I am thinking about making a webpage using ASP scripts. My questions are as followed

1. How easy is it to install ASP scripts compared to installing PHP scripts?

2. How fast is ASP compared to PHP?

3. Is it easy to back up databases like it is with PHP?

Thanks guys:D

1. Pretty much the same :)

2. PHP is definitely faster.

3. It is not PHP or ASP issue. :)

1. How easy is it to install ASP scripts compared to installing PHP scripts?

ASP and PHP scripts really don't require any kind of installation, you only need to upload them as you upload normal html files. yes, if you are using any activex or com objects which are required for running your asp pages you need to get them installed on server. Same also apply with PHP.

2. How fast is ASP compared to PHP?

PHP is really fast. simply because it runs on Linux platform. if you compare windows which requires lots of memory and cpu intensive tasks. Try running windows 2000 on p II 400 mhz machine and try running Linux on same machine and you will understand what I want to say.

3. Is it easy to back up databases like it is with PHP?
well, it depends on what database system you are using, with ASP you will be using either SQL server or MS ACCESS or ORACLE and I think all these database systems have backup facilities.
with php, you may be using oracle, mysql or postgard sql and these database servers have backup capabilities.

anyway, i know both languages but I only use PHP, because Linux is best, secure, scaleable, free and lots of geeks are around here to help you out in case of any problems and I don't need to give my credit card number to Microsoft support when I need some help.

:)

You should keep in mind that ASP is running on Windows Webservers only. So it is much harder to find a good (or free) host who will offer ASP but you will find loads of hosts that offer PHP included in the standard hosting plans.

Marian

Originally posted by Henry Low
I am thinking about making a webpage using ASP scripts. My questions are as followed

1. How easy is it to install ASP scripts compared to installing PHP scripts?

In basic terms, the same. But ASP scripts sometimes require different ActiveX components to do different things. In PHP, most of the functuality is available in the standard distribution, and extra functiuality is usually in well know, standard libraries.

2. How fast is ASP compared to PHP?

It depends on your application. PHP is generally faster because its just a thin layer over C, while ASP involves a lot of overhead for managing registered components and others. If you are good, you can write ASP programs that make use of some ASP functuality that isn't (yet) implemented in PHP like object persistancy.

3. Is it easy to back up databases like it is with PHP?

You mean backing databases information in case of a disaster, or using databases as back-ends to your programs? In any case, they are pretty much the same.

Thanks guys:D

Thats not everything you might want to consider about ASP. As people here pointed out, ASP is microsoft and runs only on Windows servers.

Another issue is that ASP uses the Visual Basic (VB) language, wich is even worst than Perl :D. VB's syntax is a very strange one, it illogical and doesn't feel natural, like C or PHP.

EDIT:

Also note that most of the components that you might need to do different things in ASP aren't free.

Ahh thanks again, thanks for clearing everything up. I think I should stick with PHP then. :stickout

This is worth a good read...

http://php.weblogs.com/php_asp_7_reasons

:D

You should consider price as well. PHP is open source with just makes it cheaper. ASP sucks because its primarly on a Microsoft platform and as we all know they jack the prices of things like SQL server really high because they can.

Operating costs for php are much cheaper and then hosts pass that on to you. ASP is simply inferior because Microsoft is inferior. ;-)

I disagree phpjames,
For one, no one here seems to talk about ASP.NET which will make problems such as deciding whether to write in vb or php a thing of the past.
Secondly, many of the open source software packages are simply inferior and of a lesser quality compared to their commercial counterparts(namely mySQL which has limited support for some of the important databse technologies).
Thirdly, Microsoft doesn't just jack up prices, look at oracle for example, or eve IBM's DB2. Neither one is less expensive than SQL Server.
Obviously, there are advatages to PHP. It is indeed very fast compared to traditional ASP although slower and less capable than ASP.NET. The amazing amount of things that are already done for you in ASP.NET convinces alot of people to switch. Also, ASP.NET web controls allow for rendering a page in browser specific format, automatically (e.g. for form validation, if the browser supports javascript, it will be used, otherwise serverside will be used).
I currently use PHP on one or two of my sites. It is very fast, integrates well with mysql/postgresql, is free, and runs on linux. As of yet, ASP.NET does not (soon to change).
my 2 cents:D

ASP.NET = the M$ "way", e.g., "you can solve almost any problem... if you throw enough money and resources at it"...

PHP = cost effective

ASP.NET = the latest and greatest M$ crap (but it's still crap)

Power to 1 man = ASP

Power to everyman = PHP

Its just one more step towards his plug for global domination.

