Message to not use Smart RAM. What is this all about?

[JohnnySokko]

Hello,

 

I was Googling to find out more information about Smart RAM, and I came across the following post in another forum.

 

I have never seen any such announcement here, on IObit's own forum (unless I simply overlooked it), so I would like some clarification on this issue.

 

The following was posted on the Major Geek's forum on 7-05-11 by someone named "oneeyejack" who claimed to be passing along a message from Hugo Dong, president of IObit software.

 

The message reads:

 

 

"Re: Message from the President of IObit!

 

Hi! I wanted to share the following message from Hugo Dong, president and co-designer of IObit software. You can be assured they are working hard on this software. The advice from Hugo is do not use this software [smart RAM] at this time. It affected my PC exactly the way Hugo has explained it below.

 

'Smart RAM releases usable physical memory by storing data on the pagefile rather than the physical memory. So the size of the pagefile will keep increasing. Thus when the processes read data from the pagefile it will need more time and will slow the computer speed and lead to the "no response” or "freeze" issue.

 

For your concern, please do not use Smart RAM as it causes this issue on computers. Our specialists will improve this tool when they develop another new technology.

 

Sorry for this situation.'

 

— Hugo Dong

 

PS: Hugo has given me permission to release this on the MG forum!

 

oneeyejack"

 

 

Can anyone confirm if this was a real message from Mr. Dong — or was it just something that the poster on the Major Geek's forum made up?

 

If the message was truly authentic, was this issue ever announced here on the IObit forum? Does the issue with Smart RAM and the warning to not use it still apply, or has it been addressed and fixed?

 

Please advise.

 

Thank you.

[solbjerg]

Hi JohnnySokko

Please wait for Hugo Dong to explain

And please remember that the post is about 8 months old.

oneeyejack is one of the many "handles" this fellow uses - he was banned from here originally under another username for his disruptive influence a couple of years ago.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Hello,

 

I was Googling to find out more information about Smart RAM, and I came across the following post in another forum.

 

I have never seen any such announcement here, on IObit's own forum (unless I simply overlooked it), so I would like some clarification on this issue.

 

The following was posted on the Major Geek's forum on 7-05-11 by someone named "oneeyejack" who claimed to be passing along a message from Hugo Dong, president of IObit software.

 

The message reads:

 

 

"Re: Message from the President of IObit!

 

Hi! I wanted to share the following message from Hugo Dong, president and co-designer of IObit software. You can be assured they are working hard on this software. The advice from Hugo is do not use this software [smart RAM] at this time. It affected my PC exactly the way Hugo has explained it below.

 

'Smart RAM releases usable physical memory by storing data on the pagefile rather than the physical memory. So the size of the pagefile will keep increasing. Thus when the processes read data from the pagefile it will need more time and will slow the computer speed and lead to the "no response” or "freeze" issue.

 

For your concern, please do not use Smart RAM as it causes this issue on computers. Our specialists will improve this tool when they develop another new technology.

 

Sorry for this situation.'

 

— Hugo Dong

 

PS: Hugo has given me permission to release this on the MG forum!

 

oneeyejack"

 

 

Can anyone confirm if this was a real message from Mr. Dong — or was it just something that the poster on the Major Geek's forum made up?

 

If the message was truly authentic, was this issue ever announced here on the IObit forum? Does the issue with Smart RAM and the warning to not use it still apply, or has it been addressed and fixed?

 

Please advise.

 

Thank you.

[JohnnySokko]

Melvin,

 

:shock: I hope you don't regret what you just said, and I hope Mr. Dong has a sense of humor — because that really is his name.

 

Regardless of what may — or may not be true in the post from "oneeyejack" on the Major Geek's forum, and I have no idea, which is why I asked for clarification, he at least got the president of IObit's name right. It is, in fact, Hugo Dong.

[JohnnySokko]

And judging from the fact that your post is now gone, I think you just discovered that as well. ;-) Feel free to please delete this one of mine — and the last one as well.

