Most of the computer industry's marketing is grounded on a simple equation: more = better. Whether it's processor speed, memory, hard-drive size, screen width, Internet bandwidth or some other thing, you can never have too much of it. And for a long time, that made sense.

Now, though, there is such a thing as "too much." So in my column yesterday, I suggest that upgrading to the newest, fastest version of WiFi wireless networking isn't for everyone either. Read my column here.

In the same less-is-more spirit, we have a review of two simpler, cheaper personal-finance programs that provide an alternative to Intuit's Quicken and Microsoft's Money. And in Web Watch, Leslie Walker writes about the pared-down, quick-loading versions of Google and Answers.com just released for use on mobile phones.

In the game reviews, our writers try out Lego Star Wars, Brothers in Arms and Spinter Cell: Chaos Theory. Lastly, Help File explains how to upload pictures from Apple's iPhoto program to non-Apple Web sites.

One quick housekeeping note: Because The Post's Web site is rolling out new publishing software, next week's e-letter will probably go out on Tuesday morning instead of Monday morning.

Last week saw me engaged in two of my least-favorite activities in all of computing -- Using a tax-preparation program and setting up wireless networks.

My dislike for tax-prep software is not because applications like TurboTax and TaxCut are terrible in their own right -- it's that they exist at all. I despise a tax system that has grown so complex as to require the intervention of a CD-ROM's worth of software.

And speaking of incomprehensible annoyances, let's talk about WiFi software, in particular that included with the Belkin, Linksys and Netgear access points I reviewed. In each case, the setup "wizard" came expecting only one Internet configuration -- the "DHCP" system most cable and DSL providers employ -- and failed to deal with anything else, such as the static Internet Protocol addressing used by my provider.

The Linksys and Netgear programs at least gave up quickly after failing to detect a connection, after which I had to load an "expert" or "advanced" interface by typing a particular address into my Web browser. But Belkin's software did still worse; it insisted on trying to find a connection 10 times in a row, taking a minute or so each time, and then told me to call tech support. Duh!

I then discovered that these expert/advanced setup routines still don't prompt you to change the network name, set a password for it or encrypt the wireless connection, thus leaving the network wide open. Maybe that's why, of the five neighboring wireless networks I can pick up in my living room, four are unsecured and one still bears the default name of "Netgear."

To add to the annoyance factor, the Belkin interface once shut off WEP encryption after I'd turned it on, while the Linksys software would report that WEP encryption was disabled even when it was on. I encountered still further aggravation with the driver software for Netgear's PC Card receiver. It forced me to click past XP's warnings about unsigned drivers because this company was too lazy to get the driver certified by Microsoft, then disabled the clean WiFi interface of Windows XP Service Pack 2 in favor of its own troglodytic software.

(As an aside, one of my editors happened upon my expletive-laced notes on these setup ordeals and could only offer one comment: "jeez, are you cranky.")

Come to think of it, the only WiFi setup software that I've actually liked came from Apple and Microsoft. But Apple's AirPort hardware costs about twice as much as anybody else's, while Microsoft gave up on selling WiFi gear last summer.

In last week's newsletter, I quoted from a batch of reader e-mails that were prompted by my column about hardware choices and wireless plans. Most of those comments beat up on Verizon Wireless in particular.

Verizon spokeswoman Brenda Raney has since written in with her own comments, so now it's Verizon's turn:

* About Verizon's policy of not allowing customers to use phones that Verizon doesn't already sell: "[We] have an obligation to ensure we only offer devices that we KNOW will not degrade network performance, compromise the experience of other customers, or result in customers being unable to get technical support from our representatives."

No argument about customers not wanting to have their own connection damaged by somebody else's phone. However, that's why the Federal Communications Commission already has to test and certify phones -- a Sprint phone using the same radio waves as a Verizon model could cause plenty of interference in its own right.

Raney added: "Because we serve a mass market, it's not feasible for us to offer support, technical or otherwise, on individual devices we've chosen not to sell and therefore not to train our staff to handle or troubleshoot."

It would be fair for Verizon or any other carrier to enforce a "you're on your own" policy for customers' independently-purchased phones.

* On how Verizon will disable or deactivate some features on phones: "Wireless devices aren't like stand-alone home computers -- they connect you to a network. It is interesting to note that many corporations are locking down their computers so employees can't load software or download applications on their work computers that could interfere with the company's ability to run its business. Why, because they are protecting their internal networks."

Bad example -- I don't pay for the computer at my desk, or even for the time I spend using it. When Verizon gives me a phone for free, then it can talk about "locking down" hardware like that.

* On the continued mystery about Verizon's intentions with the Treo 650 smartphone: "We also don't discuss the devices we are testing or have chosen to sell until the day (or just prior to) customers being able to purchase them." But somebody else at Verizon seems to have not gotten that memo, to judge from this coming-soon page.

* On Verizon's spotty Bluetooth support: "Verizon Wireless has not issued its final word on Bluetooth." Raney noted that phone-to-computer Bluetooth file transfer is enabled on one model, the Audiovox xv6600. That Windows Mobile-based smartphone, however, doesn't offer the Get It Now application-downloading service of most Verizon phones.

Verizon says the need to secure rented Get It Now programs from theft means it can't allow Bluetooth file transfer. Personally, I don't find that reason makes much technical sense -- but if Verizon wants to act that way, give me a Bluetooth phone without Get It Now. I'm sure that phone manufacturers would gladly build such a thing ... but they don't get to make that decision, and neither do we.

-- Rob Pegoraro (rob@twp.com)