Pros / contras de WAMP vs XAMPP: para ejecutar un servidor de prueba local

Mayor diferencia: WAMP seejecutaen Windows,XAMPPesmultiplataforma.Aparte deeso,es una cuestión depreferenciapersonal.Ambos leproporcionan unentorno Apache-MySQL-PHP que seejecutaprácticamenteigualen ambos sistemas.

Biggest difference - WAMP runs on Windows, XAMPP is multi-platform. Aside from that it's a matter of personal preference. They both provide you with an Apache-MySQL-PHP environment that runs pretty much the same under both systems.

1. XAMPP NO esmultiplataforma. Hay XAMPPpara Windows,XAMPPpara Linux,para Mac ypara Solaris,pero cadapaquete contiene diferentespiezas de software,seejecuta demanera diferente con diferente rendimiento,etc. (multiplataforma significa que ustedtomaexactamente lamismapieza de software y seejecuta de lamismamaneraen diferentesplataformas ... como solía ser Azureus: unfrasco quepodría usar de lamismamanera)

2. XAMPPpara Windowsestáinflado,a logrande. Tiene servidor de correo,servidor FTP,acelerador,web-dav,SSL listopara usar,etc. ¿Realmente losnecesitatodos? Noesexactamente unpaquete denivel deentrada,peroen generalfacilitamucho lainstalación detodo. Más allá deeso,cualquierpersonalización requiereelmismoesfuerzo quepara cualquier otrapilaprefabricada. Pero si loinstalaen supropia caja,probablementenonecesite un servidor FTP,¿verdad?

3. WAMPesmás liviano (principalmente lobásico). Todo lo quees AMPestá ahí,más allá deeso,tienes unpar de herramientas,phpMyAdmin,SQLite y xdebug. ¿Necesitas SSL? Tienes que configurarlo. ¿Quiere acceder al servidor de correo? Debeinstalarlo ustedmismo. FTP? Lomismo ocurre con

4. WAMP (como dice sunombre) seejecuta solo en Windows (ya sea de 64/32bits).

Para unamáquina localen Windows,WAMPesel camino a seguir. La configuración ligera,fluida yposterior a lainstalación requiere un clic. XAMPPpara Windowsnoes ungran competidor debido aproblemasen lainstalación de 64bits (naturalmente:másbloatwareparainstalar,ynecesita administrar cadapieza de software adicionalentre 32/64bits).

1. XAMPP is NOT cross-platform. There is XAMPP for Windows, XAMPP for Linux, for Mac and for Solaris, but each pack contains different pieces of software, runs differently with different performance, etc. (cross-platform means that you take the exact same piece of software and it runs the same way on different platforms ... like Azureus used to be: a jar that you could use the same way)

2. XAMPP for Windows is bloated, big time. You have mail server, FTP server, accelerator, web-dav, SSL out of the box, etc. Do you really need them all? It's not exactly an entry-level package, but in general it makes installation of everything much easier. Beyond that, any customization requires the same effort as for any other pre-made stack. But if you install on your own box, you probably don't need FTP server, do you?

3. WAMP is lighter (mostly the basics). Everything that's AMP is there, beyond that you have a couple of tools, phpMyAdmin, SQLite, and xdebug. Do you need SSL? You have to configure it. You want access to mail server? Must install it yourself. FTP? Ditto.

4. WAMP (like the name says) runs only on Windows (either 64/32-bit).

For a local machine on Windows, WAMP is the way to go. Light, smooth and post-install configuration takes a click. XAMPP for Windows isn't much of a competitor due to issues on 64-bit installation (naturally: more bloatware to install, and you need to manage each piece of extra software between 32/64-bit).

WAMPes un acrónimo que significa: Windows,Apache,MySQL y PHP.

Hay diferentes "distribuciones" de WAMP,como XAMPP,WampServer (lo que algunaspersonas simplemente llaman "WAMP"), Wamp-Developer Pro (software comercial) y otros ...

XAMPPpara Windowses solo otra distribución de WAMP,nadamás (ninadamás).

WAMP is an acronym that means: Windows, Apache, MySQL, and PHP.

There are different WAMP "distributions", such as XAMPP, WampServer (what some people just call "WAMP"), Wamp-Developer Pro (commercial software), and others...

XAMPP for Windows is just another WAMP distribution, nothing more (nor something else).

