By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
443,715 Members | 1,773 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 443,715 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Buying an upload component

P: n/a
I despise installing third party software on my workstations or servers. It
is for this reason that I use componentless-upload for file uploads. This
is no longer an option, and I have to purchase an upload component. For
someone who hates third party software and also does not want any kind of
nonsense "bonus" features like progress bars or whatever, can anyone
recommend a component for me? The cost doesn't really matter. I am aware
of what components are out there, but I've never used any of them or paid
any attention to them. This'll go on a W2K Server. The first one that
comes to mind is ASP Upload, but only because that's the one I hear about
the most.

Thanks,

Ray at work


Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
32 Replies


P: n/a
> I despise installing third party software on my workstations or servers.
It
is for this reason that I use componentless-upload for file uploads. This
is no longer an option, and I have to purchase an upload component.
Why is this no longer an option?
For
someone who hates third party software and also does not want any kind of
nonsense "bonus" features like progress bars or whatever, can anyone
recommend a component for me?


ASPUpload. We use it here, and it is both reliable and quite scalable.
Jul 19 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I despise installing third party software on my workstations or servers. It
is for this reason that I use componentless-upload for file uploads. This is no longer an option, and I have to purchase an upload component.


Why is this no longer an option?


It's just too slow, and we're going to have people uploading multi-meg PDFs
and what not. I figured that I'd have to get a component one day, and I
just have to suck it up. If I were a time-millionaire, I'd either create my
own, or recode everything in .net. I'll get right on that...

ASPUpload. We use it here, and it is both reliable and quite scalable.


Thank you.

Ray at work
Jul 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
> It's just too slow, and we're going to have people uploading multi-meg
PDFs
and what not.


I doubt that whatever component-less solution you are using now is the main
cause for slowness. Why do you think a component would be faster?
Definitely try it out, but I would suspect something more fundamental
(server resources, network utilization, etc). I actually find
component-less upload slightly faster (less overhead), but for our
commercial applications we need vendor support as opposed to home-grown
code.

A
Jul 19 '05 #4

P: n/a

"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
It's just too slow, and we're going to have people uploading multi-meg PDFs
and what not.


I doubt that whatever component-less solution you are using now is the

main cause for slowness. Why do you think a component would be faster?
I thought that I had remembered hearing many times that script solutions are
noticeably slower than components. But, I suppose the only slowness would
be in the processing only, not the actual data transfer, so how noticeable
could it really be? But, I didn't question it much.
Definitely try it out, but I would suspect something more fundamental
(server resources, network utilization, etc).
The slowness is probably caused by my expectations. I'll consider lowering
them to make things seem faster.
I actually find
component-less upload slightly faster (less overhead), but for our
commercial applications we need vendor support as opposed to home-grown
code.


That is very interesting. Thanks. I'm going to install ASP Upload and time
some uploads using both now. Thanks.

Ray at work
Jul 19 '05 #5

P: n/a
> The slowness is probably caused by my expectations. I'll consider
lowering
them to make things seem faster.


Good plan! I do that all the time. :-)
Jul 19 '05 #6

P: n/a
In my opinion even the best pure asp file upload solutions are not very
impressive performance-wise.
Anyone that tells you different is wrong or does not have enough experience
in the area of file uploading.

(pure code vs a component)
You can flat out see the difference in upload times, speed, and reliability.
Your site will run much better and your server will thank you.

Have you ever watched the performance part of task manager when a pure asp
upload solution is at work compared to how it reacts to using a component ?
If you do the results are obvious. It will usually max out your processor
and even for a short burst that is not something you need happening. Now
watching the performance part if not the most technical way to test things
but it is an easy way to get a good idea of what is going on for the average
Joe.

We have used a lot of the upload components for years and have tried most of
the pure asp code methods written. There is absolutely no comparison period.

If you are on a budget and do not really have a lot going on pure asp is
fine.

However...

