Apache HTTP Server has more stability and features than the other products. It is also more secure. Apache HTTP Server has a more developer base so it is easier to find resources on it.
I has a lot more features, except that IIS is more integrated in a Windows environment. But now with .net core also possible from Apache it would work anywhere really. Only in a full Windows environment where full integration is needed I would chose to go for IIS. Otherwise …
IIS has a clear advantage over Apache: Configuration can be done through a convenient visual editor. But, sometimes, IIS can be tricky to use for serving other things than asp.net.
We had bad experiences working at scale with IIS7.5 while serving PHP websites. I know that more …
The comparison with other products from IBM or Oracle is difficult. These are mostly software that has to be paid for. The only fair comparison at eye level is probably the Nginx web server: It is also free and offers even higher performance. In the meantime, there is also a …
Apache is more simple, also it tends to be more stable and it is less complicated to use, comparing with other complex solutions that are difficult to troubleshot. So wherever possible I select Apache HTTP Server for own/enterprise use also advise consumers to select the Apache …
By having a similar purpose, which is to publish and manage access to services, sites, and/or web systems, I have had to implement them to analyze their qualities and virtues, but stability, the power of implementation of different solutions and to be able to expand through own …
Apache lacks the scalability and feature set of NGINX but our team was not only far more experienced with Apache HTTP Server but was relying on tools and frameworks that required Apache HTTP Server. We've recently considered moving to NGINX but the workload to migrate and train …
Oracle WebLogic /Tuxedo is great when you are using it to install Oracle stack on top including other Oracle middleware and applications. Similarly, if you have IBM applications that need to be configured with IBM DB2, IBM WebSphere is better than Apache Web Server. Red Hat …
To be quite honest I often select Apache because it is the world's most commonly used web server and I have been using it for more than 20 years across many organizations. I have never been burned using Apache. Apache rises above IIS in functionality, configurability, and the …
Against Nginx: Mainly- it's been in the field the longest. There's not really a reason to move to Nginx on it's own. Apache has a mountain of documentation and how-tos that extend from the Foundation itself, to Individual Developers, spanning over 20 years, and most of it …
We chose Apache because it handles dynamic content better than Nginx and it's very well supported. Nginx does handle high traffic sites better, but most of our sites do not get thousands of visitors or more a day as we are a small company serving niche markets. It is notable …
Apache Web Server is the oldest among all of these above-mentioned web server solutions provide a wider range of tools and support available which is of great help when creating a web app because less investment of time and money is what contributes to the success of a project …
I have loved Apache and the brief experience I had with IIS wasn't as good. Nginx I have heard good things and though we use it heavily for our servers now without problems, I haven't configured it myself.
Apache is often used in conjunction with Nginx, with Nginx in front of Apache to serve static assets like CSS and JS. Both are easy to configure. IIS is pretty cumbersome and is not as flexible as Apache.
Keep portability. Web Server machine provides an option to the person to complete their own updates along with deploy their unique application. If live mirroring is not used, some users will have to wait for renewed content. More servers equals …
Apache is far superior to Microsoft's IIS. The only reason to consider IIS would be for compatibility with a given software package that is made exclusively for IIS.
Both NGinx and Apache are trying to accomplish the same thing, with the exception that NGinx is a much faster product. It allows for multi-threading which spreads out the traffic around the server. Apache is typically enabled by default and due to the high volume of websites …
I've used Microsoft's IIS and IBM's HTTP server. The major and a clear advantage of Apache web server over these products is that it’s free and has no licensing issues. Being in the industry for quite sometime (oldest web server) a lot of products and customizations have been …
Apache is terrific. Zeus is actually built on Apache and adds a mediocre at best interface to controlling it. IIS is only good on Windows. Netscape servers are probably not even around anymore, but when they were, were the absolute worst. I couldn't move my office off of them …
You could consider i did use Mysql since i worked with some websites that were using a mysql database. I could not give a side by side comparision since i don't use those like i use the Microsoft SQL , but so far it worked well. I prefer Microsoft SQL due to support and info …
UI of the Microsoft SQL Server makes it easy to use and learn. The better technical support and documentation give it an extra edge over other databases. The Microsoft ecosystem provides additional advantages, as we can seamlessly use other Microsoft products, such as Power …
Microsoft SQL Server is faster and more compatible, but it does cost more, so you're paying for those features. I use the others in many other places where critical transaction processing time and compatibility aren't of great concern.
