A simple comparison between phpwind and discuz

Related recommendations: "discuz Tutorial"

discuz! (referred to as dz) and phpwind (referred to as pw) are The two most famous PHP forum systems in China have made great progress in all aspects, including technology, functions, and interfaces since they successively announced their open source. A simple electronic bulletin board system is comparable. One of its side effects is that it has greatly promoted the popularity of PHP in China (I only started to pay attention to PHP when I was looking for a suitable forum program, and I couldn't help myself).

Objectively speaking, the current pw and dz have their own shortcomings and strong points. The fierce competition between them should be said to have improved the level of the PHP forum. In terms of functionality, it has not only caught up with the many functions and loopholes. The famous Dongwang forums, and because their efficiency and speed are far superior to Dongwang, the Dongwang market has shrunk greatly. Some of the original Dongwang forums have been converted into dz or pw, and all Dongwang have to start. Get a PHP forum.

It is difficult to say which one of them is better. After all, each has its own shortcomings and I dare not draw any conclusions here. However, judging from the market share and online opinions, dz still has a slight advantage at present, and last year several well-known large forums in China were converted to dz (such as ifeng.com, Muwen, tompda, etc.), while pw is on the big website Little gain was achieved.

But after all, for many novices, they have to face the problem of choosing a forum program. Therefore, which one is better, dz or pw, has become a frequently asked question. This kind of question has no answer. , naturally I will be asked repeatedly. This article attempts to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the two forums from a relatively deep level and provide a reference for novices to choose. If there are any errors, criticisms and corrections are welcome.

1. Interface

First of all, from the interface point of view, overall, the interface of dz is relatively beautiful and has a good overall feel.
The interface of pw gives people a feeling of imitating dz. At the same time, in terms of the details of the interface, it seems that pw is still not as perfect as dz.

2. Technical Chapter

Technically speaking, both pw and dz use file-based data caching technology, by converting commonly used data tables, such as forum layouts Set parameters, basic parameters, etc., and generate static cache files (trigger updates based on conditions or manual updates) to reduce the number of database reads and improve efficiency. In this aspect, the two are very similar.

1. Template technology

In terms of template technology, the static template technology that dz has adopted since version 2.5f, from my personal point of view, is still very suitable for forums like this. Used by frequently updated website programs. It solves the problem of template parsing efficiency by dynamically generating static templates.

At the same time, dz’s template method makes it easier and more intuitive to modify the interface.

The way pw uses the echo statement (let's call it a template) is much shabby. It takes a long time to add an if judgment condition. Templates that have mixed PHP code added can easily be deleted by mistake in Dreamweaver. Especially if you are not careful when modifying, it is likely that the web page will become a whiteboard (no output), making me walk on thin ice every time I modify the pw template. . . . I'm afraid this is also the reason why there are far more dz than pw in third-party templates.

However, pw is also improving its templates. Now verycms 3.0 has begun to use real template technology, but the current ones are still relatively rudimentary. . .

2. Speed issue

From the template point of view, the efficiency of the two should be similar. The pw template is actually a part of the PHP file that directly contains mixed PHP statements, while the dz template Templates usually do not need to be parsed, so the efficiency should be similar. However, there are always people on the Internet who claim that the website using dz is slower than pw. I have not tested this aspect and dare not make any comments. Moreover, website access speed is still affected by many factors, such as local network speed, server bandwidth, and psychology. . . . . Objective evaluation is still difficult unless professional technical means are used. However, judging from the speed of the official website, it is obvious that pw has the upper hand. Haha

I recently took a look at the CSS files of dz. It is obvious that the use of CSS is a bit excessive. CSS is used extensively in dz. The CSS file is as high as about 16KB (pw is only about 2KB), which may cause IE to be less efficient when rendering web pages. At the same time, because the CSS file of dz was too large, we had to use an external method (Link).

In this way, if the Internet speed is very slow, the web page has been or is partially downloaded, but the CSS file download has not been completed (this often happens when the Internet speed is slow), then the web page will not be displayed normally at all.

When the Internet speed is slow, the CSS file of dz alone will take several seconds, or even more than ten seconds to download, and the entire web page can only be displayed correctly after the CSS download is completed. It's no wonder that when the Internet speed is slow, dz's performance is much inferior to pw.

On the contrary, pw is obviously more concise when designing CSS, which is definitely more beneficial to the rendering of web pages. At the same time, pw adopts the method of embedding CSS files. Although each visit to the web page causes several K bytes of traffic, the actual impact is not big. On the contrary, it feels that the web page opens faster than dz (this is what pw uses. A typical case of a stupid method, but often more effective than dz).

In this regard, it is recommended that dz make the determination to simplify the overly bloated CSS files and improve the speed of the web page.

3. Functions

Now I will make a simple one about the functions of dz5.5 and pw5.3. I think it is relatively in-depth. Maybe experts can read it. This analysis is still too superficial, please correct me:

1. Login method:

pw’s front-end login and back-end login use different cookie methods. In this way, the front-end and back-end are separated. It feels good for safety and easy to manage. The backend account and the frontend account can be completely separated.

