By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,749 Members | 1,615 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,749 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Which installation best for XP+ IIS 5.1: CGI, CLI or ISAPI??

P: n/a
MT
Hello Everyone:

I am running XP Pro with IIS 5.1.

Which is the best PHP version to install:
CGI, CLI or ISAPI??

The installation manual lists all three but does
not say which is most stable, fastest, other
advantages/disadvantage.

Any help from experienced users is very welcome!!!

Starting to get my feet wet with PHP and really
enjoying it!

Regards,
Mario
Jul 16 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
Martin Wickman <wi*****@hotbrev.com> wrote in message news:<sl********************@babar.tuffmusik.nu>.. .
In article <bf**********@online.de>, MT wrote:
Hello Everyone:

I am running XP Pro with IIS 5.1.

Which is the best PHP version to install:
CGI, CLI or ISAPI??

The installation manual lists all three but does
not say which is most stable, fastest, other
advantages/disadvantage.


ISAPI is fastest because the php interpretator is integrated in the
webserver.

CGI will run the php interpretator once for each request, which hurts
performance.

CLI is for running the php interpretator manually from the command
line (Command Line Interface) and should not be executed from the
webserver at all
Any help from experienced users is very welcome!!!

Starting to get my feet wet with PHP and really
enjoying it!


My personal preference would be to run PHP under _Apache_, preferably
on Linux.


I would definitely use Apache instead of IIS, but there is no reason
why you should not use Windows for development purposes. I personally
use Windows XP with the ISAPI version of PHP running under Apache for
all my development, but my live web server is linux.

Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net/
Jul 16 '05 #2

P: n/a
In article <75**************************@posting.google.com >, Tony Marston wrote:
Martin Wickman <wi*****@hotbrev.com> wrote in message news:<sl********************@babar.tuffmusik.nu>.. .

My personal preference would be to run PHP under _Apache_,
preferably on Linux.


[...] there is no reason why you should not use Windows for
development purposes.


What kind of argument is that? Use Linux if you prefer the (imo)
superior unix development enviroment. I do.
Jul 16 '05 #3

P: n/a
Martin Wickman <wi*****@hotbrev.com> wrote in message news:<sl********************@babar.tuffmusik.nu>.. .
In article <75**************************@posting.google.com >, Tony Marston wrote:
Martin Wickman <wi*****@hotbrev.com> wrote in message news:<sl********************@babar.tuffmusik.nu>.. .

My personal preference would be to run PHP under _Apache_,
preferably on Linux.


[...] there is no reason why you should not use Windows for
development purposes.


What kind of argument is that? Use Linux if you prefer the (imo)
superior unix development enviroment. I do.


Because most people only have Windows PCs for development purposes,
that's why. They are not going to waste time trying to create a dual
boot situation with Windows and either Linux or Unix just for PHP
development.

Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net/
Jul 16 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.