[solbjerg]

Hi JohnnySokko

You could try to do a search for the posts of IObit_Guy and see if he mentions the alleged message that oneeyejack "quotes".

If oneeyejack's "quote" is correct I would expect the message to appear in the forum - first and foremost.

Cheers

solbjerg

 

 

Melvin,

 

:shock: I hope you don't regret what you just said, and I hope Mr. Dong has a sense of humor — because that really is his name.

 

Regardless of what may — or may not be true in the post from "oneeyejack" on the Major Geek's forum, and I have no idea, which is why I asked for clarification, he at least got the president of IObit's name right. It is, in fact, Hugo Dong.

[Melvin_Deal]

Hi JohnnySokko!

 

I post here freely as a volunteer to help users with issues who post freely here as well. I removed my previous post as I initially posted by reflex. I often edit my posts, and in this case chose to remove it alltogether. You can look at my history and see how many edits I give to my posts!

 

I will not delete, edit, or remove your posts! And you should not be surprised by that!!

 

This has no reflection on your original topic.

 

With the prevalence of naysayers so prodigious, I am often quick to post with the pointing finger... as in the case of this thread and your post!

 

I apologize if you misunderstand my deletion of my previous post.

 

 

Sincerely,

-Mel

Live long and prosper!

[wozofoz]

he was banned from here originally under another username for his disruptive influence a couple of years ago.

And banned from MajorGeeks as well, now ranked as a Guest and Posts: n/a

 

 

@ JohnnySokko

The original post by oneeyejack at Majorgeeks says:

For your concern, please do not use Smart RAM as it cause this issue on your computer.

The reply from Hugo was in relation to a specific (your) computer.

 

 

I am curious as to why you changed the wording to:

For your concern, please do not use Smart RAM as it causes this issue on computers.

[JohnnySokko]

Solbjerg,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yeah, I did notice that the post in question is about 8 months old. Because of that, I wasn't sure if the issue (assuming it really even existed in the first place) was still relevant or not — which is why I wrote to ask for clarification.

 

I don't really think I need an explanation from Mr. Dong himself, though. (At least I don't think so.) Are you familiar with this "issue"? If you are, I'm sure you can fill me in. (Hopefully.) :-)

 

I simply just want to know if there really was such an issue, and if there really was, has it been addressed and fixed, or is it still an issue? Any idea?

 

You could try to do a search for the posts of IObit_Guy and see if he mentions the alleged message that oneeyejack "quotes." If oneeyejack's "quote" is correct, I would expect the message to appear in the forum - first and foremost.

 

I checked. No luck. I don't think the message (again, assuming it was real) was something that was posted here, though. It appears to be from an email sent directly to oneeyejack.

 

 

 

 

Wozofoz,

 

And banned from MajorGeeks as well . . .

 

I don't know who this oneeyejack guy is; I am not familiar with any of his history — here — or anywhere else, and to be honest, I really don't care. It doesn't matter. I just want to know if what he posted on the MajorGeek's forum has any truth to it or not, and if it does (or if it did), has the issue been fixed — or are there still bugs in Smart RAM that need to be worked out and fixed by the programmers?

 

I am both a fan and a customer of IObit software. The purpose of this post is not to say bad things about IObit or to be negative in any way. I do hope you realize that. I am simply doing what I would hope you would want all customers (or even potential customers) to do — and that's to come directly to the source to get clarification on things that they may have read about online instead of simply believing them at face value. That's what I'm doing: coming here to get clarification on something that I read about online. Nothing more. Okay?

 

And now to answer your question as to why I changed some of the wording . . .

 

The original post by oneeyedjack on MajorGeeks was very choppy and poorly written. I took the liberty to polish it up (correcting typos, fixing some elements of "broken" English, etc.), without changing the meaning in any way, before posting it here — for better and easier reading.