If you have a busy/serious site a real upload component is a must.
If you are allowing multiple file uploads a real upload component is a must.
If you are uploading large files a real upload component is a must.

As for good components.
SAFILEUP and ASPUPLOAD are two of the most popular on hosted solutions.
We have never had a problem with either. They have great documentation and
samples as well.

There is a popular free component called DUNDAS which also seems to work
fine under extended testing.

An good upload component along with a good emailing component is one of the
best things you add to ASP functionality.

I cannot name the companies, but we designed the system for one of the top
10 image hosting companies on the net. File/Picture uploading is one of our
most knowledgeable areas.


"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:uU****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
The slowness is probably caused by my expectations. I'll consider

lowering
them to make things seem faster.


Good plan! I do that all the time. :-)

Jul 19 '05 #7

P: n/a
> In my opinion even the best pure asp file upload solutions are not very
impressive performance-wise.
Anyone that tells you different is wrong or does not have enough experience in the area of file uploading.


???

Anyone that makes such a contradictory and blanket statement should spend
more time testing and less time yapping.
Jul 19 '05 #8

P: n/a
I have been using ASP Upload (Persits) for a number of
years and love it. Easy integration and I have not had
any complaints about speed or resource robbing (other than
the users who wonder why their 10 meg PDF takes a while to
send to the server... doh!).

Additionally, support has been fantastic. I detected an
error in the sendBinary property when using Netscape, sent
an email to their support, received a very prompt reply
and there was a revision within days.

Thumbs up for ASP Upload.

-----Original Message-----
In my opinion even the best pure asp file upload solutions are not veryimpressive performance-wise.
Anyone that tells you different is wrong or does not have enough experiencein the area of file uploading.

(pure code vs a component)
You can flat out see the difference in upload times, speed, and reliability.Your site will run much better and your server will thank you.
Have you ever watched the performance part of task manager when a pure aspupload solution is at work compared to how it reacts to using a component ?If you do the results are obvious. It will usually max out your processorand even for a short burst that is not something you need happening. Nowwatching the performance part if not the most technical way to test thingsbut it is an easy way to get a good idea of what is going on for the averageJoe.

We have used a lot of the upload components for years and have tried most ofthe pure asp code methods written. There is absolutely no comparison period.
If you are on a budget and do not really have a lot going on pure asp isfine.

However...

If you have a busy/serious site a real upload component is a must.If you are allowing multiple file uploads a real upload component is a must.If you are uploading large files a real upload component is a must.
As for good components.
SAFILEUP and ASPUPLOAD are two of the most popular on hosted solutions.We have never had a problem with either. They have great documentation andsamples as well.

There is a popular free component called DUNDAS which also seems to workfine under extended testing.

An good upload component along with a good emailing component is one of thebest things you add to ASP functionality.

I cannot name the companies, but we designed the system for one of the top10 image hosting companies on the net. File/Picture uploading is one of ourmost knowledgeable areas.


"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in messagenews:uU****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The slowness is probably caused by my expectations.
I'll consider lowering
> them to make things seem faster.


Good plan! I do that all the time. :-)

.

Jul 19 '05 #9

P: n/a
Aaron,

Yea, I'm sorry.
I obviously have no idea what I am talking about.

Truth is, you've got to be smoking some serious shit to be so high on
yourself..
Ohh.. I forgot you think you own these ASP newsgroups and your word is
gospel.
Mr. ASPFAQ, Mr. Argue, Mr. I live in the newsgroups

What you told him is flat out ignorant and I was trying to give the guy a
different perspective on the subject.

Even the person that makes the upload script known as "Pure ASP Upload" one
of the better running pure script based solutions I might add....sells a
component version as well called Huge Upload. Why, well in his words because
it can be up to 100 times faster in some situations.

http://www.pstruh.cz/help/scptutl/pa33.htm#hugepure
Notice this section...

