David Chappel has posted a great read comparing Indigo to the SCA spec. Looks like WCF will be done A LOT early if SCA follows similar timelines in getting the remaining technical issues ironed out.

I stumbled across Nikhil Kothari's Javascript Utilities Project that might be of help to folks doing AJAX stuff.

A great resource of ASP.NET techniques for cross page navigating. Worth having in your repository.

Looks like I have my 15 minutes! LOL - thanks to Peter for stopping by.

Rich Turner's post gives you a "straight from the horses mouth" explanation of how Microsoft views the SOA/ESB product marketing hype that seems to dominate the industry right now.

Yep, its true. I miss the Northwind database being one of SQL Server's sample databases. While simple, it is like an old pair of shoes. Just comfy and fun to play with when you needed sample data to learn some new feature in ASP.NET or WinForms. The new AdventureWorks sample database is nice, but it takes a little getting used to. I think Microsoft should have kept Northwind as a standard sample database along with AdventureWorks. Pubs was way to simple so I am not sad to see it go.

Of course, you can still get those old sample databases by downloading them here. But I still thing Microsoft should have honored Northwind by making it part of the standard bits. I will install Northwind and probably still use it for a lot of my demos. Of course, I'll dig into AdventureWorks also, but Northwind will always hold a special place in my heart.

I just read Jakob Nielsen's post, Why AJAX Sucks (Most of the Time). I don't agree with much of Jakob's posting because I think he takes far too narrow a view of what the web is all about, how it is used, and the fundamental distinction between web pages and web applications. However, Jakob does cite some interesting statistics from Interse:

• Ajax Compatible Browsers: 78%
• Speech Browsers: 2%
• Mobile Browsers: 11% of users
• Other browsers or earlier versions: 10% of users

My first disclaimer is that I don't know much about Interse or their survey, but let's take it at face value since Jakob thought enough about it to use it as an evidence point.

So, if the statistics are true, let's look at AJAX in a different light. In general, and this is a broad swipe, AJAX is used to increase the responsiveness of a web UI or provide it with some sort of functionilty that cannot be similiarly accomplished using the typical page-refresh model. In short, it is trying to make web apps more like traditional Windows apps but still be Windows agnostic. But (you knew it was coming), the reach of AJAX capable browsers is only 89% (exlcuding the mobile browsers and speach browsers).

That 89% is probably darn close to the percentage of clients hitting your web site that are using Windows. In either the AJAX capable or the Windows client percentage, you are essentially cutting off 11% of your visitors. So if that is the case, why not just use .NET and ClickOnce deployment to reach 89% of the market. Development would be a lot easier and you could make just as good if not better experiences.

Just a thought. AJAX certainly fills a void, but I think that there is a lemming effect right now and people are looking to apply AJAX solutions to places where WinForms would be a better solution. As with anything, always look at what you need vs. what you have.

Check out the eWeek Review of SQL Server 2005 for what a good, solid review should look like. Yep - the pointed out some negatives, but they were talking specifically about the product they were reviewing. It was a REAL REVIEW. Looks like Michael Caton knows the difference between a review and a quasi-editorial piece. Peter Coffee - take note!

The more I read the eWeek "review" the more P.O.'ed I get. Is this a review or some kind of running commentary with snipes and snid quips? I know, it shouldn't bother me but it does. I wouldn't mind a critical review, if that what it was, but most of this "review" is nothing more than drivel. A few of the highlights...

• Page 4 - bottom: The reviewer points out that there are a lot of plug-ins available for VS2005. He then goes on to point out that there are also a lot of plug-ins for Eclipse and NetBeans and that people should look at those choices before UPGRADING to VS2005. So let me get this straight, you are "reviewing" VS2005 but discuss other platforms comparitively and then recommend that poeple ALREADY USING VS2002/2003 look at a COMPLETE PLATFORM SWITCH based on the relative merits of add-ins? Holy crap but that seems to be wandering way off the beaten path of what a "review" should be. Shouldn't a review talk about the available add-ins FOR VS2005 and what ones were still needed, coming whatever? There is a difference between a review and a comparison and that clearly seemed to be forgotten in this piece.
• Page 5 - Code Snippets: Once again we see a feature discussed in the context of another product. While not as bad as the first example, it still seems odd to spend half a paragraph talking about features in other products. But the real offender is the whole rant on the use of the word "snippet"! Did this really add anything to the review? NO. Did it allow the writer an opportunity to try and once again remind the reader that Microsoft was/is an "evil monopolist" by referencing the anti-trust trial? Hmmmmm... me thinks someone has a bit of an agenda.
• Page 5 - Visual Basic 6: When will this stop? Why did they expectd it to be any different? Microsoft has made a commitment to advancing the VB language. Yes, some are not happy. It seems to be a vocal minority from my real world experience. Drop it already! Geez - will they at some point talk about the product?

Yes, I seemed to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. ARGHHHHHHHHHH!