 

The original post by oneeyejack at MajorGeeks says: For your concern, please do not use Smart RAM as it cause this issue on your computer.

 

The reply from Hugo was in relation to a specific (your) computer.

 

I am curious as to why you changed the wording to: For your concern, please do not use Smart RAM as it causes this issue on computers.

 

I changed the phrase "on your computer" to the phrase "on computers" because, after carefully reading the message, it was my belief that Mr. Dong was, indeed, referring to computers in general, not just a specific one.

 

For example: Imagine yourself writing a message to someone in the forum and giving the following advice: You should never have more than one anti-virus program running on your computer at the same time.

 

If you were to say that, and you probably have at some point (or at least something along those lines), you would clearly be talking about all computers in general and not just a specific one — even though you used the word "your."

 

Do you see what I mean? I believe that's the same case with Mr. Dong's statement, and that's why I took the liberty to change it. Perhaps I should have kept the wording exactly as it was, but it's too late for that now. In any case, I was not trying to change the meaning of his words in any way or to cause any confusion; I was merely trying to make it easier to read.

 

And furthermore, to me, it really is obvious that Mr. Dong was, in fact, referring to computers in general and not just one specific computer; otherwise, he would not have followed up the above quoted statement by saying, "Our specialists will improve this tool [smart RAM] when they develop another new technology."

 

If the message by Mr. Dong was real, then it's perfectly clear by his last words that he was, indeed, referring to computers in general or there wouldn't be a need to improve the tool in question (Smart RAM) by "develop[ing] another new technology" — as he puts it.

 

So, now that all of that is out of the way, what's the scoop? Was the message real? Was there really an issue that existed? And if yes, has it been addressed and fixed — or does it still exist? What light can you shed on this issue?

[solbjerg]

Hi JohnnySokko

As for oneeyejack's message I suppose he had an issue concerning the RAM - a few others (1 or 2 or perhaps 3) reported the same.

None of us volunteers had the issue as far as I can remember and tried to help him change his settings and configuration - to no avail.

So I really think that it had to do with his machine and configuration.

I haven't seen IObit Guy say anything about it since.

You also have to take into account that the message was a personal message to oneeyejack.

As for his message to oneeyejack I think he was trying to be kind and the last remarks about the programmers making a better version is a standard remark often used to placate angry/nagging people. I think!

To my knowledge it is not an issue now - and perhaps never has been :-)

Cheers

solbjerg

p.s. When one is quoting something it is bad form to edit the quoting - at least without saying so.

 

 

Solbjerg,

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yeah, I did notice that the post in question is about 8 months old. Because of that, I wasn't sure if the issue (assuming it really even existed in the first place) was still relevant or not — which is why I wrote to ask for clarification.

 

I don't really think I need an explanation from Mr. Dong himself, though. (At least I don't think so.) Are you familiar with this "issue"? If you are, I'm sure you can fill me in. (Hopefully.) :-)

 

I simply just want to know if there really was such an issue, and if there really was, has it been addressed and fixed, or is it still an issue? Any idea?

 

 

 

I checked. No luck. I don't think the message (again, assuming it was real) was something that was posted here, though. It appears to be from an email sent directly to oneeyejack.

 

 

 

 

Wozofoz,

 

 

 

I don't know who this oneeyejack guy is; I am not familiar with any of his history — here — or anywhere else, and to be honest, I really don't care. It doesn't matter. I just want to know if what he posted on the MajorGeek's forum has any truth to it or not, and if it does (or if it did), has the issue been fixed — or are there still bugs in Smart RAM that need to be worked out and fixed by the programmers?

 

I am both a fan and a customer of IObit software. The purpose of this post is not to say bad things about IObit or to be negative in any way. I do hope you realize that. I am simply doing what I would hope you would want all customers (or even potential customers) to do — and that's to come directly to the source to get clarification on things that they may have read about online instead of simply believing them at face value. That's what I'm doing: coming here to get clarification on something that I read about online. Nothing more. Okay?