"Pure-ASP upload is a VBS script, which uses only default IIS/windows
scripting objects - Scripting and ADODB library. So you do not need to
install any additional software. But the Pure-VBS code has also
Pure-Performance and it is very hungry for system resources - memory and
processor resources. The code has one more great characteristic - it is free
to use. You can use Pure-ASP upload when
- you need upload only small files (up to 100kB, exceptionally 1-2MB)
- your provider does not enable to install external components
- you have small number of concurrent uploads
Huge-ASP upload is a high-performance, low resources C++ component
with unique algorithm. The component is designed to accept forms of any size
(from bytes to gigabytes) with maximum eficiency. Please use Huge-ASP upload
in any other case."
Here is some additional info from another sites perspective.
http://developerfusion.com/show/1615/1/

Anybody with half a brain knows a good component based upload component can
totally outperform a purely script based solution.

Fact is...

People with attitudes like you have do more harm than good in these
newsgroups and discourage a lot of people from even coming back to the
newsgroups for assistance. To your credit the ASPFAQ site is a great
resource despite how biased you are on certain subjects.

"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
In my opinion even the best pure asp file upload solutions are not very
impressive performance-wise.
Anyone that tells you different is wrong or does not have enough

experience
in the area of file uploading.


???

Anyone that makes such a contradictory and blanket statement should spend
more time testing and less time yapping.

Jul 19 '05 #10

P: n/a
Me too. ASPUpload is simple to use and works great.

"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I despise installing third party software on my workstations or servers.

It
is for this reason that I use componentless-upload for file uploads. This is no longer an option, and I have to purchase an upload component.


Why is this no longer an option?
For
someone who hates third party software and also does not want any kind of nonsense "bonus" features like progress bars or whatever, can anyone
recommend a component for me?


ASPUpload. We use it here, and it is both reliable and quite scalable.

Jul 19 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:06:07 -0400, "Ray at <%=sLocation%>"
<myfirstname at lane34 dot com> wrote:
I despise installing third party software on my workstations or servers. It
is for this reason that I use componentless-upload for file uploads. This
is no longer an option, and I have to purchase an upload component. For
someone who hates third party software and also does not want any kind of
nonsense "bonus" features like progress bars or whatever, can anyone
recommend a component for me? The cost doesn't really matter. I am aware
of what components are out there, but I've never used any of them or paid
any attention to them. This'll go on a W2K Server. The first one that
comes to mind is ASP Upload, but only because that's the one I hear about
the most.


We use ASPUpload (and other Persits components) and it works great for
us. I'd love to say we did extensive testing and made the best
choice, but the price was reasonable and we bought it without doing
much more than downloading the tiral and installing it. It worked
first shot, so we stopped looking. :)

Waiting to see if ASP PDF is as useful for us...

Jeff
Jul 19 '05 #12

P: n/a
Aaron,

Yea, I'm sorry.
I obviously have no idea what I am talking about.

Truth is, you've got to be smoking some serious shit to be so high on
yourself..
Ohh.. I forgot you think you own these ASP newsgroups and your word is
gospel.
Mr. ASPFAQ, Mr. Argue, Mr. I live in the newsgroups

What you told him is flat out ignorant and I was trying to give the guy a
different perspective on the subject.

Even the person that makes the upload script known as "Pure ASP Upload" one
of the better running pure script based solutions I might add....sells a
component version as well called Huge Upload. Why, well in his words because
it can be up to 100 times faster in some situations.

http://www.pstruh.cz/help/scptutl/pa33.htm#hugepure
Notice this section...

"Pure-ASP upload is a VBS script, which uses only default IIS/windows
scripting objects - Scripting and ADODB library. So you do not need to
install any additional software. But the Pure-VBS code has also
Pure-Performance and it is very hungry for system resources - memory and
processor resources. The code has one more great characteristic - it is free
to use. You can use Pure-ASP upload when
- you need upload only small files (up to 100kB, exceptionally 1-2MB)
- your provider does not enable to install external components
- you have small number of concurrent uploads
Huge-ASP upload is a high-performance, low resources C++ component
with unique algorithm. The component is designed to accept forms of any size
(from bytes to gigabytes) with maximum eficiency. Please use Huge-ASP upload
in any other case."
Here is some additional info from another sites perspective.
http://developerfusion.com/show/1615/1/

Anybody with half a brain knows a good component based upload component can
totally outperform a purely script based solution.

