I use WinSCP in conjunction with FileZilla as it offers better logs and you are able to authenticate with key and password authentication. This too is another nice product, but FileZilla is a lot nicer to navigate and understand like setting up new sessions
We've been using FileZilla for so long that we've really never had to try any other FTP software. We did for a bit use Cyberduck FTP on some Mac devices. Cyberduck worked fine, but we always revert to using FileZilla where we can because it is the industry standard of file …
Both perform the job they are expected to do, and they are easy to use. The FileZilla software is a desktop-based app, so I can only access it on the device on which it was installed. Cisco secure email allows you to send emails as you would normally, but the email and …
We've used mostly either command-line FTP programs built-in to the operating systems, or we've used web-based file transfer sites. Some of these web-based sites might require Java or other specific browser addons, which sometimes are not safe and/or can be hacked, so it's much …
Well, we sent an email to the organization 10 days ago and have yet to receive a response. The email had to be sent because their systems do not recognize the purchase yet when we made it we found the information they were using was false. Thus, we file a complaint with our …
We did not evaluate any other alternatives to FileZilla, as the FileZilla program offered everything that we needed without a cost involved, and was the recommended FTP software solution by our web host and developer.
I've tried so many FTP clients over the years I've lost count. WinSCP, FireFTP, CuteFTP, SmartFTP, Cyberduck, WS_FTP, and countless others. They all offer pretty competitive features. I do find WinSCP to have some extra features that I like, such as better SSH and SFTP support, …
Other products that we had evaluated are more complex to install, configure, and use. Filezilla is pretty simple to use and configuration parameters are pretty clear to capture--no room for error.
Tools such as WinSCP, FireFTP, and Total commander have features that are similar to what FileZilla offers. WinSCP is similar in features to FileZilla for accessing FTP and SFTP hosts. Lately, WinSCP seems less stable with FTP connections. Total commander is another good tool, …
Cyberduck isn't as intuitive as FileZilla thus I tend to go with what's the most simple and effective. I also chose FileZilla due to how reliable it is and the fact that it rarely crashes if ever.
I've used Dreamweaver's FTP services. It allows you to lock and unlock files in a team environment. You can see who currently is updating a file on a site. I've also used Team Foundation Studios that provided the same feature. Comparing the locale and remote site is more …
I have been using FileZilla for over 15 years. I don't remember the other programs that I used to use, but I will tell you that when I found FileZilla, I realized that I didn't need to look any farther. The developer continues to update the program to keep it functioning well.
The only alternatives we use are Git and the built-in SFTP client inside Dreamweaver. Both have different use cases and help us accomplish different tasks. FileZilla is great for migrating an entire server or website and transferring files between two locations when you are not …
FileZilla works in the same way, but this allows for greater security if your company is concerned at all with the Google platform. FileZilla actually makes you open a connection on a server and upload and then closes that connection. DropBox is like Google - it's always open. …
WinSCP is not listed, but that is the main alternative to FileZilla at my company. Both are similar in functionality and capabilities. FileZilla is more user-friendly, although WinSCP is more advanced user-friendly. FileZilla is easy to use when exchanging files between …
We also use GoAnywhere for FTP from our IBMi platform and we also host an instance of GoAnywhere on Windows. We use SFTP in both of these instances, so a server platform that can handle that protocol is a requirement. Unfortunately, Filezilla can't be used in this instance. …
Previously, I've tried Fetch, WinSCP, CyberDuck, Transmit and countless others. The reason I like Filezilla is because it's cheap (free), it's available on many platforms, and site manager makes it easy to transfer credentials between installations. Overall, it's an easy, …
In my past experience, I used other FTP solutions like CuteFTP, FireFTP, WinSCP, and others. They all are pretty much the same, however, FileZilla is the one that is stable; gives you what you need and does not overload the system. FileZilla has a server part which makes this …
FileZilla is very user-friendly and very easy to transfer files securely and safely. It's much easier to get started than some of the others and easier to use every day. It's a safe and effective way to move data between companies or clients. I think it goes a little further …
On Windows, Microsoft IIS is easier to implement and maintain than Apache web service. Normally if you need to host PHP or other apache native content on a Windows server, it's recommended to use WAMP or equivalent software to simplify the installation, administration, and …
It's difficult to compare Apache HTTP Server, nginx, and IIS - they really serve a similar purpose on a different stack. IIS is well suited to the Microsoft stack. Apache HTTP Server works well for Java web applications. nginx is a multipurpose tool that we sometimes deploy …
Director, eCommerce Analytics and Digital Marketing
Chose Microsoft IIS
In terms of the configuration on a shared volume perspective, I think the Apache HTTP Server does a better job here. The Apache angle on this problem is more efficient from a man power perspective and ends up costing a little less in the long run over time. IIS tends to scale …
Microsoft IIS is a lot more easier for Microsoft .NET developers to integrate and configure. It is MUCH more easier to install and therefore less time consuming to deliver applications to end users. IIS can be installed with a few clicks of a button by anyone with …
After using both Microsoft IIS and free Linux alternatives, like NGINX and Apache, I have to say I much prefer the Linux products in every way. Configuration is clearer (you have to edit config files deep in Linux somewhere, but once you've done it once, it's easy). Logging is …
Microsoft IIS is more simple to configure and also to maintain against other solutions. Often IIS help me to troubleshoot with its administartive tool.
