Page 1 of 1
Whats easier to use? XAMPP or Apache
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:23 pm
by leglez
I am wanting to install a server on my computer so I can stop paying for hosting and am wondering which one is easier to install on windows Xampp or Apache? Also I know that windows isn't the best for a server but I am right now just getting started with PHP and MYSQL and trying to learn.
Also I downloaded and installed PHP and installed it on the C: and was wondering since its in the C: can make a script and save it in like C:\My documents and will it work? or do I have to save it under C:\PHP? Thanks
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:29 pm
by feyd
Xampp is a package containing Apache, Mysql, PHP and some other junk. Apache is just that, Apache. I would recommend knowing how to install each on their own. Once you understand that, then you'll understand what a package like Xampp is actually offering, or lack thereof.
Apache is quite straight forward to install, as long as you don't want to get too fancy. Installing PHP into it isn't complicated either, just follow the instructions that come with PHP (the zip, not the installer). MySQL is even easier to install as it's installer configures pretty much everything and shouldn't need further tweaking.
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:30 pm
by josh
So you're asking for our opinion? I think its easiest just to setup apache myself.
Your script will only run with PHP if you set the PHP command line interface as the handler for PHP files, this is somewhere in the control panel. Either that or type at a DOS prompt:
Code: Select all
C:/php/php-cgi.exe C:/myScript.php
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:55 am
by matthijs
I think it depends on your level of experience. And on what you want to do with it. Installing a package like Xamp is really easy, so if you have little experience that might be better then spending your time installing everything yourself and messing with configuration settings etc. However, if you want to serve live websites from your own server you'll have to know the ins and outs of your server anyway, so it might be worthwhile to invest the time.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:59 am
by AKA Panama Jack
I have setup a number of servers from scratch installing apache, php, a horde of modules and ect many times.
It's definately a learning experience but I have found that using llamp for linux or xxamp for windows is by far the easiest way to create your own server. Xxamp/Llamp have a ton of pre-configured modules of which most are not enabled but are availible if you need them. You can setup a xxamp server in just a few minutes including all of the security settings you need. Compare that to doing it from scratch where it WILL take many times longer and not really gain you all that much.
I have become a fan of xxamp/llamp since I found it. It offers so many things built-in right from the start that would take an inordinate amount of time to install individually.
And if anyone says it is slower ignore them as they haven't a clue.

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:11 am
by Benjamin
Installing them all seperatly would be much healthier in terms of understanding how things work and having the ability to fine tune it.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:55 am
by Chris Corbyn
agtlewis wrote:Installing them all seperatly would be much healthier in terms of understanding how things work and having the ability to fine tune it.
I couldn't agree more. They're useful packs but I wouldn't advise using them until you understand how it all works. To be honest, installing them separately is relatively simple anyway
But to answer the question "What's easier?". XAMPP, LAMP as opposed to a separate install... that's what they're for

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:44 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
People may be missing the point... If you want a quick start PHP development server, then use XAMPP. You can get to grips installing Apache, et al. individually at any time thereafter without XAMPP. It's a relatively simple process, but it does require reading the manuals and understanding a little of how each works.
XAMPP is the easy option - not the bad option.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:38 pm
by AKA Panama Jack
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:People may be missing the point... If you want a quick start PHP development server, then use XAMPP. You can get to grips installing Apache, et al. individually at any time thereafter without XAMPP. It's a relatively simple process, but it does require reading the manuals and understanding a little of how each works.
XAMPP is the easy option - not the bad option.
Very true!
If you want to learn how things work at your leasure go buy a cheap little 400mhz computer. Around here you can usually find them for under $50 or people giving them away to get rid of them. You can then set it up as your own home server and install different linux versions and other packages to learn how things work.
But if you want a quick and easy server setup that can be just as full featured and secure as the long drawn out process of installing individual packages then use xxamp/llamp. You can still install anything else you need along with xxamp/llamp. The default install has just about all security disabled so you need to run their security setup program and then change some things they don't setup for security. That's fairly easy.
We have one production server using xxamp/llamp for commercial sites and haven't had a single problem. We will probably use it for more servers in the future.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:34 pm
by leglez
Ok thanks I think Im going to install Xampp on my main computer and then install linux on one of my old P3s and install the programs indivdually
Can someone reccommend a distro for a P3? Would DSL be good for a server I think it would be best since it is smallest but I couldn't imagine installing Fedora or Debian
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:45 pm
by AKA Panama Jack
leglez wrote:Ok thanks I think Im going to install Xampp on my main computer and then install linux on one of my old P3s and install the programs indivdually
Can someone reccommend a distro for a P3? Would DSL be good for a server I think it would be best since it is smallest but I couldn't imagine installing Fedora or Debian
Actually Fedora is quite easy to install and not very big either as a server install.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:20 pm
by leglez
No I don't mean it would be hard to install Fedora I meant I would think that it would run slow on such an old computer so would Fedora Core 4 run very good on a P3?
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:53 pm
by Chris Corbyn
I'd go with a RedHat or Debian based system such as Fedora, or Ubuntu (respectively). You won't have lods of time waiting for things to compile on a slow CPU that way, providing the packages you want to install are in the package management systems for the two

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:41 pm
by AKA Panama Jack
leglez wrote:No I don't mean it would be hard to install Fedora I meant I would think that it would run slow on such an old computer so would Fedora Core 4 run very good on a P3?
I run Fedora Core 4 on a 400mhz P2. It's my developement server.
If you are running a server the minimum requirements are "Recommended for text-mode: 200 MHz Pentium-class or better".
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-n ... #id2497259