. What I
discovered in my ensuing exploration shocked me.

The first thing that I found lies in SoftRAM's initialization code which
appears in the Pagefile_Init_FIle module. It is in this module that the
driver queries the Windows system.ini file for a parameter called
SoftRamMaxPhys, a paremeter that represents the percentage of the computer's
memory SoftRAM will take for its own purposes. The documentation implies
that this will be used as a percentage of the computer's physical memory,
but in actuality it represents a percentage of the amount of free memory
that exists after Windows has completed its initialization. The default
for the parameter is 100 so the device tries to allocate for itself all
the memory Windows reports to it as free. Unfortunately, Windows 95 will
not let this entire space be allocated, so the memory allocation call
invariably fails. Upon detecting this failure, SoftRAM quietly disables
any special memory management and then only provides the basic
functionality of a paging device. This behavior is outrageous. I would
estimate that well over 90% of consumer's will install the product without
changing the default settings, meaning that well over 90% of users will
get absolutely nothing for their $30, not ever realizing it since SoftRAM
does not take any corrective action or even inform them of its problem.

But that isn't the end of the story. Since my suspicions were aroused by
SoftRAM's initial deceit, I decided to pursue my investigation into what
SoftRAM does when it gets past the first allocation successfully. I lowered
the SoftRamMaxPhys setting to a value that allowed it to allocate the memory
it requested and then, again using Soft-ICE, begain exploring the behavior
of the Pagefile_Read_Or_Write routine. This is the main entry point to the
product after intialization and is where it should be performing its
advertised "patent pending" compression technology. Much to my chagrin, I
discovered after careful study of the routine that _there is no compression
taking place whatsoever_. I created environments where the amount of memory
my applications were using wer triple my computer's physical capacity and
still found no compression. The only thing SoftRAM does is copy data to and
from its grabbed memory. In fact, the copy routine is written in an
inefficient manner that one would expect from a beginning assembly language
programmer. So, it appears that even if the product remains enabled after
initialization, it still does no do anything for the consumer except slow
their machine down.

The last thing I explored was the use of the so-called _advanced settings_.
The documentation describes roughly five variables that the expert user can
tune to control SoftRAM's behavior. One of them is even called SoftRamSpeed 
and one is lead to believe that this setting will control the type of
compression used. I found this interesting considering the fact that I
found NO compression. Tracing through the device confirmed my expecation
that NONE of the parameters are used by SoftRAM.

This product strikes me as blatant misrepresentation. This list summarizes
what I found:
    - The product disables itself without warning under the default
        installation
    - There is no compression being used even during its normal operation
    - The programming within it actually slows down a user's machine
    - The 5 or so setting described in the documentation are disregarded

When I compare this to the following advertised claims, all taken from the
product's documenation, I find that Syncronous Softcorp. has grossly
misrepresented itself in not just one, but in several ways:

    - "...SoftRAM 95 now achieves RAM compression ratios of up to 5x
         and higher."
    - "...instantly speed up Windows."
    - "...used patent pending RAM compression technology..."
    - "...RAM Analyst dynamically tracks and records the memory
        requirements of the application you use and optimizes
        performance based on your patterns of usage."
    - Advanced setting allow the user to configure SoftRAM's behavior

The major points are that the SoftRAM product is by default disabled, and
a performance liability to the consumer when enabled. My ultimate concerns
lie with the fact that I, as well as possibly hundreds of thousands of
consumers, have all squandered $30 because we have been misled in a
malicious manner. I am writing to you so that any misconceptions I have
can be clarified before I make a judgement on whether or not to make the
information contained in this letter public.


                    Sincerely, 

    
                    Dr. Mark Russinovich


Note: The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the
University of Oregon or the Department of Computer Science.

;----------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Dr, Mark Russinovich
                    Department of Computer Science
                    University of Oregon
                    Eugene, OR 97403
                    (503) 343-6584
                    mer@cs.uoregon.edu


Dear Mr. Portner,

I was very pleased to receive your FAX wherein you outlined the steps that
had been taken once the problems with SoftRAM 95 were discovered. The press
release you enclosed confirms what you told me via our phone conversation
that the necessary steps are being taken to correct the current situation.
I am truly sorry that this entire affair was not avoided with a short 
phone call last week.