MySQL will crush asp.net i hope.:D

Oh, and if my forecast worries ASP users then use this link : http://www.users.f2s.com/us/asp2php/

You still have time!
:D

Originally posted by agiledesigns
I disagree phpjames,
For one, no one here seems to talk about ASP.NET which will make problems such as deciding whether to write in vb or php a thing of the past.


I wouldn't count that as one, its the introduction :D. I agree that as long as ASP is Microsoft's, problems such as deciding weather to write in VB or PHP doesn't exist ;).


Secondly, many of the open source software packages are simply inferior and of a lesser quality compared to their commercial counterparts(namely mySQL which has limited support for some of the important databse technologies).
Thirdly, Microsoft doesn't just jack up prices, look at oracle for example, or eve IBM's DB2. Neither one is less expensive than SQL Server.


Its not fare to compare MySQL to MS SQL. MySQL started as being a fast database server, and started to grow from there. Its major focus is speed, that's why they have lesser features. You know that if you want the more advanced features you can use PostgreSQL. From what I recall, MS SQL is just MS's branch of an older version of Informix. I don't see how Open Source software is inferior!!


Obviously, there are advatages to PHP. It is indeed very fast compared to traditional ASP although slower and less capable than ASP.NET. The amazing amount of things that are already done for you in ASP.NET convinces alot of people to switch. Also, ASP.NET web controls allow for rendering a page in browser specific format, automatically (e.g. for form validation, if the browser supports javascript, it will be used, otherwise serverside will be used).


How do you know PHP is slower than ASP.NET? There is really nothing more that can be ready made in PHP. All you have to do is to code your application, unless you want something to do that for you :). As for your page rendering example, it's really a shame that microsoft will make all that fuss about ASP.NET to introduce some basic functuallity like this, which you can find for PHP as free libraries or scripts.


I currently use PHP on one or two of my sites. It is very fast, integrates well with mysql/postgresql, is free, and runs on linux. As of yet, ASP.NET does not (soon to change).
my 2 cents:D

ASP.NET is just a new buzword to catch people eyes. I think that the ahcievements of the open source movement in each month can be compared to what Microsoft do in a year. I mean, when was the last version of visual basic, and when did they promise VB.NET and when did they release it, and most importantly, what did THEY really that took them this long?

ASP.NET is the latest (reinvented) "wheel" from your "friends" at M$.

It costs real money, but hey -- it's the "latest wheel" that M$ has reinvented. Therefore, it MUST be something everyone needs, right? So let's all rush out and spend more money!!!!

The latest "wheel" is a wheel that is totally new and different, and therefore requires a whole new learning curve, an "investment" of more money into development and software, but hey -- it's the "latest wheel" so it's worth it, right?

The average Web site is really using *rocket science* level stuff. So, you'll need the very latest and greatest "wheel" available, otherwise all of that great stuff between <html> and </htm> simply won't happen, right?

But yes... I will agree that M$ is the world's greatest producer of "opium" for the masses (however, M$ calls it "software" and legally sells it as such...)

Meanwhile, on Reality Street...

As far as the "great things" the ASP.NET promises to someday offer, well... to the common Web site simply ain't worth the barrels of money it takes to buy a temporary license for using the technology, and the hand-holding "support" of M$.

Rest assured that ASP.NET will last only for... err, what? A couple of years maybe, before M$ introduces the "newer and better wheel"!... which of couse, will require some more $$$ to use.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-008.asp

Oh, look! another hole... and its a big one!
in M$ SQL server OOPS! OOPS! OOPS!

Yep, Microsoft does "need" a lot of support, for themselves. Mmmm, I wonder if they ever realy got there pgp signatures sorted for the product updates, imagine nobody checking for over a month, guess they were all in the support department at the time the certs ran out, er supporting each other....

SING ALONG WITH BILL :

line 1 :
WE LOVE MICROSOFT!
line 2,
WE LOVE MICROSOFT!
line 3 : goto line 1.

I guess my windows machines will likely self destruct in 5 seconds.:D

Hmm, funny how a simple question turns into an MS bashing thread.

In truth, PHP wins hands down as far as speed, cost, and functionality.

Softies .NET platform on the other hand runs circles around everything out there, and you're not stuck with a hacked together weak language (PHP), though you can use it if you'd like. You can also use C++, Java, Python, Eiffel, Lisp, and anything else your heart desires if you go with .NET. Of course that comes at a cost. MS exists to make money, not friends.

