www.webdeveloper.com

View Poll Results: Do you like Xampp or Wamp Better?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Xampp

    23 85.19%
  • Wamp

    4 14.81%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

Thread: Xampp Vs. Wamp

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rosemount, MN
    Posts
    2,287

    Xampp Vs. Wamp

    Which do you like better?
    My settings

    Browser :: FireFox 1.5
    Resolution :: 1152x864
    Connection :: Cable Modem 2Mbs

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles California
    Posts
    1,045
    I use wamp, It seems more simple for me.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Rosemount, MN
    Posts
    2,287
    I am currently using Xampp, and I would like to see what the poplulation here has to say.
    My settings

    Browser :: FireFox 1.5
    Resolution :: 1152x864
    Connection :: Cable Modem 2Mbs

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    19,241
    I like XAMPP, because of the extra P (it installs Perl as well as PHP), plus it has both PHP4 and PHP5 with a utility for switching between which version you want to use.
    "Please give us a simple answer, so that we don't have to think, because if we think, we might find answers that don't fit the way we want the world to be."
    ~ Terry Pratchett in Nation

    eBookworm.us

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,592
    Quote Originally Posted by NogDog
    I like XAMPP, because of the extra P (it installs Perl as well as PHP), plus it has both PHP4 and PHP5 with a utility for switching between which version you want to use.
    WAMP has a Perl add-on AND a PHP4 add-on

    http://wampserver.com/en/add-ons.php

    I'll go with WAMP. I tried XAMPP twice, once a long time ago, when I disliked it because you needed to leave the window open while it ran. Then I found WAMP (I like to think I was the first one here that found it) and it was just so much simpler. I also tried it again about a year ago and there was still something I just didn't like. Can't remember what that was, exactly.

    Anyways, WAMP is a lot more basic and closer to the result you'd get if you config'd. XAMPP just XAMPPifies everything too much.

    And for those of you saying you prefer to configure it yourself, I'm going to assume that's because you haven't given WAMP a chance. Unless you're running a serious web server that gets loads of constant traffic, config won't make it any better.

    And if you reformat a lot, it's rather exhausting to reinstall and reconfigure everything. WAMP at least makes this a little easier.

    </testimony>
    Windows XP SP2 - theme: Thallos
    AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ | ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe | 2 * 1024 PC2-6400 Mushkin DDR2-800 | eVGA GeForce 6800XT 256MB | Creative Sound Blaster X-FI Music
    5 * 320GB Seagate Barracuda SATA-II 3Gb/s in RAID 5 | Lite-On 16x DVD-RW | Mitsumi 7-in-1 Floppy drive and card reader
    Samsung SyncMaster 204B 20" TFT LCD | Logitech G15 Keyboard | Logitech G7 Mouse | Seasonic PC160SK Headset

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel T
    And for those of you saying you prefer to configure it yourself, I'm going to assume that's because you haven't given WAMP a chance.

    I can't remember which it was. I just remember it asking stupid questions and everything being in the wrong places.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel T
    I'll go with WAMP. I tried XAMPP twice, once a long time ago, when I disliked it because you needed to leave the window open while it ran.
    ..You can open the xampp control program, hit run on apache and mysql and hit exit and the two programs will still run with the xampp control program gone. And i use xampp.
    Welsh

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel T View Post
    WAMP has a Perl add-on AND a PHP4 add-on

    http://wampserver.com/en/add-ons.php

    I'll go with WAMP. I tried XAMPP twice, once a long time ago, when I disliked it because you needed to leave the window open while it ran. Then I found WAMP (I like to think I was the first one here that found it) and it was just so much simpler. I also tried it again about a year ago and there was still something I just didn't like. Can't remember what that was, exactly.

    Anyways, WAMP is a lot more basic and closer to the result you'd get if you config'd. XAMPP just XAMPPifies everything too much.

    And for those of you saying you prefer to configure it yourself, I'm going to assume that's because you haven't given WAMP a chance. Unless you're running a serious web server that gets loads of constant traffic, config won't make it any better.

    And if you reformat a lot, it's rather exhausting to reinstall and reconfigure everything. WAMP at least makes this a little easier.

    </testimony>
    Minimise to tray when running or when clicking on close.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Northern UK :((
    Posts
    667
    Ive never used WAMP so i chose XAMPP because its fairly easy to use.
    99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code, fix one bug, compile it again ... 101 little bugs in the code

    An important petition, regarding your human rights:
    https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...r-both-genders

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,771
    I like compiling each program separately from source and manually configuring them.


    Why is that not an option?!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,056
    Same here. I use neither. I just download the source, then configure and compile it myself. That way, I can update to a new version release of whichever software straight away and I don't have to wait for someone else to put together an updated batch

    I also find it far easier to put it all together and configure their behaviour myself too. I had been setting everything up myself for about 18 months, when a mate of mine told me he'd downloaded one of them and wanted a hand setting it up. So I went to see him and lend a hand... and couldn't make a lick of sense out of it.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Philbin View Post
    Same here. I use neither. I just download the source, then configure and compile it myself. That way, I can update to a new version release of whichever software straight away and I don't have to wait for someone else to put together an updated batch

    I also find it far easier to put it all together and configure their behaviour myself too. I had been setting everything up myself for about 18 months, when a mate of mine told me he'd downloaded one of them and wanted a hand setting it up. So I went to see him and lend a hand... and couldn't make a lick of sense out of it.
    Setphen Philbin the website www.stephenphilbin.com is not working.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,803
    Only ever used xampp and uniserver.

    I prefer xampp slightly. I only use xampp on my desktop and laptop as a 'development environment'.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,056
    Quote Originally Posted by chickov View Post
    Setphen Philbin the website www.stephenphilbin.com is not working.
    Yeah. My hosting provider screws with my software every so often and completely disables my database, http and mail servers. I keep meaning to sort it out, but I've barely touched my site in about two years. I'm keen on getting back in to web development, but I've been away from it for quite some time now and I'm still a busy bunny.

    Quote Originally Posted by noalias
    How do i do that?
    You mean how do you put your site together from source? It depends on which operating system you're trying to do it on. Are you trying (or maybe just thinking about trying) to do it on Windows or a Unix-based operating system like Linux?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Philbin View Post
    Same here. I use neither. I just download the source, then configure and compile it myself. That way, I can update to a new version release of whichever software straight away and I don't have to wait for someone else to put together an updated batch

    I also find it far easier to put it all together and configure their behaviour myself too. I had been setting everything up myself for about 18 months, when a mate of mine told me he'd downloaded one of them and wanted a hand setting it up. So I went to see him and lend a hand... and couldn't make a lick of sense out of it.
    How do i do that?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center



Recent Articles