Apache is java. Java is unnecessary complex. No developer wants to invest in learning all the hundreds of text based configuration files to get something done. Also, apache gives you the most evil and un-usable user interface possible. [Microsoft] IIS makes [life] after …
Positive: Better integration with Active Directory
Negative: Appache Tomcat is open source and can be deployed on all operating systems including Linux, which allows for easier cross-platform deployments.
I have had a couple of tries at using Apache and Linux as a whole but I guess I am not of the right mindset to get over the learning barrier to make this work.
Microsoft IIS stacked up well with Apache, but since we are a Microsoft shop primarily, we had more resources that were familiar with managing the operating system and the server itself. While there are some benefits to Apache, you can find most of them in Microsoft IIS if you …
Microsoft IIS was selected long ago as it was included with the Windows licensing. As such no new servers or costs were needed to host a site. We now host nearly 4,000 sites on Microsoft IIS. We do still use other platforms as needed but we always start with Microsoft IIS …
Nginx is hard to support for smaller multiple projects, which is one reason we use the Microsoft IIS server, which is best fit for a set-up once and forget scenario. The Apache server is more recommended for smaller sized projects due to its cost factor, as the Microsoft IIS …
IIS is easier to configure and manage. Doesn't require deep knowledge of the product to manage it. Doesn't require for IT team to learn Linux/Unix OS for basic web hosting. However, for advanced IT specialists, all three solutions could be useful and can work together.
Apache and Nginx are both lower overhead solutions compared to IIS, but require extensive configuration through files or command lines. For someone creating a website for the first time, these solutions are difficult to understand and implement.
IIS much easier to install, configure and maintain in a Windows environment. Tomcat is more appropriate when it comes bundled with third party applications.
Apache and Nginx are what we use for our large websites and public data. When dealing with the type of traffic we see on our sites IIS just doesn't scale out well. For our staff levels, Apache and Nginx are very hard to support for all of our projects so we can't always use …
Many support teams are not comfortable supporting Linux platforms which is where Apache can really shine; also, application vendors often do not support Apache on Linux whereas they do support their products on Microsoft servers running IIS. In our case, the applications that I …
I feel each has their own strengths, when it came to developing the in house applications ASP gave us more features so we went with IIS to support those features.
IIS is a different animal than most webservers. I don't know that I'd compare IIS to other products. The differences and reasons to use each are so diverse.
In my experience, Microsoft IIS was definitely easier to wrap my head around and also to troubleshoot. The GUI was a great visual way to see what "sites" and "app pools" you have, what is running, what is currently up.
Microsoft IIS also offers the flexibility to have multiple …
Microsoft IIS is the only official way to run ASP.NET framework sites and for Microsoft System management tools (SCCM and WSUS). While open source options like Apache and NGINX are more commonly used in our department, to maintain the best compatibility we use IIS in certain …
I use FileZilla to securely upload files that are not permitted to be sent via insecure methods like email or web forms. FileZilla is great to test the ability to "reach" the remote SFTP server and to verify my files arrived. Once I have tested that, then our internal IT group automates the uploads to these third parties, however I can always manually log into FIleZilla to verify the uploads.
IIS as a web application server is perfectly suited for .net, .net core, asp.net applications. Our core ESB runs on IIS and has hundreds of gigabytes of data moved through it every day spread across millions of transactions. We have other mission critical applications that deliver our results to patients and doctors relying on IIS web application servers. If you stay in the Microsoft development stack, IIS is a top tier, efficient, and reliable web server.