Personally, I'll almost always use Java/JSP because that is what I am most comfortable with for web development. For back end stuff, it's C++ and the WASP SOAP engine.

As for databases? MySQL is arguably the best free one out there, but it isn't suitable if you need an SQL92 compliant RDBMS. I don't really know what is missing from MySQL, but there have been times that if sub-selects or outer joins weren't available I would have been in serious trouble.

Whatever you choose, chances are you'll do just fine.

I find it funny that manny people just criticize things because it is microsoft. I never said that php was bad. And I will reiterate that PHP is very fast compared to traditional ASP. However, ASP.NET uses many more advanced features so it is faster. It is also language indepenedent which means that you can write whatever you want and have it use the ASP.NET libraries. This also means that for many companies that have invested in older software applications, they can swith to the new system easier.
ASP.NET is very advanced indeed. There is abolutely nothing to contradict that. The specs are public so open source versions of the .NET framework are already in beta test (mono, developed by ximian). This also allows for .NET to run on linux.
Code rendering functionality is not basic at all. The point is that there is no need for any more "libraries" or "scripts" you need to add.
MSSQL is a commercial databse with many more features than mysql. mysql lacks many things such as foreign keys etc.... Postgresql has been known to have data corruption issues on some large databases. I agree that mysql is excellent for web development purposes. However, a true internet application, integrates with intranet applications, databases and systems that might have to direclty be incorporated into the website. What i mean is that while mysql will provide blazingly fast simple select queries, it is no where near as quick as mssql in insert/update etc... it has no SPROCs, and lacks a miraid of other features. Devlopment of complex applications with mssql is also easier as you can use something like visio to draw your database instead of just creating it.
ASP.NET is free. You can use php and mysql within it if you want. What you will pay for is mssql, visio, and other development tools.
It is not fair to compare mysql with mssql. They are meant for different applications.
Obviously, there will be a large number of fans of linux (and for good reason) however, you cannot deny that microsoft solutions are better in many situations compared to pure linux solutions.
I love PHP and mysql, but I won't dismiss something just because it is microsoft.
As far as security goes, I have no doubt that there are problems with many ms products. But no software is perfect. As a matter of fact, it has been mathematically proven that it is impossible to prove code is bug free after it surpasses the 5 line mark (i think).
Hopefully, most of the recent security issues will be solved quickly (i know of one for .NET where the method they used they got from linux. later they along with the linux people discovered this flaw in both platforms).
In summation, I think that if something is good, you should use it. As a user of java, php, c++, c, and c#, I can say with comfort that ASP.NET is better by leaps and bounds when compard to the current implementations of php.
phew, that was long.
just my two cents anyway.

From Rasmus Lerdorf http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=644546

Q: Do you have any thoughts as to why someone should choose PHP over Microsoft's Active Service Pages (ASP)?
A: This is a difficult question to answer without getting into philosophical issues. I will try to avoid those and just look at it from a practical perspective:

Windows 2000 Server: $3,999
Internet Security and Acceleration Server: $5,999 per CPU
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition: $19,999 per CPU
MSDN Universal Subscription (w/ DevStudio): $2,799 per developer

List prices from Microsoft.com
This can add up quickly. And you probably need to add some Internet connector licenses, maybe an Exchange server license if you are doing e-mail handling and perhaps the content management server, which is a whopping $42,999 per CPU.

Many will of course argue this point, but I can build you a similar setup using Linux, Apache+SSL, PHP, PostgreSQL and Squid. And there are a number of good open-source content management systems I can throw in as well. They don't all come in shrink-wrapped boxes with slick documentation, but the one thing they certainly do is work.

Windows 2000 Server: $3,999
Internet Security and Acceleration Server: $5,999 per CPU
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition: $19,999 per CPU
MSDN Universal Subscription (w/ DevStudio): $2,799 per developer

That's just silly.

SQL Server 2000 is enterprise grade and actually SQL92 compliant. If you want it use it, but you can use MySQL for Windows just as easily -- and free.

MSDN Universal, per developer? That's not only silly, it's dumb. You don't even need MSDN Universal but it is nice to have. DevStudio costs nowhere near $2,799 by itself and once again, is a tool and not a requirement. You can code your ASP in Notepad if you so desire and use FTP to publish it.

Windows 2000 Server, $3,999? How do you figure that? The software can be obtained for $799 and the server it runs on certainly doesn't have to be a $3,200 machine.

Obviously the ASP choice is more expensive since it will not run on a Free OS, and arguably maintenance and administration will cost you more on a Windows server than a Linux or FreeBSD server. But to throw out prices like that is just silly and not even a half-truth.

