IIS on XP Home - HTML Forums

prospero · 08-14-2007, 02:08 AM

Is there any way to run IIS on Windows XP Home?
I'm a novice.
I've been told there might be a tweak to do this.

darktown · 08-14-2007, 08:29 AM

No there is not.
use windows xp pro.
if you use Visual Studio 2005, you"ll get some sort of built-in IIS for your web applications.

ngaisteve1 · 08-14-2007, 10:59 AM

No darktown. I have read before. It is possible to run IIS with Window XP Home. But, it is tedious and can be risky.

prospero · 08-14-2007, 12:21 PM

Thanks guys.
I'll stick with what I'm good at.

mandelbrot · 08-17-2007, 11:59 AM

You can run IIS on XP Home, but you have to make Home edition "think" it is XP Pro.

There's a link on the web about it somewhere - I'll try and dig it out...

Paul.

mandelbrot · 08-17-2007, 12:02 PM

There's loads on Google about it, but this is quite useful (though I didn't follow this particular site myself).

BillyGalbreath · 08-17-2007, 12:42 PM

Why not use Apache? Its far superior to IIS, it will work on any OS, and its free.

afterburn · 08-17-2007, 07:12 PM

cause it is a pain to configure. And doesn't run ASP. The ASP.net support from mono is still a bit patchy.

BillyGalbreath · 08-17-2007, 08:37 PM

ASP is less powerful than PHP. Why would you want to use ASP o_O?

But just in case you are stuck in your ways, ASP does in fact run on Apache.

What about Apache::ASP or Chilisoft!ASP? Those are two solutions to use ASP on Apache.

Apache is not a pain to configure either. Takes me hours to do on IIS what I do on Apache in about 10 minutes. Windows' point and click makes things take much longer than they need to be.

afterburn · 08-17-2007, 10:21 PM

That is a falsehood of the power of ASP. Because many applications no matter how much you might want to deny, are written in ASP.

The stablity of ASP on apache is a joke, doesn't work one bit the way it works on NT. Besides that, i haven't ever seen one single project COM,COM+ or DCOM ever work the way it does on NT. Because everything there is patch work to make it work, the simulated calls to CreateObject the bad handling of IUnknown & IDispatch. Nothing is noteworthly about its support or stablity in large scale applications on Apache.

Besides you still haven't addressed the first and foremost reason for suggesting Apache, it is takes a hours of reading and configuring with text files that are a hodge-poge of half baked XML attempt, and a poorly thoughtout ini file.

And for the point click idea, thats just dumb maybe you need to type out every command? If you think that addes to your "male ego" then you can always use PowerShell aka MONAD. That gives you command line access to everything in WMI.

BillyGalbreath · 08-17-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afterburn

That is a falsehood of the power of ASP. Because many applications no matter how much you might want to deny, are written in ASP.

Yeah, maybe Windows applications... I'm thinking bigger than that. Can you tell me an entire OS developed with ASP? No. PHP is so powerful there is a team of developers building an entire Solaris-like OS built entirely with PHP. Can your ASP do this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by afterburn

The stablity of ASP on apache is a joke, doesn't work one bit the way it works on NT. Besides that, i haven't ever seen one single project COM,COM+ or DCOM ever work the way it does on NT. Because everything there is patch work to make it work, the simulated calls to CreateObject the bad handling of IUnknown & IDispatch. Nothing is noteworthly about its support or stablity in large scale applications on Apache.

You're probably right on that - I haven't use ASP since I was 16 years old writing my first server side pages (a guestbook to be exact).

Quote:

Originally Posted by afterburn

Besides you still haven't addressed the first and foremost reason for suggesting Apache, it is takes a hours of reading and configuring with text files that are a hodge-poge of half baked XML attempt, and a poorly thoughtout ini file.

The config file does contain a lot of useless crap, I agree. The .ini version on Windows is even worse, yes. But you fail to realize that apache works out of the box with maybe 1 or 2 changes to the main config file (admin email, and then the default files). Then its just a matter of setting up your virtualhosts in a different config file which is very clean and small, which most n00b server owners or devel server owners wont ever need to setup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by afterburn

And for the point click idea, thats just dumb maybe you need to type out every command? If you think that addes to your "male ego" then you can always use PowerShell aka MONAD. That gives you command line access to everything in WMI.