Fact is...

People with attitudes like you have do more harm than good in these
newsgroups and discourage a lot of people from even coming back to the
newsgroups for assistance. To your credit the ASPFAQ site is a great
resource despite how biased you are on certain subjects.

"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
In my opinion even the best pure asp file upload solutions are not very
impressive performance-wise.
Anyone that tells you different is wrong or does not have enough

experience
in the area of file uploading.


???

Anyone that makes such a contradictory and blanket statement should spend
more time testing and less time yapping.


Jul 19 '05 #13

P: n/a
Aaron,

Yea, I'm sorry.
I obviously have no idea what I am talking about.

Truth is, you've got to be smoking some serious stuffto be so high on
yourself..
Ohh.. I forgot you think you own these ASP newsgroups and your word is
gospel.
Mr. ASPFAQ, Mr. Argue, Mr. I live in the newsgroups

What you told him is flat out ignorant and I was trying to give the guy a
different perspective on the subject.

Even the person that makes the upload script known as "Pure ASP Upload" one
of the better running pure script based solutions I might add....sells a
component version as well called Huge Upload. Why, well in his words because
it can be up to 100 times faster in some situations.

http://www.pstruh.cz/help/scptutl/pa33.htm#hugepure
Notice this section...

"Pure-ASP upload is a VBS script, which uses only default IIS/windows
scripting objects - Scripting and ADODB library. So you do not need to
install any additional software. But the Pure-VBS code has also
Pure-Performance and it is very hungry for system resources - memory and
processor resources. The code has one more great characteristic - it is free
to use. You can use Pure-ASP upload when
- you need upload only small files (up to 100kB, exceptionally 1-2MB)
- your provider does not enable to install external components
- you have small number of concurrent uploads
Huge-ASP upload is a high-performance, low resources C++ component
with unique algorithm. The component is designed to accept forms of any size
(from bytes to gigabytes) with maximum eficiency. Please use Huge-ASP upload
in any other case."
Here is some additional info from another sites perspective.
http://developerfusion.com/show/1615/1/

Anybody with half a brain knows a good component based upload component can
totally outperform a purely script based solution.

Fact is...

People with attitudes like you have do more harm than good in these
newsgroups and discourage a lot of people from even coming back to the
newsgroups for assistance. To your credit the ASPFAQ site is a great
resource despite how biased you are on certain subjects.

"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
In my opinion even the best pure asp file upload solutions are not very
impressive performance-wise.
Anyone that tells you different is wrong or does not have enough

experience
in the area of file uploading.


???

Anyone that makes such a contradictory and blanket statement should spend
more time testing and less time yapping.



Jul 19 '05 #14

P: n/a
> it can be up to 100 times faster in some situations.

Key words: *can* and *some.*

Did I ever say "pure ASP upload will outperform a component in every case?"
No, of course not.
People with attitudes like you have do more harm than good in these
newsgroups and discourage a lot of people from even coming back to the
newsgroups for assistance.


How about this for discouraging: blow it out your ass.
Jul 19 '05 #15

P: n/a
you know, there is not a big deal to make own Uploader in 100% ASP

arachno
Jul 19 '05 #16

P: n/a
You guys are a riot. :]

Ray at home
Jul 19 '05 #17

P: n/a
Thanks to all for the perspectives and entertainment.

