which server to use?

dannyz

I want to install PHP on WIN98SE. Should I instal an Apache server or a PWS server?

I rater install a PWS one because its lighter and would make my life easier.

mithril

Well....... PWS is lighter when compared to IIS. However, in the long run it's just going to make your life more difficult. IIS is weak compared to Apache, so what does that make PWS? Do yourself a big favour and grab the latest Apache (1.3.20) binary distribution from apache.org. As of 1.3.19 Apache can be installed and run as a service on Win98. Using Apache will, among other things, allow you to develop on a production grade server (although in a very non-production grade environment).

PWS also inherits most of the issues that IIS has regarding security, stablity, and standards conformation. For example, IIS and PWS report server paths like DOCUMENT_ROOT using the Win32 backslash. Logical enough since that's what the OS uses until you consider that URL's use the *Nix forward slash which ends up creating headaches with REGEX expressions.

PWS is a very scaled down version of IIS, and should be treated as such. When at all possible you should try to mimic your deployment environment and since PWS is pretty far removed from IIS (and most hosts use Apache for their PHP-enabled servers), Apache is definitely your best bet. There are pretty good reasons why Apache has a greater marketshare than all other httpd servers combined🙂 HTH.

Geoff A. Virgo

ame12

Under Windows NT platforms, IIS is a good choice for PHP IMO. You will be able to use NT ACLs (NTFS), user accounts and groups which Apache won't do. IIS is also a pretty solid performer and Zend has told us that IIS support will be much improved in 4.0.7.

If you want a very small web server (Win98 download is less than 200K) designed specifically to support PHP, try the free BadBlue server. It has all sorts of cool tools for Win32 boxes (P2P file-sharing, Office transcoding, etc.) and it its PHP support seems very fast. Link here:

http://badblue.com/helpphp.htm

Dave

Anon

check out <a href="http://www.fox-hunt.net/foxserv/">FoxServ</a>, an Apache, Php and MySQL server in-one-install setup, probably the best for first timers, but once you get the hang of it, ultimately its easier to mess with config files from fresh individual installs of each on win32. i run apache 1.3.20, php 4 and mysql on a win2k box and it chugs along perfectly.

[deleted]

I agree, go for apache with the foxserv installer. Great stuff.

Forget IIS and PWS, stay compatible, use a real webserver: apache.

Anon

The site www.badblue.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.

i don't think you can trust someone that doesn't even use his own product 🙂

iis isn't a bad web server, but if you want to run php scripts, use apache. tho it doesn't really matter if your site is getting <10.000 hits per day.

i'm running apache on win2000.. i'd like to run iis cos it's much, much faster, but it takes alot of resources.

dannyz

Ok i will, but not just yet... I'l stick with PWS until I format my HD... then I might instll Red Hat and apache or win2k...

Anon

Re: BadBlue: it's a personal server. You wouldn't use PWS to run a production site, would you? BadBlue matches up well with PWS and is good running PHP.

smarlowe

If you want fast, easy, and light, look at xitami. A great little server, free, and easy to configure for php.

www.xitami.com

Avoid PWS at all costs unless you like being hacked. MS has publicly stated on the ntbugtraq mailing list that they will not fix security issues for PWS and you shouldn't use it on the internet. You don't wanna be a victim of the next code red type worm to come along, trust me.

Anon

I've played with xitami before but I still say apache just 'feels' better. I had a few problems with Xita but that may have just been a one timer experience, I'm sure if I spent more time with it I'd have a more optimistic outlook on it. If you're not ready for apache, Xitami would probably be my next recommendation. Regardless of what ntbugtraq says, good or bad, PWS is a POS. fin. 🙂

smarlowe

I too had some quirky behaviour with Xitami, but that was only on a very early version a few years back. It seems to have become much better with time.

apache is better for functionality, but xitami is MUCH faster under Windows than apache. Now when apache 2.0 is finished, it should run well on windows.

Of course, I still think the best way to get a php server is to build a RedHat or Mandrake box on an old P100 or something :⁾