Easy to use - Some FTP servers bury their functionality in window after window of settings. Not FileZilla. You can get up and running in a few seconds.
Drag and drop - FileZilla allows easy uploading and downloading via drag-and-drop.
Edit in place - FileZilla allows users to edit a text file (or HTML, etc) in place and automatically upload the changes upon save. This is a great feature for making quick edits to a website!
A big advantage that we use all the time is reviewing the logs that automatically get generated in IIS. It has helped us troubleshoot various problems in our applications over the years.
IIS integrates really well with Visual Studio and TFS. We are able to quickly deploy new applications and changes to applications when requested by the business.
IIS has proven that it is easy to configure and maintain with minimal effort.
The editing and viewing feature in FileZilla is not as user-friendly as some other applications. Editing sometimes requires downloading a file and editing it, and then re-applying the file.
Placing and saving encryption keys can sometimes be difficult for non-expert users. FileZilla-driven prompts to assist in this would be helpful.
The cluttered interface sometimes seems non-navigable. There are many times too many windows and unclear where the actual "action" is occurring.
We have no intention to replace all applications running on top of the IIS platform. Not all applications support other platforms and not all support staff are skilled in Linux/Apache platform support. Whereas IIS may not be the best performing or most secure web platform available, for the aforementioned reasons, it is impossible not to continue use of this product.
FileZilla is really easy to understand and makes it easy to log into servers to upload files. Moving files around is a breeze (even if it's a little tedious to wait for large quantities to move one by one) and editing html and css files directly is a feature it would be difficult for us to live without
In general, Microsoft IIS is an alright product. It comes natively with Windows Server. It has good enough GUI to set things up & tweak things around. Once properly setup, it runs stably enough. And with enough Powershell magic, having a CI/CD pipeline to automatically deploy a new version of the application is doable.
ARR (application request routing) in Microsoft IIS Server enables the web-admins to increase the web app reliability and availability through the rule based routing and load balancing of HTTP requests which in turn provides highly available server. IIS 7.0 Manager also provides kernel as well as user mode caching for faster performance and in case if the server fails, the IIS server has good amount of details logged in its log files which help understand and debug the cause quickly. Load balancing facilitates IIS server to fight against availability issues.
In my experience, I have never had significant issues with IIS performance. Sometimes I've experienced issues with loading time, but it is mostly related to the web site code. However Amazon, Microsoft and Google providing free cloud services with very limited resources, and in that scenario, "heavy" websites on IIS could be the issue. In other situations - performance is good.
I've always found the setup of FileZilla to be easy to use and setting up new sites has been quick. In working with FileZilla, I haven't had any issues. I rate it high because it's easy, quick, and free. I think anyone that is familiar with File Explorer can use FileZilla.
As mentioned earlier there is so much documentation or guides or stack overflow questions out there that someone will have faced the same or very similar scenario to what you are going through that you will almost certainly find a solution to what you are after.
Well, we sent an email to the organization 10 days ago and have yet to receive a response. The email had to be sent because their systems do not recognize the purchase yet when we made it we found the information they were using was false. Thus, we file a complaint with our payment processor and asked for our money to be refunded. That process generates several emails from the FileZilla organization asking that we reconsider as well as changing our rating of their services. We did do that AFTER they gave us the correct credentials to be able to download the product. However, when we did everything we were supposed to do to get registered with the User Community, we got several error messages stating that the purchase was not recognized as being valid and they had no record that we made a purchase thus deny entry into their User Community. We are at the current opinion that it is no longer the same organization it was years ago like they really don't care about the product. We've also been having, from time to time, transfer errors popping up within the Free product for which you have very old reviews.
On Windows, Microsoft IIS is easier to implement and maintain than Apache web service. Normally if you need to host PHP or other apache native content on a Windows server, it's recommended to use WAMP or equivalent software to simplify the installation, administration, and configuration of resources. However, you can use Microsoft IIS and other web services on the same server, taking care to keep separate folders and port usage for each system.
Microsoft IIS Server is scalable if the underlying server configuration is done correctly. Use x64 edition v/s 32bit and using 32bit mode application pools are some of the tweaks to be done to make the IIS server scalable. There are too many small configurations need to be carried out in order to make a highly scalable IIS server hence not giving full score in this area.
Speed of development. You don't need to be an expert to expose your website through some DNS
Robust, there has never been any downtime because of IIS itself.
The ease of use can have (and has had) some negative impact because it's too easy to implement something, and then forget. When a server is taken down, those unthoughtful implementations come to light the hard way.