The Microsoft Architecture Journal has been one of my favorite print periodicals lately. The articles are top-notch, relevant and very well-written. If you don't have a subscription, I would highly recommend it, even if you're not in an MS shop. Yes, there is a Microsoft bent, but there are also some gems that, I feel, have been universally relevant.

I noticed in Simon Guest's blog this morning, that Microsoft has released an Architecture Journal Reader that provides digital access to all thirteen issues of the journal, with search, favorites, annotation, etc. I've already downloaded it and It will be nice to have all of that information closer at hand. You can download a beta of the reader here, and go check out Simon's post here.

• SOA: Sometimes it IS about the technology - Both Nick's post and Andrew McAfee's original are worth a read and right on. I think the pearl of wisdom is for all of us to stop advocating one extreme or the other ("x is about technology" vs "x is not") all the time and start using wisdom, common sense and a willingness to either talk about technology (when the situation calls for it, as Nick describes when one must know which "... goals are realistically achievable given current technology trends") or leave technology out of the discussion (when the situation calls for us to convey to the business that we truly get their business need and aren't simply looking for a way to implement the cool new technology).
• Why Microsoft Should Not Support SCA - Bottom line as I read this: Microsoft doesn't benefit and neither does anyone else. It makes sense, but David certainly makes SCA seem like less of a "big deal" standard than others want us to believe. Not sure what I think yet, but  I would highly recommend David's Introducing SCA article. It's a good read and provides a good overview of some big technology movements outside of the Microsoft world.

• Green Datacenter Initiative - The idea of "Green IT" is becoming a bigger and bigger deal as more organizations realize that Global Warming is not a joke (it never was) and that the measure corporate ethics and responsibility will increasingly include the impact of their IT organization on the environment. As Simon says, the measurement technology isn't there yet, but why not start grassroots with your own PC. Downloaded the LocalCooling app Simon links to and get an idea of how little things we all do as individuals does have an impact.

• Microsoft: My way or the highway with SOA? Though Microsoft can certainly afford to do "SOA their way" and though such approaches have certainly worked in the past, I wonder if this one might actually hurt them is the long run. As Joe says, "What Microsoft appears to be doing... goes completely against what SOA is supposed to be all about, which is the ability to deploy and run what you need based on what you need, unencumbered by the limitations of vendors' systems." Wouldn't it be ironic if Microsoft's way of forcing organizations to "do SOA" causes organizations to turn to SOA itself as a way to minimize their dependencies on Microsoft systems?
• Project Zero: IBM enables REST-based development - Not surprising to see IBM adding support for REST, especially since Microsoft is doing the same by adding a Web Programming model to its WCF upgrades in the .NET 3.5 Framework. In many ways, this simply underscores David Chappell's assertion that the REST versus WS-* debate is over. While we may still have a place in our hearts for one over the other, the major vendors seem to be saying "why not both?"
• Binding SOA to BPM instead of BPM to SOA - Not sure I understand the assertion that we should attach SOA to the swimlane diagram and not BPMN Nick. Pools and Lanes are used heavily in BPMN, so what is it about BPMN that you have an issue with? If it's the BPEL/automation side of BPMN, then I agree, but I think that BPMN can be very useful to organizations without that side, especially since what you get is a standard Process modeling language where none exists today.
• Why Sales isn't process driven - According to Steve Jones, the "mechanism for the implementation and measurement of a service" (process) isn't always the same thing as the drivers for and value of the service (goals). Meaning that our services ought to pay attention to user goals first and the underlying process second. It's a UCD/UX perspective for SOA...
• PowerPoint: Boon or Bane? I tend to fall into the camp of PowerPoint is a misused tool, not a bad tool in and of itself, though its conventions in the form of automatic title and bullet regions do encourage bad behavior. 
• Stuff - I read recently that it took the self-storage industry 25 years to build the first billion square feet of storage space and only 8 years for the second billion. Yet our houses have grown by 80% and we still face a storage crisis. Stuff is best gotten rid of...

• Enterprise Architecture, REST and SOA all sit down at a bar? - More on REST, SOA and EA and EA's responsibility to be relevant to project teams.

• Do Enterprise Architects ask Stupid Questions? - There are no stupid questions, only questions that self-righteous people think are stupid.

• Build versus Buy versus Opensource - Good advice if you can get Opensource in the door. Of course, vendors charging a premium to solve common problems already solved should be reason enough to adopt opensource...

• Loc.alize.us - A Google Maps and Flickr mashup that brings photos of different lands to you. I'm planning a trip to Italy right now and it's nice to be able to get more than just the top-down view that Google Earth and Maps provide. Google Earth has functionality similar to this, though I like the UI here better.

• What SOA needs to learn from Ruby On Rails - Though I'm not sure what "Canned SOA" would look like, I agree with the argument that SOA needs some measure of default convention which can be leveraged.

• The Developer Theory of the Third Place - My third place is usually one of several coffee houses or restaurants with free WiFi close to my work or home. BTW, If you're ever in Colorado Springs Scott, we'd love to have you drop by and share some of your expertise.