Ray at home
Jul 19 '05 #18

P: n/a
I just love these attitudes, where "method x is the best way, no exceptions,
etc etc blah blah." The same kind of attitude that makes one think that
DLLs are always faster than ASP code, that stored procedures are always
faster than ad hoc queries, and that <product x> is always faster than
<product y>. Sorry, but there are far more variables than x and y, and
there's more to the analysis than "I guess I don't know what I'm talking
about." Nothing like arguing with a 4th grader.

"Ray at <%=sLocation%>" <myfirstname at lane 34 . komm> wrote in message
news:#r**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
You guys are a riot. :]

Ray at home

Jul 19 '05 #19

P: n/a
Aaron... always running your mouth aren't cha ?

Method X and nothing else, ehh ?
Humm,,. Is that sorta like how for the past 4 years or so you basically told
people to never use MSAccess and to only use high end database servers for
every project ? Makes ya wonder how little Jimmy Chongs SQL Server Guestbook
is running on his site that gets 4 visitors a week ? Probably pretty damn
good I bet.
Ray, if you try out a quality component like ASPUpload you'll most likely
see improvements despite what Mr. Newsgroup says. Components are not limited
to using the default IIS/windows scripting objects and the ADODB library
like simple scripts are. They can function much more efficiently when it
comes to file uploading if done right.

Something serious like file uploading is a lot different than your average
use of a DLL in ASP in which case it's a whole different ballgame .

Why don't you let us know how it turns out ?

"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:e5****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I just love these attitudes, where "method x is the best way, no exceptions, etc etc blah blah." The same kind of attitude that makes one think that
DLLs are always faster than ASP code, that stored procedures are always
faster than ad hoc queries, and that <product x> is always faster than
<product y>. Sorry, but there are far more variables than x and y, and
there's more to the analysis than "I guess I don't know what I'm talking
about." Nothing like arguing with a 4th grader.

Jul 19 '05 #20

P: n/a
An incredible thread!

What's the point in arguing between yourselves when none of you can provide
concrete evidence for any of the arguments. The original post [Ray] just
wanted to know about the available, 'reliable', upload components.
Most of them have been listed.
Why not just get an eval of all of them and *try* it to see which operates
fastest. Mind you, the speed is probably more to do with bandwidth from the
client than anything else. If the server has a 2Mb connection but the client
is on ADSL with 256kbps upload then the maximum upload from that client will
be about 25Kb/sec irrespective of what method is employed. I can't envisage
any scenario where the server would be significantly taxed receiving
25Kb/sec of upload irrespective of it being component or script based..
Maybe I'm missing the point but as a developer I'm a bit non-plussed by
everyone's attitude in this thread, brings to mind a school playground
slanging match.

My suggestion is that you all now focus on having a go at me for having the
gall to comment - a common enemy is always a good thing to get everyone
working together.

NB: I was following this thread since I've never done uploads but I'd like
to in the near future and I thought I might learn something. However, it
looks like I'll just have to get hold of them all and have a go myself to
see what's best for me - probably a component, not for speed, but for speed
and ease of development.

Cheers,

Chris.

"Fred Jones" <fr*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uS**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Aaron... always running your mouth aren't cha ?

Method X and nothing else, ehh ?
Humm,,. Is that sorta like how for the past 4 years or so you basically told
people to never use MSAccess and to only use high end database servers for
every project ? Makes ya wonder how little Jimmy Chongs SQL Server Guestbook
is running on his site that gets 4 visitors a week ? Probably pretty damn
good I bet.
Ray, if you try out a quality component like ASPUpload you'll most likely
see improvements despite what Mr. Newsgroup says. Components are not limited
to using the default IIS/windows scripting objects and the ADODB library
like simple scripts are. They can function much more efficiently when it
comes to file uploading if done right.

Something serious like file uploading is a lot different than your average
use of a DLL in ASP in which case it's a whole different ballgame .

Why don't you let us know how it turns out ?