Microsoft SQL is slower than MySQL and Access but far more feature-rich and reliable. Access is almost obsolete nowadays, so not too many people are considering it, but unless budget or an open-source ethos is a factor, Microsoft SQL is superior in every way. Many commonly used …
The first database application taught when I was in school was Microsoft SQL Server. Microsoft SQL Server was used where I first started, so I had the opportunity to improve myself in MySQL. SQL is also used in my current workplace. It is widely used in very large projects due …
We have a few different DB's in the organization, including: Pervasive, Oracle, Db2, MySQL. Many of them are of limited use for one specific application. These don't really compare to MS SQL server. Oracle is heavy and cumbersome and overkill for smaller apps. Pervasive - …
Microsoft SQL Server is a comprehensive solution as transactional database, data warehouse, analytics, reporting, and ETL. It also integrates with the cloud well (Azure). The ease of use and setup makes this better than Oracle Database because the query syntax is also different …
I think both tools are really powerful and close to each other but since I moved to Europe I realized that most of the companies have been using SQL Server which in my opinion means something. The support from Microsoft I also consider a bit better and you can also find more …
Microsoft was the original creator of the SQL database, and thus, they still rule the market and drive innovation when it comes to data warehousing systems. It's comparable in price and allows you to retain the structured datasets that you lose when you change to a NoSQL …
[Microsoft] SQL Server has a much better community and professional support and is overall just a more reliable system with Microsoft behind it. I've used MySQL in the past and SQL Server has just become more comfortable for me and is my go to RDBMS.
Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle are both extremely powerful and scalable enterprise relational database platforms. Microsoft SQL sets itself apart with its ease of use and licensing and support model. Microsoft is good company to work with and they provide clear and …
It just boils down to why learn anther product when you are going to run across it so seldom. Developers determine what database engine I am going to need so I just tend to pick products for implementation that use a well know product that has lots of support resources …
The most known and widely used competitor of Microsoft SQL is most probably the open-source MySQL. If given the choice I would personally choose MySQL over Microsoft's SQL Server, mainly because it is totally free and open source, but also because it integrates better with …
[Microsoft SQL Server] offers a full solution, Inhouse Applications and hosted application continue to use SQL as backend database. Allows easy creation of development environments and continuous feature release.
All of the platforms have their own benefit. I was not the decision maker in selecting Microsoft SQL Server, as it was already being utilized when I joined the company, 7 years ago. I can say that I feel more comfortable with utilizing this platform as opposed to the other ones.
The free version is very powerfull and easy to install and use for small companies. Going to Professional and Standard, gives you all the support and the flexibility needed. It is known within the Database Administrator crew, and you can get support very easily over the …
Native to Windows and being required for other MS apps puts it above others in terms of usage. If we were not heavily dependent on Microsoft applications or OS, we might have considered other database solutions. It's an expensive solutions but it is a solid reliable solution. …
I was not too impressed with Oracle. Following the manual prohibited installation. They did provide a phone number and explained the manual was wrong and provided me with the correct information with which I was able to install the product. This was awhile back and I do not …
Microsoft SQL Server is one of the fastest RDBMS systems available in the market. Pricing is a bit on the higher side but all the features it provides pretty much justifies it. It can be integrated with a large number of frameworks thus enabling to work on multiple frameworks …
Microsoft SQL Server is still the industry standard for the type of development we do, and the types of applications that we use. Almost every developer or analyst we hire has at least a reasonable grounding in the use of SQL servers, and it is almost universally compatible …
We stopped looking at alternatives to Microsoft SQL Server a long time ago simply because it meant only having one DBMS that we needed to learn and to support. If we were to implement other database solutions that don't run on SQL Server, we would have to spend more time moving …
Well Suited: Perfect for hosting your own website. And, I don't mean just an individual with a port of MySpace. I mean an industrial strength, commercial grade replacement for Microsoft IIS. If you need a web server that provides a feature-rich environment with support for multiple sites (hosted in the same server), with such features as virtual hosting, and modular feature design, than Apache Web Server is right on the money. Less Well-Suited: Single page, small feature-set websites. Apache is a lot of trouble for developers to set up, just to send/receive JSON strings of a few bytes. You're really better off using something smaller and faster/simpler (lighttpd for example).
