FLEXIcontent Performance vs. Joomla vs. K2

1. tested in 12,000 items site about 10,000 in a single category category

FC: 1.6 sec
Joomla: 2.0 sec


2 i was given site with 27,000 items, TODO: restore backup
-- will put under a top level category and create listing of all site content with FC and com_content
(actually FC can list all site content without doing this !! just &view=category&layout=mcats)


3. and someone promised a J1.5 site with 100,000 items, will upgrade to J3.x to test it
-- will put under a top level category and create listing of all site content with FC and com_content

and will test backend items manager too
J1.5 article manager was very slow compared to FC, J2.5:

12,000 items (order by title):
FC:0.6 seconds
Joomla:0.5 seconds

must test with a bigger site !

- ken, yannick , will give you access to websites, after i have restored them


just my home,
has 0.8 Mbps (0.1 MBytes/sec) ADSL upload, maybe i should restore online too

Hello

ken, please respond, are you well ?

ggppdk wrote: ken, please respond, are you well ?

As I told you via skype, I felt we were going in circles
... and continuing the discussion was a waste of time.
Implying I am ill is at the least ridiculous, and at the worst offensive.


What have I been thinking about?
Among other things – Does this project have a prayer of succeeding?

Every day in my head I compare FLEXIcontent to its competitors.
Performance was one area in which I thought FLEXIcontent may have an edge.
Now that is in doubt.

Does FLEXIcontent have any competitive advantages?
Why would a user choose FLEXIcontent over another CCK or Joomla core alone?

To answer that question for commercial products we would do a Competitive Analysis.
I have done these myself, and contributed to many others.
They can range a simple one of approximately 10 pages, to a more comprehensive 30 pages or more.

I doubt you have ever seen a Competitive Analysis let alone done one.
So I can help with a basic structure ...

Let's compare FLEXIcontent, Joomla, K2, Cobalt, Seblod, and Zoo
Factors to compare:

• Features
• Interface
• Performance
• Support
• Usability
• Joomla standards support
• Marketing and PR
• Cost

Build yourself a big table and fill it in.
Applications across the top, factors down the left side.
Provide analysis and conclusions.
For example for Features, list all the important features and if they are supported.
Do the same for the other factors.
Document the analysis and the conclusions.
Be honest in your assessments
Answer the two questions above.

This is exactly what users are doing when evaluating FLEXIcontent versus another alternative.
Please show me, and show yourself, how FLEXIcontent would fare in this user analysis.

p.s. Without first doing such an analysis, thoughts about offering commercial services are a premature fantasy.

When done answer this question – Does FLEXIcontent have a long-term future?
The answer to that question should help determine if your time is best spent here or doing something else.
That is the question I am asking myself.

 

Hello

ken, the "well"
meant emotionally ("angry", "frustrated", anything) , i am not well, when i have any bad feeling, maybe it is difference in culture/language, in Greece we can mean either health or emotions

your suggestions of what TODO are always useful, some we already know , i would say at least half of what you said in this or other threads,

i am not well now (emotionally) to write more,
will do what i can during march

Hello

please read this FAQ article
FLEXIcontent frontend performance guide

www.flexicontent.org/documentati ... mance.html

i think it's a good introduction and good problem .. but it's not a priority, too subjective and too many params to be real.
For me stable version + good documentation + pro support is more important to have a good pro image !