Most people seem to forget that windows is a commercial product. If you want to run linux with same level as windows advanced server, you can try redhats server operating system (has clustering etc etc, same as 2k advanced server) and it costs several thousand dollars. What is more important is the mysql might be perfectly fine for a simple application, however, when it comes to more complex applications, it just isnt good enough. So what will you have to do? Buy nusphere's mysql. then you will but the apache release from covalent (granted that it includes an OS) for $1495 per CPU.
Don't tell me that linux for complex apps is free because it isn't. You can run an enterprise on mandrake!
As I have stated several times. There are advantages to both platforms. Right now, I find the total advantage with Windows for alot of reasons related to my own application development interests. I could care less who makes a product, I just look at which is best for what I am doing. If you refuse to do that and just want to stick to LINUX form some odd reason, then be my guest.

Microsoft haven't started being so 'good and open' until they felt threatened by the open source movement, and that is a fact. Just remember how things were like a couple of years before, when nobody even knew the difference between an IBM PC and windows.

Microsofts history has proven to me that they never do something good for the good of it.

A couple of years ago, ASP was marketed like it is the ultimate solution to all web development problems, and it was for free! People had to take courses for 1000's of $'s to be able to fully master the whole new """technology""" just made by microsoft. Now, microsoft developers has decided that it will be nice to relocate some functions and create some new libraries, add some features to the syntax of VB (features that should have been added long time ago), and voila! their books, courses, cerficates are rolling them money again!

People would say that i'm against it only because it is microsoft, and I think that I have to right to. Microsofts history make it easy to predict what will happen. For example, I can tell you that the first important event after releasing the final .NET products will be a seriouse security flow in one of them :)

I took no courses nor did any of my developers when we built a fairly large web application for a large steel company. Most of it came intuitively, a lot of the code written in C++ using ATL and VB as a scripting front end. The point? Good question.

What this has to do with the topic? Another good question.

On the topic of how ASP is compared to Perl and PHP, well, it is a contender and will likely do everything you need it to. A benefit you get with ASP is that you *can* scale whereas PHP you cannot. If scalability is really an issue then you'll want to examine J2EE as well.

And once again I bring to you the truth about economics. Microsoft is in it for the money, not to make friends.

hey,

i would base my decision largely on what OS you are using.. if windows, i would stick with ASP and if linux i would stick with PHP... simply because those are the OS's the languages are intended for... using ASP on linux is simply rediculous according to me...

Hey look! Its microsoft! They are in it for the money!
Just like AOL? No ****ing way.
Just like IBM? No ****.
Just like my dentist? Yup, he doesnt fix my teeth for free.

Geeks of the world bound together to form some sort of communistic movement. we all know where communism brought us.

Face it, the western world is capitalistic. You can't complain about microsoft is in it for the money when your dentist is also in it for the money, ibm also, oracle are also in it for the money. wait a minute! sun are also in it for the money! hmmm..... the hotel i was in last year was also in it for the money!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH EVERYONE WANT MONEY!!!!
Lets bash them all.

Originally posted by agiledesigns
Most people seem to forget that windows is a commercial product. If you want to run linux with same level as windows advanced server, you can try redhats server operating system (has clustering etc etc, same as 2k advanced server) and it costs several thousand dollars. What is more important is the mysql might be perfectly fine for a simple application, however, when it comes to more complex applications, it just isnt good enough. So what will you have to do? Buy nusphere's mysql. then you will but the apache release from covalent (granted that it includes an OS) for $1495 per CPU.
Don't tell me that linux for complex apps is free because it isn't. You can run an enterprise on mandrake!


That depends on your meaning of 'enterprise'. I'm willing to bet if Linux can't run some 'enterprise' level application that requires some sort of advanced clustering, then Windows can't do it either. Your only option here is high end UNIX solution from Sun, HP or IBM. Yes, Linux isn't quite there yet, but when it finally catches up with the big guys (Sun, HP, and IBM are already embracing Linux btw), it is much easier to migrate to Linux than to Windows.

Also, you don't need Covalent or Nusphere to do any complex apps if you know where to look. What kind of 'complex apps' that can't be implemented in Linux? I bet if it can't be implemented in Linux using free solution, then it can't be implemented in Windows either. If MySQL is not good enough for an app, then there are always PostgreSQL and Firebird. They are more or less as free as MySQL, btw.

Originally posted by Ahmad

From what I recall, MS SQL is just MS's branch of an older version of Informix. I don't see how Open Source software is inferior!!