La objeción de que XAMPPestáinflado,porquetiene un servidor de correo,un servidor FTP,etc.,podría respondersepreguntando quénecesita.Sinecesita lamayoría otodosesoselementos,esel XAMPP completopara usted.Para desarrollarpáginas web,incluidos PHP y MySQL,use XAMPP Lite.En diferentesmomentos heencontrado que ambos sonmuy útiles.Megustaespecialmente quepuedaejecutar cualquiera de las dosen una unidadflash USB.

Ahora,sipudiera agregar Netbeans aesa unidadflash ...

The objection that XAMPP is bloated--because it has a mail server, FTP server, etc.--might be answered by asking what you need. If you need most or all of those items, it's the full XAMPP for you. For just developing web pages, including PHP and MySQL, use XAMPP Lite. At different times I've found both to be very useful. I especially like that I can run either on a USB flash drive.

Now if I could add Netbeans to that flash drive...

He usado XAMPP yen generalme hagustado,con unanotableexcepción.Cargar un sitio siempre ha sidotremendamente lentoparamí cuando uso XAMPP.No sé sieseesel caso con WAMP,pero valdría lapenainvestigarlo.

I've used XAMPP and have been generally pleased with it, with one notable exception. Loading a site has always been agonizingly slow for me when using XAMPP. I don't know if that's the case with WAMP, but it would be worth looking into.

Noesexactamente una respuesta a lapregunta,pero siestáinteresadoen aprender cómofuncionan lospaquetesjuntos,le sugiero que losinstale y configuremanualmente.Heestado usando estetutorial comoguía,se detallay les ayuda a quetodofuncione y se comuniquenentre sí.Es unpocomás detrabajo,pero leproporcionamuchamásflexibilidad y,de hecho,aprende laimportante configuración queimplica.

Not exactly answering the question, but if you are interested in learning how the packages work together, I suggest installing and configuring them manually. I've been using this tutorial as a guideline, it is detailed and helps you get everything running and talking to each other. It's a bit more work, but provides you much more flexibility, and you actually learn the important configuration involved.

WAMP usamásmemoriaparaejecutarse que XAMPP.

WAMP uses more memory to run than XAMPP.

Megustaría agregar una ventaja de WAMP quenofiguraen la lista.

Con WAMPpuedeinstalarextensiones * que lepermiten cambiarfácilmenteentre diferentes versiones dephp.Dado queel requisitomínimo de WordPressesphp 5.2.4 ygarantiza que seejecutaráen un servidor que lo use,para ser realmente compatible con WordPress,un complemento debeejecutarsebajoesa versión dephp.Haymuchas característicasen php 5.3+ quenoestánen 5.2.4,comoelespacio denombres.

Sies un desarrollador de WordPress y desea que su complemento,widget otema seatotalmente compatible y seejecuteen cualquierinstalación de WordPress,es útiltener una configuración deentorno conphp 5.2.4.XAMPPno ofrece unamanerafácil de hacerlo.

& ast;Cabe señalar que la versiónmás reciente de WAMP Server yano admiteextensiones;sinembargo,WAMP Server 2.2 (32bits)está disponibleen SourceForge y los admite.Tambiéntiene la versión correcta de Apacheparainstalarphp 5.2.4.

I'd like to add an advantage of WAMP that is not listed.

With WAMP you can install extensions* that allow you to easily switch between different versions of php. Since WordPress's minimum requirement is php 5.2.4 and guarantees it will run on a server using it, to be truly compatible with WordPress a plugin needs to run under that version of php. There are a lot of features in php 5.3+ that are not in 5.2.4, such as namespacing.

If you are a WordPress developer and want your plugin, widget or theme to be fully compatible and run on any WordPress install, it is helpful to have an environment setup with php 5.2.4. XAMPP doesn't offer an easy way to do that.

* Should be noted that the newer version of WAMP Server no longer supports extensions; however, WAMP Server 2.2 (32-bit) is available on SourceForge and supports them. It also has the correct version of Apache for installing php 5.2.4.

Alimplementar SSL en WAMP,encontrémásproblemático (finalmentenopudemanejarlo yme rendí)mientras queeraextremadamentefácilen XAMPP.

El resto,supongo queno hay diferencia,ya que utilizo unaplataforma Linux y una Windows yestoy cómodo.Por supuesto,heestado usando XAMPP durante unperíodo detiempomuchomás largo.

Implementing SSL in WAMP, I found more troublesome (I finally could not handle it and gave up) whereas it was extremely easy in XAMPP.

The rest I suppose there is no difference for as I use both a Linux and a Windows platform and am comfortable. Of course I have been using XAMPP for a much longer period of time.

XAMPPesmás lento que WAMP (desarrolladorfrancés).Tengo ambos.

XAMPP is slower than WAMP (French developer). I have both.