NYCPHP Meetup

[David Krings]

On 1/14/2010 9:30 AM, tedd wrote:
> At 6:34 PM -0500 1/3/10, David Krings wrote:
>> On 1/3/2010 5:41 PM, Hans Zaunere wrote:
>>> Oh my :)
>>
>> That applies to IIS, right? I just have to ask the question: can't you
>> just use a real web server that actually works, like, let's say,
>> Apache? I 'work' with IIS at work and it is a totally dysfunctional
>> kludge.
>
> I have a client who is setting up a server and is going the IIS route.
> What advice do you guys offer? Should he do it or change to Apache instead?
>
> Thanks in advance for your comments and advice.


I find Apache way easier to administer than IIS. You may also want to take a 
look at this article
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application-Development/eWEEK-Labs-Bakeoff-Open-Source-Versus-Net-Stacks/
I know it is dated and things have changed, but in my experience dealing with 
the IIS/.NET and WAMPP stacks nothing changed in the core result of the test 
done. Performancewise WAMPP wipes the floor with IIS.
I also don't share the viewpoint that if on Windows use MSSQL. I use MySQL on 
Windows and never ran into any problems because for the most part is just 
works. I can't say that about MSSQL, especially not MSSQL 2008 which is just a 
big ball of everything. Once configured and working MSSQL does do the job as 
good or as bad as any other of the 'big' SQL servers.
In the end it depends for both stack and SQL server on what the customer 
wants, what they feel comfortable with, and what can be maintained. If you 
have free choice I recommend going WAMPP. That setup never failed me.

David