"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:e5****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I just love these attitudes, where "method x is the best way, no exceptions, etc etc blah blah." The same kind of attitude that makes one think that
DLLs are always faster than ASP code, that stored procedures are always
faster than ad hoc queries, and that <product x> is always faster than
<product y>. Sorry, but there are far more variables than x and y, and
there's more to the analysis than "I guess I don't know what I'm talking
about." Nothing like arguing with a 4th grader.


Jul 19 '05 #21

P: n/a
> Humm,,. Is that sorta like how for the past 4 years or so you basically
told
people to never use MSAccess and to only use high end database servers for
every project ?
Can you cite some examples where I said always use SQL Server regardless of
the circumstance? Scratch that, you'll probably just twist my words around.
Again.
Ray, if you try out a quality component like ASPUpload you'll most likely
see improvements despite what Mr. Newsgroup says.
Gee, I seem to recall suggesting ASPUpload, and simply not being convinced
that Ray's current speed issues were merely and solely because he is using
an upload solution without a component. I also noted that *my* observations
in *our* environment showed that the performance of a *certain*
component-less script was actually a bit faster than ASPUpload.

You sure took those thoughts and tried to make me look like an asshole, with
a bunch of unwarranted ad hominen attacks. Congratulations.
They can function much more efficiently when it
comes to file uploading if done right.


See, there's that "conditional" logic again. You're screaming at me for
saying "it depends" when it really does depend. You can keep attacking me
with your circular logic, and this is where I bow out.

*PLONK*
Jul 19 '05 #22

P: n/a
Chris Barber wrote:
...
Maybe I'm
missing the point but as a developer I'm a bit non-plussed by
everyone's attitude in this thread, brings to mind a school
playground slanging match.
...


Indeed - welcome to usenet and the joys of text.

--
William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
Jul 19 '05 #23

P: n/a
CJM

"Aaron Bertrand - MVP" <aa***@TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:uU****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
The slowness is probably caused by my expectations. I'll consider

lowering
them to make things seem faster.


Good plan! I do that all the time. :-)


That is a fantastic idea! Is there a remote installation solution for this?

I could do with applying it to my boss.

CJM
Jul 19 '05 #24

P: n/a
CJM
Personally, I think thats a really bad attitude, Chris...

As my mother used to say, 'If you can't say something libellous,
unsubstantiated, inflammatory or intolerant, don't say anything at all!'

Well it was something like that.

10 says Fred floors Aaron in the 7th round... ;-)

Chris

PS. I love the way you talk about 256kbps as if it were narrowband! I think
this whole debate is redundant for me and my 40kbps dial-up connection.

"Chris Barber" <ch***@blue-canoe.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
An incredible thread!

What's the point in arguing between yourselves when none of you can provide concrete evidence for any of the arguments. The original post [Ray] just
wanted to know about the available, 'reliable', upload components.
Most of them have been listed.
Why not just get an eval of all of them and *try* it to see which operates
fastest. Mind you, the speed is probably more to do with bandwidth from the client than anything else. If the server has a 2Mb connection but the client is on ADSL with 256kbps upload then the maximum upload from that client will be about 25Kb/sec irrespective of what method is employed. I can't envisage any scenario where the server would be significantly taxed receiving
25Kb/sec of upload irrespective of it being component or script based..
Maybe I'm missing the point but as a developer I'm a bit non-plussed by
everyone's attitude in this thread, brings to mind a school playground
slanging match.

My suggestion is that you all now focus on having a go at me for having the gall to comment - a common enemy is always a good thing to get everyone
working together.

NB: I was following this thread since I've never done uploads but I'd like
to in the near future and I thought I might learn something. However, it
looks like I'll just have to get hold of them all and have a go myself to
see what's best for me - probably a component, not for speed, but for speed and ease of development.

Cheers,

Chris.

Jul 19 '05 #25

P: n/a
CJM
Now that the 'debate' has started, Ray... How about posting us your findings
when you have tried a few options?

Cheers

Chris
Jul 19 '05 #26

P: n/a
>Anybody with half a brain knows a good component based upload component can
totally outperform a purely script based solution.