• Free Code - Getting IT out of the Applications business - IT takes EIM and the Business Event Ontology and gives the business (Biz Process Devs specifically) the ability to write "free code." While it sounds a little counter-intuitive, it certainly has some promise.

I didn't mention this is my previous post, but yesterday was "Microsoft Day" at DevConnections and featured all Microsoft Speakers in our sessions. During the morning sessions, while I was feeling that certain topics were being brought up again and again, I was finding myself a bit annoyed at the Microsoft marketing speak that kept creeping in. As a result, I kept looking forward to the external guys I knew I'd start hearing today. Paul Litwin, an esteemed co-chair of this conference, had a similar thought and asks is one flavor of speaker better than another? He argues that they are both important and I agree. I love the bleeding edge stuff and what's new and to come that we always get from Microsoft, but I also tire of the marketing that creeps in. That's why it's important that we have guys like Paul and Dan Wahlin who live in and love the MS technologies. In fact, I was in a session with Dan Wahlin on SOAs and he wasn't afraid to point out areas where VS 2005 lacks features needed for SOA development. This is valuable information I think we all need. How about you? If you're here at DevConnections and you have a thought, what is your impression of the Microsoft Day speakers? Drop me a comment here or leave one on Paul's blog (or both). If you're not here, but you've been at past conferences, drop me a comment on your past experiences. I'm curious to hear some of your thoughts on the value speakers paid by the software company versus adopters not employed by the company.

If I wasn't so backlogged in my reading, I would have seen and made reference to this in my earlier post about Sun and Google's vague partnership. Information Week has what could be considered almost a response article to the Sun/ Google partnership article: "Coming From Microsoft: 'Hosted Everything'" The interesting quote is at the end of the article, on page two:

When asked which other products and services Microsoft would host, another Microsoft insider said, "Everything. Hosted Office. Everything hosted." - Information Week, "Coming From Microsoft: 'Hosted Everything'" Oct. 26, 2005

Now, in my mind, Microsoft sometimes plays another role that we see in "old guard" companies, opposite to what I read into Schwartz's comments last week: That of the behemoth company still trying to look like a hyperactive startup. But every master plan that Google doesn't have, Microsoft has twenty that regulate every decision they make. In any case, Google and Sun should watch out. And if they plan to repurpose StarOffice for the web, "leak" it now because Microsoft knows how to hype.

I know I'm jumping on the blogosphere (One electroshock for me for using a buzzword) bandwagon for bringing this up, but I think I have a point about GoogleTalk unrelated to the common chatter.
For you Skype purists out there, I know that Google Talk is essentially Skype-lite. I'm only partially excited about Google Talk because of how clean and clear the voice features are. I'm also excited because it's basic, clean and uncluttered. I'll let the screenshots speak for themselves.

Here's MSN Messenger:

And Google Talk:

In a day and age when Microsoft keeps adding tabs to messenger and cluttering the interface with winks, nudges and skins, Google Talk makes me smile. Now I know this is a Beta, so we may see clutter eventually. For now, I'll enjoy simplicity while I can. Now that Google is public and no longer the anti-Microsoft, it's not surpising that They're giving Microsoft a run for its money as the big bad wolf. BTW, you need a Gmail account to use this tool, so if you don't have one, email me. I've got plenty of invites to share.

Let me ask you a question: What do you expect from a double-click of your left mouse button? (One-button mouse users and Mighty Mouse devotees are excluded from answering) Your answer is probably "It depends on where I am and what I'm doing," right? A double-click on your desktop or in explorer will open a file. In quick-launch it will restore a minimized application. Many other applications perform functions that are designed along the context of the application. And that's a valid answer, so let me refine the question: In an interactive map application, what do you expect from a double-click on a point on the map? Since this isn't a chat room, I'll just have to answer for myself: (If you have a take, feel free to throw in a comment) When I double-click on a point on a map, I want the application to center and zoom. I used to think that I was the only one that felt that way because Google Maps (Pictured below) doesn't do that. It simply centers the map, then I have to click on the zoom-bar to get more detail.

Once I used MSN Virtual Earth, though, I realized I was not alone in expecting the double-click to center and zoom because it does actually that.

My point is not that I prefer Virtual Earth over Google Maps. (I'm not ready to make that call yet because I've been using Google Maps since day 1 and I'm trying VE alongside it for comparison.) I'm also not suggesting that my expectation is the one that Google should have yielded to.

My point is that, sometimes, two sets of usability tests on the same application can sometimes yield drastically different results and lead to different conclusions. I know that Google and Microsoft extensively UT their software. The irony of it is that, in the world of User Experience, there are no answers that meet the needs of 100% of your users (There must be someone out there that honestly expects for a double-click on a map to show him his house), so we seek to find answers that satisfy either a majority or 70-80%. Such is our world.

And in this case, Microsoft and Google appear to have each drawn from a different 80%.

Google Maps, MSN Virtual Earth, User Experience