This is kinda offensive and uncalled for, but to respond, no its not about my "male ego". Point and click takes away a lot of controls. I'm a hardcore Linux (and very anti-microsoft) guy that likes the controls I can get from a terminal. I control what my computer does, my computer does not control me or itself. "User-friendly" is just another term for "Do things for you". Hell - I'll tell you about a recent experience of mine to prove my point. My Debian Linux will update, when i tell it to update. Not like the Win2003 servers at my friend's university which completely disconnected the network interfaces because it was waiting for the user to give the "Ok" to install the updates. I've even seen my computers at work (running WinXPProSP2) shut themselves down without warning because they want to install updates. How retarded is that? And what about the fact that you can only control those options that the developers program in for you? If you had full access to the config files then you can control everything from them, not what little controls were jam packed into a GUI. I see this all the time as a Linux user - n00bs come along and they want to do this, or do that, and they are trying every way they can figure out from the graphical interface tools. I go in to the terminal and edit the configs in about 30 seconds and it works how they want. Try doing that on Windows. And don't give me this talk about WMI - you think configuring apache is bad?! Try configuring something in Windows the way you described. That OS is so poorly developed that the backend is just as bad as the front. You try changing IIS's settings using your method, and then try editing Apache's ini file. You tell me which one was easier and works best...

alyssasdaddy · 08-17-2007, 11:38 PM

Quote:

That is a falsehood of the power of ASP. Because many applications no matter how much you might want to deny, are written in ASP.

Are you kidding me some one who is that stuck on the windows monopoly. Well i guess when you pay so much for a GUI system that crashes the only thing you agree on is that and its features.

you put your finest asp script against a similar script written in php. I will bet that the php will be much more stable and faster then the asp, Even if asp was better if your running on a winblows machine then there is probably to many system processes running to let the script run as fast as it could.

About apache being hard to configure

it is obvious you have not manual! its way easier to control and configure. Its working on install on windows its one file to edit very self explanatory, They even put instructions and examples in the conf file for people that rely on GUI interfaces to do everything.

IIS is a huge security hole in any web environment

For the original question from the original poster.

You do not want to go with IIS if you are using it for a test server go with a program by the name of WAMP server (Google it) its great for web development on windows, also it comes pre configured to use php and mysql. If you are developing in ASP please seek alternative means because asp is not bad but its not good either. And never go with coldfusion.

If you are going with a live server on windows it will be a bad idea then your DE is at risk of attack. If you insist on using IIS go to control panel> add/remove programs and click the add windows components button its there. Its there since win 98 which is in my mind way more secure then all the other window OS except Win 2000. However windows suck's i would get a old box and install linux on it for the handling the web.

I am tired this may be my A$$ talking But by all means when you see so many people arguing on mine is better then yours go with what you want to go with. Apache has its advantages like running asp better (Thats about it on that one) Apache does everything else better.

Excuse me for the fit i have thrown but when i see someone defending windblows and IIS i have to jump in.

removed comments of manual

afterburn · 08-17-2007, 11:52 PM

Offensive or not, that is the only reason that anyone would type out everything when i can create website in IIS in 2 minutes, creating sub-applications with health monitoring. I have every bit of access to IIS from the ground up to the root application node in the IIS Metabase to configure it, name one thing that the MMC doens't give you access to.

Well your friends university are likely in the same boat most people are. They are mission critical servers, and they are not config'ed to auto-update. Yes windows does have this feature. Its called Windows BITS (Background Information Transfer Service). Used in everything from Updates to VSS - (Volume Shadow Service).

You are more niave to think that windows isn't stable, or equal to a Linux. If this wasn't the case, why would Dell,myspace and many others? http://asp.net/get-started/

Any anti-microsoft people should actually check out some facts. Facts like how many actual requests those servers handle per-second. Like how fast the world has changed from java to ASP.net.

Why in the world would you even attempt something so stupid as an OS in PHP, last i seen it doesn't access low level like the 7th interrupt harddrive access, or the 12th to handle keyboard events at its source. If PHP can do that, its a scripting language its AN logO(O) function of complexity, it wouldn't be able to handle the memory management for multi-threading, or look at the __stdcall for the ex register.

Long story short you are both IN AN ASP/ASP.net (Which in case you werent aware are MS technologies) from. And you are arguing points that have no basis, nothing to back it up and no solid professional use of the technologies side by side.

BillyGalbreath · 08-17-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Profoundly pondering how one goes about throwing away a trash can.

I found this funny! lol - I believe the answer would be to put it in a dumpster.... :p

alyssasdaddy · 08-17-2007, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Besides you still haven't addressed the first and foremost reason for suggesting Apache, it is takes a hours of reading and configuring with text files that are a hodge-poge of half baked XML attempt, and a poorly thoughtout ini file.

I must have read over this part, ummm Thats all wrong from what i see let me give billy a helping on his suggestion of apache

1) IIS SUCKS
2) Refer to # 1
3) Windows developers wrote there code to fail IIS is no exception

It seems to me you have not used apache, Apache has more customization potential then IIS. Half of the files you do not even need to touch. You may have encountered this reading problem with IIS but i guaranty more support pages for apache FREE SUPPORT PAGES for apache. and if you like GUI so much they fine developers of the open source software have built a graphical interface for apache config file.

Here is a link to one http://www.apache-gui.com/

EDIT I believe the quoted (BITS) Explanation is Background intelligent transfer system google it