Actually it is Sybase, not Informix. I can still remember a quote 4-5 years ago from Rasmus Lerdorf (author of PHP) when asked if PHP supports MSSQL: "MSSQL is basically a sybase server with typical Microsoft screw ups added on." :D

Actullay I never said that advanced clustering and such features were not supported in Linux. What I said was that in order to achieve the same level of funcitonality compared to windows 2000 advanced server for example, one would probably have to buy a very expensive linux package from redhat(or other). As of the last time I checked, both postgres and mysql lacked some basic functionanlity such as foreign keys etc. A very short list of some missing functionality is available at : http://209.220.160.228/sw/bin/12/supportwizard.cgi/73872288
Everything can be implimented in Linux at a cost. Commercial products for linux are no less expensive than commercial products for/from microsoft.
I also don't understand your point regarding migrating to linux being easier than windows? :confused: where did you get that from? Using dotnet, migrating to windows will certainly be easier especially considering that most commercial products exist for windows.
Despite what microsoft has done in the past or the products that it has created (I hat windows 9x/ME and WIN NT), their recent line up of server products have been quite good (as far as my experience has shown).
And yes you are right, MSSQL used to be sybase. And I belive it use to mainly run on OS/2.
One more thing, I see people quoting others on the merits of microsoft among other things. Most of the time, the people being quoted are very biased which makes it funny becuase they are such unreliable sources. Its like oracle saying "microsoft sucks."

Last time I check RedHat releases any software it produces under an open source license. So, if you are paying for an expensive piece of software from RedHat, you are paying for their support, not for the software. If you think I'm wrong, I'd like to know which expensive software you were refering to.

PostgreSQL and Interbase/Firebird support foreign keys practically forever. Please check your facts first, no empty 'last time I check' please.

If you take a closer look at the big ironclad 'enterprise class' servers, it is likely they are running some kind of UNIX. It is much easier to migrate them to Linux than to Windows because Linux is very similar to UNIX. And it is very unlikely you will find any references to NET or any latest Microsoft acronym on those servers.

Of course I rely on outside sources if I'm looking for information about products. What do you expect from me? Believe those statements on Microsoft homepage or some obscure URL with IP address in it? :D

Originally posted by DizixCom

I took no courses nor did any of my developers when we built a fairly large web application for a large steel company. Most of it came intuitively, a lot of the code written in C++ using ATL and VB as a scripting front end. The point? Good question.

What this has to do with the topic? Another good question.

On the topic of how ASP is compared to Perl and PHP, well, it is a contender and will likely do everything you need it to. A benefit you get with ASP is that you *can* scale whereas PHP you cannot. If scalability is really an issue then you'll want to examine J2EE as well.


You can add C/C++ modules the the PHP interpreter as easily. Actually, I think it is even easier to scale because it is Open Source and you can customize it to fit exactly into your needs.

Java is also really nice, but it is much more complicated.

If you consider the majority of web projects, you will find that they will do fine only needing the PHP interpreter without having to write any extra compiled code (or incorporating third party compiled code).


And once again I bring to you the truth about economics. Microsoft is in it for the money, not to make friends.

This is not the point. It is their policy. They tend to be more creative in finding ways to make people pay them money than in making better products that worth the money.

You get a nice GUI and nice colors, good marketing, .. etc. You feel good about the product but then you find it to be buggy and unstable. While in Open Source projects, you will find that they always start the core, which is what is supposed the most important part of the system, and only add a nice GUI and attractive colors when they have an efficient and stable solution in the core.

EDIT: It is actually a good point. We all know that MS is in it for the money, and we also know that open source developers are in it because of the good of it. It is very reasonable to say that microsoft will be affected greatly by making money in their decision regarding the product, which might drive them away from the best of the customers.

Anyway, the determining factor stays the same, your environment. As long as I'm using unix as my production environment, ASP will not be a choice.

Try Google.com as an enterprise :). With a farm of more than 10,000 Linux servers (that is last time I checked, It should be much more know).

Hotmail.com is still on BSD and qmail, all tries to migrate it to MS Windows and Exchange resulted in crashes!

I definietely do not believe what micrsoft says (just like any other company that has something to gain by saying something). I never said that postgres did not support foreign keys ( I said the mysql doesnt). Postgres has better support than mysql, however it is still missing functionality. A few inculde
does not allow qureries accross multiple databases.
complete sql 92 compliance.
Anyways. I see that I am veering off topic with regard to the original questions so I will shut up now :D