Props to Greg "Mr FeederReader" Smith for attention and action.

And apologies now that I see the structure of my last post makes it look like I was griping specifically about FeederReader.

Actually, I wasn't but I see now how easily readers could come to such a conclusion. I hope you can accept my apology.

Kudos to Greg Smith for pointing out how he did at least try to make it clear and for now having made it yet clearer. Well done Mr Smith and thanks for listening. I can't wait to try FeederReader when there is a version for Smartphone Edition devices or I've moved up to a real man's Pocket PC.

It seems to me that the real problem here is Microsoft's having produced a family of operating systems that suffers from:

1. Confusing identities
2. Confusing identification
3. Confusing nomenclature
4. Confusing characteristics
5. Confusing capabilities
6. Confusing support
7. Confusing documentation (what little I have found so far - much of the Microsoft Windows Mobile website appears devoted to non-specific marketeeritis and the marketing of third-party apps)

The bottom line is that the world of Windows Mobile feels distinctly as if it suffers from the same disease that drove Motorola from the top of the mobile phone industry to near-oblivion - the dreaded engineers in charge of product design.

I once opened a conversation with a stranger at a party with something along the lines of, "The problem with Motorola mobile phones is that they have absolutely the worst, most counter-intuitive interface of any device I have ever used in my life!" Doncha just love the sensitive and subtle social interactions of which we Asperger's are capable?

In any case he replied, "Actually, I work for Motorola and you're absolutely right!"

Microsoft have produced a group of operating systems that suffer from poor UI design, insufficient documentation, unclear focus, etc. I'm talking about Windows Mobile, ha, ha.

I hope somebody at Redmond is as attentive as Greg Smith and they do something about this.

Of course, we're not talking about pure mobile telephones anymore, so perhaps it's not completely fair to MS. As convergance becomes an increasingly central theme in our "modern" world, it will become ever more challenging to produce all-in-one digital devices that don't suffer from a lack of clear focus and/or a failure to excel in one or more target areas.

But hey, if you wanna play, ya gots ta pay!

You want me to spend my hard-earned cash on your product and be happy about it, you have to do it right! If you're selling an operating system, do it right. The engineering, I mean, not the selling. And document it. If you're selling a smartphone, do it right. And document it. Clearly, please!

I have used computers since 1978. I AM a geek and have a wealth of experience with almost every geek hobby or career thread you can think of. But why should I have to use hardcore computer skills just to get the real usability out of my smartphone? It's not like I'm even an early adopter on this stuff.

If MS and O2 just documented this stuff a little bit better, there would be few of these problems.

Personal computers and their ilk often enjoy/suffer strengths and weaknesses in much the same way as do we humans. They can do many different things but rarely are they as good at one or two of them as a more dedicated (and less flexible) device designed purely for that specific role.

A toaster only has to heat bread until it is anything between warm and charcoal, depending on the user's choice and/or inappropriate use of available controls.

A hammer is better at driving home nails than any other implement but is useless for something like, say, combing your hair. Unless Joe Pesci is "doing your do, darling" - just the one final and probably messy time, of course.

Likewise, a ballpoint pen is an almost unbeatably convenient and tidy way of applying ink to paper (or toilet stall wall - "For a good time, point your Smartphone at http://xphone2.blogspot.com") but again unless Mr Pesci is "helping you out", a ball point pen has few other effective applications, shineboy.

We humans are pretty adept at adaptation, so to speak, or write. If we don't naturally have it in our means to do something, we can usually figure out some way of developing the techniques and technology that allow us to do that specific something.

We can't naturally outrun a horse or a cheetah but give us a decent Jeep (or drug the poor beast) and we'll probably win. Out of the (horse)box, any reasonably healthy equine opponent can get to the other side of the paddock before me but I'll bet you everything I own (all 15 bucks of it) that I'll kick that horse's butt at Space Invaders on the Atari 2600.

And just to show off, I'll then tie my shoes, knock up a mean green salad, pour myself a big glass of unsweetend soya milk, fire up a secure telnet session and recompile my kernel. On another continent. While watching a streaming video documentary about glue factories.

Talk to the right hand, Seabiscuit, cuz the other hand left!

Like humans, the general-purpose nature of computers means they can be used for a relatively wide variety of tasks but will rarely excel at any one individual job the way a more dedicated device or tool can.

This partly explains why the iPod has been such a success, for example. Class-leading design and a (for many people) peerless UI combined with the Apple/Jobs marketing cult, great timing and that impossible-to-bottle Häagen-Dazs/SAAB-like feeling of being hewn from a solid boulder of quality mean that nearly everybody NEEDS an iPod.

But try cooking an egg with an iPod and you'll see one of its many weaknesses - it can't. Well, not without quite an evil hack, perhaps. I suppose plugging the iPod directly into 110 or 240 volts would do the job. But that would also fry the iPod and just ain't elegant enough to qualify as a Kowalski Kawiltee-hacK. Ya ya, I KNOW somebody out there is trying to overclock an iPod JUST so they can heat their coffee.

Even worse, try getting Motorola to implement the iPod greatness and, well, I think I have a valid point, non?

The bottom line is that there is nothing anywhere that I have seen in the end-user experience as it SHOULD be when investing my money in Smarphones/PocketPCs that makes it clear what we are buying, what it REALLY can do and how to get it to do that.

Through Microsoft's insufficient development and communication and O2's absolutely WOEFUL lack of documentation for the Xphone II, I ended up failing to realise how carefully I have to read the details for any application I am considering for this device.

In retrospect, I see that the FeederReader download page did actually make it quite clear that the app only runs on the Pocket PC edition of Windows Mobile but then I was still too ignorant of the relatively subtle and semantic ins and outs of the OS.

It really should not be the job of the software developers to have to educate all potential end-users on the finer details of the operating system(s).

But, alas, it appears this is the case so, Mr Smith, I salute you, sir, for having updated your download page so quickly!

And Happy New Year. May 2006 see us all getting to grips better with Microsoft Windows Mobile, whatever damn version we're talking about!!