Installing PHP on Windows 7

If you've wrestled with installing PHP on IIS before, there's good news. Installing PHP in Windows 7 is easy. Super easy. Microsoft has created the Web Platform Installer (WPI), which supports installing many things, PHP included.

If you look in the IIS Manager, down at the bottom of the rows of icons you should see Web Platform Installer. If you don't see it there, go to your Start menu and search for "platform".

Check off PHP and let it install. There are a couple of dependencies that will be added automatically.

There's one more change you need to make after PHP is installed, which is to add "index.php" to the list of Default Documents.

There are some other things you should know:

• WPI correctly installs PHP even on a 64-bit system. There's no need to use cscript to separately change configurations.
  
• Apparently, there's still no 64-bit version of PHP for Windows. WPI installs the 32-bit version, which works correctly even under the 64-bit version of IIS.
  
• There's no uninstall option. However, everything is installed to a single directory and removing the relevant FastCGI settings is straightforward.
  
• The correct strategy for upgrading to new versions of PHP isn't obvious. I'm not sure if Microsoft used the stock build of PHP or if they created a custom one.
  

One small gotcha - WPI installs PHP 5. If this is your first encounter with PHP 5, you need to make sure you use <?php ... ?> as opposed to <? ... ?>.

Linux vs Windows: Uptime

If you haven't figured out from this blog, I'm a Windows Guy. But I have a dirty little secret: our corporate Internet presence is a Linux server. Recently I was talking to a Windows IIS developer at a medium-sized company and he was amazed that I would entrust our public face to such an "anarchy of developers." I asked him if he had ever administered a LAMP (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP) server and he admitted that he hadn't. I said to him that there were two key reasons that I use Linux: stability and maintainability.

Our corporate Linux server (Redhat Enterprise 3) has been rebooted once in the last five years and that was only because the power grid in the hosting facility was being upgraded. The current uptime count is 1,242 days, or almost three and a half years.

The pedants among you will point me to Netcraft's uptime list to show that Windows Servers can be kept up that long too. However, in my experience that's more than a rarity - it's almost a unique exception that requires Herculean efforts. In contrast, our corporate server was simply automatically updated as patches became available. All available patches have been installed (except kernel patches.) No special efforts were required to keep the Linux server running because of updates.

Much of this is possible because Linux does not have the concept of "in use" files. You'll never get an "Access denied" error because someone else has a file open. In practice, this means that shared libraries can be upgraded on the fly without affecting versions of those libraries that are in use by applications. Unix has allowed the replacement of open files for as long as I've used it, over 25 years.

So as you are sitting there thinking yourself smugly superior for your IIS server, take it from another Windows Guy: when your system absolutely, unquestionably has to stay running, Windows should probably not be your first choice.

You'll notice that the NetCraft list I cited earlier includes no LAMP servers. However, until fairly recently, most variants of Unix/Linux could not report more than 497 days of uptime. Thus the presence on the list of FreeBSD but not other variants. See the NetCraft uptime FAQ.

Postscript: Up until March 2007, the Uptime Project tracked who could keep a computer running the longest without rebooting. The winner was an OpenVMS system that had been running for nearly 12 years. Irish Rail allegedly had an OpenVMS machine up for 18 years. OpenVMS is also used by both the US Postal Service and by Amazon.com. Probably completely uninteresting for most of you, but I used VMS for about five years and it has a warm place in my heart.

Choosing Web Development Software

For the past eight years I've been using Adobe GoLive. I got started with GoLive because it was recommended by people I trusted and it was a lot faster than Dreamweaver. GoLive also did a good job of editing PHP and had a nice, simple template tool that allowed me to do WYSIWYG editing without having to hand-maintain dozens of files.

Times have changed. The Windows version of GoLive is now horribly unstable and Adobe simply removes features instead of fixing them. I've started looking for a new tool. Our site has been PHP for several years, so it isn't worth the effort to switch it to ASP.net.

I found Visual Studio 2005 to be okay for quick HTML edits, but it's rather clunky editing HTML compared to more sophisticated tools. Out of the box, it also can't handle PHP. I tried VS.php, which is inexpensive, but the VS.php debugger never worked properly and their tech support was useless. After a year of trying, I gave up on VS.php in Sep 2007.

Instead I settled on PHPed from NuSphere. It is a fantastic tool that I'd recommend to any PHP developer. Its debugger is very reliable. However, PHPed is purely a PHP development tool and doesn't do HTML editing.

So I'm still looking for an HTML tool. Although Dreamweaver is the obvious choice, it's expensive to buy, expensive to support, and expensive to upgrade. So it wasn't my first choice. OTOH, I'm a Microsoft Certified Partner and so can use all of their development tools for free. When I saw Expression Web at the Professional Developers Conference in 2005, I initially had high hopes, but then I learned that it was restricted to Microsoft languages. Oh well.

In February, Microsoft shipped Expression Web 2 Beta. Among other things, this update supports PHP. It's also easily the fastest tool I've used. Unlike Visual Studio 2005 and Adobe GoLive, you don't need to take a coffee break to start it up and shut it down.

My initial reaction to Expression Web 2 was quite favorable. It's beta, so the WebDAV support doesn't work with Apache and there are other teething problems, but these are okay. However, the deal killer is that you can't define the root directory, so all URLs relative to the root don't work. Microsoft has indicated they don't plan to fix this problem in this release. WTF?

Concurrent to all of this, I tried iWeb on the Mac. It's a high-level tool designed for non-web designers. It generates completely unmaintainable code, but it works and the results look good. It also has the ability to do handy things like rotate images, add drop shadows, and other image operations that historically have taken twenty steps to perform using an external image editing application, such as Paint.Net or Photoshop. iWeb will also natively import PhotoShop and Illustrator files. This is a huge win compared to most tools under Windows. iWeb also has some pretty good templates, in stark contrast to any software I've ever seen under Windows. So I've seen a vision of what things could be like with the best of both worlds, but I haven't seen a solution.

So now I'm back to square one. I'll probably have to buy Dreamweaver. It's $1,000 for Creative Suite (CS3) Web Standard version or $1,600 for CS3 Web Premium. Ouch. To add insult to injury, there's no way to upgrade from GoLive to Dreamweaver, even though they're both made by Adobe. Thanks Adobe!

---

Update 5/13/2008: Adobe has formally announced that GoLive has been discontinued. The good news is that they are offering an upgrade price to switch to DreamWeaver as well as a migration kit for converting GoLive projects. Read the details at:
http://www.adobe.com/products/golive/pdfs/golive_eol_faq.pdf

---