You're exactly right. It *can*. It doesn't necessarily mean it
always will, so cut the attitude. Anybody that does real-world
programming realizes there is never a one-size-fits-all solution.

Jeff
Jul 19 '05 #27

P: n/a
>NB: I was following this thread since I've never done uploads but I'd like
to in the near future and I thought I might learn something. However, it
looks like I'll just have to get hold of them all and have a go myself to
see what's best for me - probably a component, not for speed, but for speed
and ease of development.


That's really the key, finding what works for you. In some cases, we
use the absolute worst product for the job simply because we're
comfortable programming with it. In my case, I usually test the first
component I find, if I can understand it and comfortably work with it
within three minutes, I don't normally look at the next one.
Sometimes it takes a few tries, sometimes you get lucky right out of
the gate. But you would never get anything productive done if you
agonized over every choice you made and examined all the what-if's
involved.

Works the same with wives... :)

Jeff
Jul 19 '05 #28

P: n/a
I posted so I wouldn't have to test 900 different options. Damn you all!
:P

Ray at work

"CJM" <cj*****@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eh**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Now that the 'debate' has started, Ray... How about posting us your findings when you have tried a few options?

Cheers

Chris

Jul 19 '05 #29

P: n/a
Yeah, I do love my ADSL - it rocks. I still get scared thinking of going
back to dial-up.

And ... I'm not a bad person, I really do try and reply to posts if I think
I can provide a solution. In this instance, although not a solution, I
thought that the best thing to do would be to get hold of the upload
components, put them on similar web pages and try the upload to see how well
they perform and how easy they are to work with.

Anyway, my money's on Ray ....

Chris.

"CJM" <cj*****@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ON*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Personally, I think thats a really bad attitude, Chris...

As my mother used to say, 'If you can't say something libellous,
unsubstantiated, inflammatory or intolerant, don't say anything at all!'

Well it was something like that.

10 says Fred floors Aaron in the 7th round... ;-)

Chris

PS. I love the way you talk about 256kbps as if it were narrowband! I think
this whole debate is redundant for me and my 40kbps dial-up connection.

"Chris Barber" <ch***@blue-canoe.co.uk.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
An incredible thread!

What's the point in arguing between yourselves when none of you can provide concrete evidence for any of the arguments. The original post [Ray] just
wanted to know about the available, 'reliable', upload components.
Most of them have been listed.
Why not just get an eval of all of them and *try* it to see which operates
fastest. Mind you, the speed is probably more to do with bandwidth from the client than anything else. If the server has a 2Mb connection but the client is on ADSL with 256kbps upload then the maximum upload from that client will be about 25Kb/sec irrespective of what method is employed. I can't envisage any scenario where the server would be significantly taxed receiving
25Kb/sec of upload irrespective of it being component or script based..
Maybe I'm missing the point but as a developer I'm a bit non-plussed by
everyone's attitude in this thread, brings to mind a school playground
slanging match.

My suggestion is that you all now focus on having a go at me for having the gall to comment - a common enemy is always a good thing to get everyone
working together.

NB: I was following this thread since I've never done uploads but I'd like
to in the near future and I thought I might learn something. However, it
looks like I'll just have to get hold of them all and have a go myself to
see what's best for me - probably a component, not for speed, but for speed and ease of development.

Cheers,

Chris.


Jul 19 '05 #30

P: n/a
[re: wives] that's how I found mine!

She started cleaning three minutes after getting into my rented house and I
thought to myself 'that's the woman for me'. Joking of course, my wife is
amazing and even puts up with me tapping away at 2am in the morning if
something grabs me.

Chris.

"Jeff Cochran" <jc*************@naplesgov.com> wrote in message
news:3f****************@msnews.microsoft.com...
NB: I was following this thread since I've never done uploads but I'd like
to in the near future and I thought I might learn something. However, it
looks like I'll just have to get hold of them all and have a go myself to
see what's best for me - probably a component, not for speed, but for speed
and ease of development.


