Sorry, but I'm not buying it
- neither the software (obviously, since I'm running Vista, without using ReadyBoost) nor the 3x performance improvement claims.
In which areas exactly has performance improved three times (aside from the probably rather irrelevant number in that screenshot)? Windows boot? Possible I guess. A perceived (but not necessarily measured) "three times" increase in application responsiveness when you're pushing the upper limits of your physical RAM? Possibly.
Three times increase in performance where raw calculation power is required? Obviously not.
Vista ReadyBoost (which this supposedly emulates) is basically a cheap and slower substitute for adding an extra Gigabyte RAM or several.
And in this case it isn't even particularly cheap. Can't you almost buy a stick of RAM for $45 these days? And then you've got to add the price of the USB stick on top of the software - though of course I guess the point of ReadyBoost is that a lot of people will already have those lying around.
I guess there is a slim chance that a ReadyBoost emulation might actually be a bit more helpful on XP than on Vista, as the latter OS is already using a more advanced caching system (one of the reasons so many Vista users complain about too much memory use, without realizing that it's actually being used for something efficient, rather than just sitting around doing nothing).
My advice though - buy an extra Gig of RAM instead, or first, and then give the software a shot afterwards.