Microsoft SQL Server is ideal for highly available SQL workloads by using SQL Server Always On availability groups. Microsoft SQL Server might not be appropriate for solutions which require a very low resource footprint, since it requires significant CPU cores and RAM memory as well as high IOPS, always depending on the usage scenario.
Apache is Open Source, governed well (the foundation) and probably the most stable computing platform ever.
Apache is probably one of the most customizable and configurable pieces of software that I have ever run across in more than 30 years of development.
If there is something that Apache can not do, then you need to ask yourself; should I be doing that? The point here is that it is a solid solution and seems to only integrate other technologies that are of the highest caliber.
Apache will live forever and you can not go wrong with it.
I think it is unlikely that sql server has disappointed someone, it is likely that someone will come initially discouraged if the needs and problems that occur are very challenging, but definitely have a SQL oriented system means having a solid base to work and on which maintain the their data securely
SQL Server mostly 'just works' or generates error messages to help you sort out the trouble. You can usually count on the product to get the job done and keep an eye on your potential mistakes. Interaction with other Microsoft products makes operating as a Windows user pretty straight forward. Digging through the multitude of dialogs and wizards can be a pain, but the answer is usually there somewhere.
I give this rating because there is so much Apache documentation and information on the web that you can literally do anything. This has to do with the fact that there is a huge Open Source community that is beyond mature and perhaps one of the most helpful to be found. The only thing that should hold anyone back from anything is that they can not read. RTFM, my friend. And I must say that the manual is excellent.
We managed to handle most of our problems by looking into Microsoft's official documentation that has everything explained and almost every function has an example that illustrates in detail how a particular functionality works. Just like PowerShell has the ability to show you an example of how some cmdlet works, that is the case also here, and in my opinion, it is a very good practice and I like it.
Other than SQL taking quite a bit of time to actually install there are no problems with installation. Even on hardware that has good performance SQL can still take close to an hour to install a typical server with management and reporting services.
The comparison with other products from IBM or Oracle is difficult. These are mostly software that has to be paid for. The only fair comparison at eye level is probably the NGINX web server: It is also free and offers even higher performance. In the meantime, there is also a paid Plus version of NGINX. This has extended support and special functions.
Microsoft SQL is slower than MySQL and Access but far more feature-rich and reliable. Access is almost obsolete nowadays, so not too many people are considering it, but unless budget or an open-source ethos is a factor, Microsoft SQL is superior in every way. Many commonly used tools, like Crystal Reports, support it.
Apache web server helped us in building client applications without much investment in the underlying server configuration which gives us the ability to start on a new project quickly and upgrade its resources as and when needed.
Using software which is well-supported by a community of open source contributors makes tasks easy and affordable when need help since a couple of minutes on Google saves a couple of dollars every time and you don't need a specialized support person unless there is something significant needing to be changed.
Increased accuracy - We went from multiple users having different versions of an Excel spreadsheet to a single source of truth for our reporting.
Increased Efficiency - We can now generate reports at any time from a single source rather than multiple users spending their time collating data and generating reports.
Improved Security - Enterprise level security on a dedicated server rather than financial files on multiple laptop hard drives.