That's really the key, finding what works for you. In some cases, we
use the absolute worst product for the job simply because we're
comfortable programming with it. In my case, I usually test the first
component I find, if I can understand it and comfortably work with it
within three minutes, I don't normally look at the next one.
Sometimes it takes a few tries, sometimes you get lucky right out of
the gate. But you would never get anything productive done if you
agonized over every choice you made and examined all the what-if's
involved.

Works the same with wives... :)

Jeff
Jul 19 '05 #31

P: n/a
Ahh! the joys of letting other people make your decisions for you :)

LoL.

Seriously, Dundas [free], ASPUpload [relatively expensive], and my
favourite ABCUpload (http://www.websupergoo.com/products.htm) all seem to
get good reviews. I like the Web Supergoo components, I've used a few of
them (especially the PDF one) and the support is very good. I detected a
memory leak in the PDF component and they had a fix out without 48 hours so
I was pretty impressed.

Quote from Supergoo website:

ABCUpload ASP is normally priced at $149. However as a special offer we'll
give you a free license key - all you have to do is link back to our web
site. For full details check out our link guidelines...

Sounds interesting if you can give them the link back.

Chris.

"Ray at <%=sLocation%>" <myfirstname at lane34 dot com> wrote in message
news:uZ**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
I posted so I wouldn't have to test 900 different options. Damn you all!
:P

Ray at work

"CJM" <cj*****@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eh**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Now that the 'debate' has started, Ray... How about posting us your findings when you have tried a few options?

Cheers

Chris


Jul 19 '05 #32

P: n/a
Hi, Fred
Oh, I'm sorry, some old info on my web-site.

Pure-ASP upload v 2.0 has very improoved performance - it can upload up
to 100th of megabytes and its performance is on ~30-40% of best-component
performance (Huge-ASP upload, of course :-). So the info about 100kB and
exceptionally MB is very old. I must change it.

Most of public pure-asp upload scripts and VBA components (each of?)
have some bad algorithms - request.BinaryRead(request.TotalBytes) - one
block reading, and single byte-to-char conversions when storing files on
server-side. Consumed processor time depends by square on source file/form
size, so upload limit is on megabytes, depending on processor performance.

Pure-ASP 2.0 upload has block-by-block algorithm to read source data and
has NO single byte-to-char conversions. So its performance depends linearly
on source data size and the performance is really exciting for big files
(100th megabytes or 20% of a free memory is a limit, 10th of megabytes
without problems).

Antonin, Author of PureASP and HugeASP upload.
http://www.pstruh.cz/
"Fred Jones" <fr*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O9**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
http://www.pstruh.cz/help/scptutl/pa33.htm#hugepure
Notice this section...

"Pure-ASP upload is a VBS script, which uses only default IIS/windows
scripting objects - Scripting and ADODB library. So you do not need to
install any additional software. But the Pure-VBS code has also
Pure-Performance and it is very hungry for system resources - memory and
processor resources. The code has one more great characteristic - it is free to use. You can use Pure-ASP upload when
- you need upload only small files (up to 100kB, exceptionally 1-2MB)
- your provider does not enable to install external components
- you have small number of concurrent uploads
Huge-ASP upload is a high-performance, low resources C++ component
with unique algorithm. The component is designed to accept forms of any size (from bytes to gigabytes) with maximum eficiency. Please use Huge-ASP upload in any other case."
Here is some additional info from another sites perspective.
http://developerfusion.com/show/1615/1/

Anybody with half a brain knows a good component based upload component can totally outperform a purely script based solution.

Fact is...

People with attitudes like you have do more harm than good in these
newsgroups and discourage a lot of people from even coming back to the
newsgroups for assistance. To your credit the ASPFAQ site is a great
resource despite how biased you are on certain subjects.

Jul 19 '05 #33

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.