 

And now to answer your question as to why I changed some of the wording . . .

 

The original post by oneeyedjack on MajorGeeks was very choppy and poorly written. I took the liberty to polish it up (correcting typos, fixing some elements of "broken" English, etc.), without changing the meaning in any way, before posting it here — for better and easier reading.

 

 

 

 

 

I changed the phrase "on your computer" to the phrase "on computers" because, after carefully reading the message, it was my belief that Mr. Dong was, indeed, referring to computers in general, not just a specific one.

 

For example: Imagine yourself writing a message to someone in the forum and giving the following advice: You should never have more than one anti-virus program running on your computer at the same time.

 

If you were to say that, and you probably have at some point (or at least something along those lines), you would clearly be talking about all computers in general and not just a specific one — even though you used the word "your."

 

Do you see what I mean? I believe that's the same case with Mr. Dong's statement, and that's why I took the liberty to change it. Perhaps I should have kept the wording exactly as it was, but it's too late for that now. In any case, I was not trying to change the meaning of his words in any way or to cause any confusion; I was merely trying to make it easier to read.

 

And furthermore, to me, it really is obvious that Mr. Dong was, in fact, referring to computers in general and not just one specific computer; otherwise, he would not have followed up the above quoted statement by saying, "Our specialists will improve this tool [smart RAM] when they develop another new technology."

 

If the message by Mr. Dong was real, then it's perfectly clear by his last words that he was, indeed, referring to computers in general or there wouldn't be a need to improve the tool in question (Smart RAM) by "develop[ing] another new technology" — as he puts it.

 

So, now that all of that is out of the way, what's the scoop? Was the message real? Was there really an issue that existed? And if yes, has it been addressed and fixed — or does it still exist? What light can you shed on this issue?

[enoskype]

Hi all,

 

Please find what IObit Guy said more than 5 years ago as early as the 26th post of the IObit Forum.

http://forums.iobit.com/showthread.php?p=26#post26

 

Quite a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.

 

IObit developed and imroved RAM management considerably in time.

 

With the old Smart RAM (as mentioned in the concerned e-mail) with certain configurations (low RAM, low fixed pagefile, pagefile beeing in the same drive in different partition, extremely prolonged PC running without restart, etc. in XP) there were rare hickups (short time freezing).

I have purposely tortured OSes to see that freezing, and yes, in extreme cases (as mentioned above) there was a short freeze.

 

Fist of all, today's version of Smart RAM is 2.1 (released with ASC5), and at that time the versions were older, 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, etc., so the latest version is not the same as it was and it is much better.

 

For your information, I have been using the memory menagement softwares of IObit since day one without taking IObit Guy's advice and I am extremely satisfied with all of them in all last 3 Windows OSes, namely XP, Vista, and 7 (with the evolution of Smart RAM).

 

In the mean time, IObit developed Active Boost in ASC and in the beginning, gave permission ony to use either Smart RAM or Active Boost. (Two acrobats can not dance on the same rope kind of a thing.:-P)

 

With the latest updates, both are developed so that you can use both.

 

My personal opinion is that it is better for me to use only Smart RAM and turn active boost off, and tried that on many PCs with different OSes including Virtual XP, verifiying my preference. (I am not talking about 8 GB of RAM and corresponding pagefile.)

 

For the case of that poster in MajorGeeks, I wouldn't take into consideration any of his posts anywhere with any alias in a certain time frame (beeing banned in many forums), as they are totaly result of frustration and fruit of self made hallucination such as IObit hacking his PC, and made up at that specific time span.

 

"You" there in Hugo's e-mail, is for all the users of Smart RAM with similar configuration to that poster's PC and under circumstances that solbjerg points out. How do I know that? I will keep it to myself. IMHO, revealing private communications in forums is the least wanted thing.

 

All the best and cheers. :-)