I thereby formally retract the letter that was posted on the internet 
concerning Syncronous Softcorp.'s SoftRAM 95 product. The information and
opinions contained within it were incorrect and unsubstantiated. I also
apologize for any harm or inconvenience that it may have caused Mr.
Rainer Portner, president of Syncronous Softcorp., or the Syncronous
Softcorp. organization as a whole and for any deceptive or harmful
intentions that I may have ascribed to Syncronous Softcorp.

                    Sincerely,


                    Dr. Mark Russinovich

;----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Dr. Mark Russinovich
                                Department of Computer Science
                                University of Oregon
                                Eugene, OR 97403
                                (503) 343-6584
                                mer@cs.uoregon.edu
    
                                November 9, 1995



Dear Sirs:

On October 23 I made public on the Internet a letter documenting my
experiences with Syncronys Softcorp's SoftRAM 95 (Windows 95 version)
product.  That letter described the failure of Syncronys to
incorporate the basic functionality (memory compression) advertised
for SoftRAM (see attachment).  My primary desire in making the
information public was to ensure that purchasers of SoftRAM would
learn of SoftRAM's gross failure to provide its advertised
functionality, and be offered the chance to receive reimbursement or
free upgrades to a working product.

Following the release of that letter I conversed with representatives
of Syncronys who admitted to a portion of the problems, stated that
they had made a public disclosure of the problems, and threatened me
with legal action if I did not withdraw my letter.  Since my primary
goal was to educate Syncronys customers, and I believed at that time
that Syncronys was acting in good faith to protect their customers'
best interests (and was certainly not interested in a legal battle),
I released a retraction of my letter on October 31 and considered the
matter settled.

Unfortunately, since that time I have learned that the shortcomings
of Syncronys Softcorp's software extends also to the Windows 3.1
version, which I determined after performing a detailed analysis of
their code.  What I discovered is that the device drivers
Softram1.386 and Softram2.386, which supposedly contain Syncronys'
"patent pending" technology, are virtually exact duplicates of the
Pagefile.386 and Pageswap.386 sample device drivers that are provided
by Microsoft with their Windows 3.1 Device Driver Kit (DDK), and thus
provide exactly the same functionality as that provided normally by
Windows.  The only differences are minor and, other than the fact
that the software overrides the user setting specifying the desired
swap file size, cosmetic. This leads me to the following conclusion:

    There is NO compression occurring in either the Windows 95 or
Windows 3.1 versions of SoftRAM 95.

Syncronys Softcorp had led me to believe that they were acting in
good faith by revealing and publicizing problems in the Windows 95
version. However, my latest findings indicate that Syncronys is not
acting in good faith by not revealing the identical problems with the
Windows 3.1 version of the software, which they continue to promote
and sell.  I therefore retract my previous retraction, and go on the
record with the findings presented here.



                                Sincerely,

                                Dr. Mark Russinovich


Note: The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of
the University of Oregon or the Department of Computer Science.

;----------------------------------------------------------------------

					December 11, 1995


Dr. Mr. Poertner,

I'm sure you are aware of my public retraction of my original
retraction letter, but I've discovered that you are still using the
original retraction letter as representing my position regarding
SoftRAM 95. Please cease using that letter. I no longer stand by it.
See the attached letter, made public on the date listed, for my
current view.

In addition, I would like to take this time to address some
assertions you have made regarding my, and others, analysis of the
Windows 3.1 version of SoftRAM 95. I've heard it said that your claim
is that our tools are inadequate for the analysis of SoftRAM 95
because they are 16-bit tools and SoftRAM is made up of 32-bit code.
This is false. The tools I have been using are state-of-the-art
32-bit disassembly and debugging tools. The disassembler is 16 and
32-bit Sourcer v5.10 from V Systems. The debugger is Nu Mega
Technologies Soft-Ice/W, the de-facto standard for 16-bit
application-level as well as 32-bit system-level debugging.

You have also stated that I seem "confused" because "first he said
there was no compression, then he said he found some."  This is a
misrepresentation of what I have stated. My position from the start
has been that there is no compression taking place in either the
Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 versions of SoftRAM 95. I have indicated
that there is a block of code in the Windows 3.1 code that looks like
compression code, but I have also indicated that source-level as well
as run-time analysis show that this block of code is under no
condition ever executed. There is no confusion here - SoftRAM 95
does not perform compression.


				Sincerely,
	
				Dr. Mark Russinovich

Note: The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the
University of Oregon or the Department of Computer Science.

