ncb wrote:

Link?

There word "here" is the link...

I would agree, it wouldn't hurt to make the link color stand out a little more.

Last edited by Niloc (2005-03-28 04:14:56)

Hi jason,

Geez, junk requests/second.

Yes of course. As I have written those numbers are not meant to be taken as absolute, since they ran on an old PIII-Mobile with 256MB on Windows. They are only meant for relative comparisons. I am sure you got the bigger er hardware. *G* ;)

Old news.

I didn't know about it. :) On the other hand, if you are comparing different page-setups, you'll get widely different numbers - even if you are using the same software. That's why I imported the same posts into both and made sure they displayed the exact same stuff.

Also to be fair, one has to remember that TXP currently really makes requests for 2 PHP-files (w/ db-access) for each pageview (the html-page and the relating CSS), whereas Wordpress uses a static CSS-File - so that would further close the gap. Bu then, I know that zem has been implementing some changes that further speedup txp. ;)

jason, since you know xdebug as well, and have access to a unix-shell (I currently don't), maybe if you have some time, you could run some checks for memory-usage of the two systems? I'd be interested in those results. :)

Maybe it might interest some of you, I have written a follow up article on my performance benchmark for Wordpress, Textpattern, Serendipity & Lightpress.

http://www.sencer.de/article/1198/weblog-software-benchmark-ii

The results in a nutshell:
- Lightpress has the edge (without any caching plugins) and Textpattern comes in second, then Serendipity and finally Wordpress.
- Textpattern comes in first with caching plugins enabled (although there is none for Lightpress).
- Textpattern also generally has a relatively low memory footprint (albeit not as low as Lightpress).

Thanks Hoopla, I'll fix that.