To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nothing is better suited than IIS to handle millions of parked domains. Now, if this survey were talking about real web sites that would be different.
And how many of those Apache hosted sites are just parked domains? None? Yeah, right.
On the other hand, IIS has above 50% of the web server market among Fortune 1000 companies. Those are.. well, Fortune 1000 companies and hardly not real web sites. (According to port80 survey).
Please, quit trashing Microsoft and Windows even when they are doing good. It just shows how biased you are. This is hardly bad news for them.
Just for the record: I don't want to say that Apache is poor server (no one sane will say that) but it looks like Windows server is good choice too.
On the other hand, IIS has above 50% of the web server market among Fortune 1000 companies. Those are.. well, Fortune 1000 companies and hardly not real web sites. (According to port80 survey).
On the flip side of course the web sites of Fortune 1000 companies hardly make up most of the real websites, and they're a drop in the ocean compared to the real content on the web if truth be told. The port80 survey was simply a response from Microsoft to cover up their woeful overall share of the web. They probably did a study that tried to take out parked domains first, and then realised that they were still miles behind :-).
A one month swing of five percent is pretty suspicious. Any swing from Netcraft cannot be taken at face value at all, whether for IIS or Apache. No one decides to switch thousands of web sites, or create new ones, in a month. Now if IIS manages to maintain that increase month on month over the next year, as Apache has done over the years, then there might be some truth in this. As it is, it just seems like something pretty desperate has been going on.
And how many of those Apache hosted sites are just parked domains? None? Yeah, right
What's your point ? Go there : http://www.netcraft.com/ .
The April survey is right there, with the survey of *active* sites.Apache is still king in the active sites survey, with a lesser decrease in active sites (2,32 %) and a far less important increase for IIS (less than 1 %). They even explain that that's Go Daddy's change that drove the IIS increase.
Comparing the two market share (active sites and total sites) tells you that yes, lots of Apache sites are parked domains, but Apache is still king with nearly 2/3 of active web sites.
On the other hand, IIS has above 50% of the web server market among Fortune 1000 companies. Those are.. well, Fortune 1000 companies and hardly not real web sites. (According to port80 survey).
And active sites are hardly not real web sites.
Please, quit trashing Microsoft and Windows even when they are doing good. It just shows how biased you are. This is hardly bad news for them
Agreed, it's just consistent with how MS deals with FOSS : buying competition.
Just for the record: I don't want to say that Apache is poor server (no one sane will say that) but it looks like Windows server is good choice too
At least IIS does not seem like a good server when MS has to buy people for them to install it, or when you install it for parked sites, which are not active sites.
This MS buyout happened before, this is not news. The Go Daddy's change is not news either.





Member since:
2006-01-02
ROFL. Congratulations to MS for their increased 'market share' of the 'sites that are nothing but parked domains' market.
Nothing is better suited than IIS to handle millions of parked domains. Now, if this survey were talking about real web sites that would be different.