The front and backend login of dz uses an account. Although it prompts you to enter the password again when entering the backend, it is still not as convenient as pw.

What is special is that when registering, dz requires you to enter a prompt question (optional), and there is also an interface prompting input in the login interface. Personally, I feel that it is absolutely superfluous and boring. It makes sense to use prompt questions to retrieve passwords. The way of prompting questions makes novices confused and dizzy after reading it

2. Column display:

pw supports left and right column display starting from 5.0.1, but the function is too It is simple and cannot display sub-sections in a tree. It is better to say that it does not have this function. It is a bit funny and is a semi-finished product (but it is also in line with pw's usual characteristics - it likes to launch some imperfect things for everyone to modify).

After looking at the column display of dz5.5, I can see that it is quite perfect and feels pretty good.

3. Efficiency of background management:

pw's horizontal operation is very good, which greatly saves the difficulty of management, especially when setting permissions according to user groups, it is very convenient. dz needs improvement in this area.

dz provides a solution to solve the problem of repeated operations in the background. It should be said that it makes sense, but it is not easy to use. If it is to set up a separate project, it will be more cumbersome.

4. Personal space (collection) function:

dz5.5 has a built-in minispace personal space function. It can be said that since discuz merged with supsite, it has occupied a leading position in the outreach of forum functions. A great advantage, attracting the attention of many personal websites.

In the official words of dz, this minispace is like this:
"Full use of the original resources of the forum, members can have a personalized display page and X-Space perfect integration without having to pay more, which can be smooth Realize the natural transition between MiniSpace and . I have seen this function in other forums before and thought it was very good. I didn't expect dz to integrate it. This function can already meet the functional requirements of most forums. If the requirements are higher, for example, if you want to allow users to publish b0 guest articles, according to the official statement, you can also migrate to X-space. But more importantly, minispace is open source, while the source code of X-space is not open source.

Speaking of X-space, we feel that although pw is comparable to dz in terms of functionality, it lags behind dz in terms of forum extension. X-space can realize the personal space function centered on the forum, but pwblog (has been renamed Lxblog, the official version has not been launched, this article only takes version 5.1.5 as an example) is completely different from the forum. Although the post push function has been changed from 4.3.2 It is there, but it has always been difficult to use. After pushing 4.x, the pictures and attachments are not normal. Although 5.1.5 can be pushed normally, the posts updated in the forum no longer appear in the replies in the b0 guest. , it can be said that the push function is just a useless embellishment in pwblog.

In the final analysis, what we often hope for is just a forum post collection function. pwblog repeatedly pushes the content in the forum to b0 customers, which is a waste of space and meaningless. In this regard, dz is far better than Got pw, it deserves praise. However, the functions of minispace are still a bit simple, such as no classification function for anthology posts, no recommended posts on the homepage, etc. (Maybe the classification of forum posts is of little significance, but it is better than nothing, right?)

5. Anti-flooding technology

pw5.3 finally accepted my proposal to use the verification code for newbies to register before posting the Nth post. This will not affect the use of old users, but also limit malicious use of the verification code. Watering robot. dz does not provide this function, but it has the function of not using custom Q&A after the Nth post (dz's verification code is terrible and can't be seen clearly at all, and it seems better to use custom Q&A).

In terms of preventing automatic registration, both pw and dz use a custom question and answer method to prevent automatic registration. The specific principle is very simple, and both achieve similar results. The difference is that dz requires more than 10 questions to be set to take effect, while pw can only set one question. In addition, there is another difference, that is, pw can customize the form variable name used internally in Q&A, which may be more effective in preventing malicious automatic registration. pw's custom questions can only be used for registration, while dz's can be used for registration, posting and short messages.

Judging from the current specific applications, the problem of automatic registration can basically be solved with one question (the result of long-term practice). Of course, it does not rule out that very large websites can be easily broken with one question. Possibly, dz may be more effective in this regard. It's just that the dz limit requires more than 10 to take effect, which is puzzling.

6. Front desk management function

pw has a deputy moderator function, but unlike the general idea, the deputy moderator is appointed by the moderator, which may lead to permission confusion, so Very few people use this feature.

In the front-end management function, pw is more convenient. Not only can it be managed in the topic list, but the management method in the post content page is more intuitive than the drop-down method of dz. And when deleting posts in a topic, pw is much more intuitive than dz.

What’s puzzling is that when moving a post in the pw5.3 version, a mobile prompt will be added in front of the post “This post was moved by Great (the previous version did not have this problem)

dz has implemented the "sinking" function, which can sink the useless junk posts that are occasionally turned up. It is indeed much more convenient. . . . One time, in order to add a post in pw, I had to post N posts in advance. Moreover, dz's moderator management functions, highlighting, essence and other operations can be done in one go, which is much more convenient than pw.

7. WYSIWYG editor

Starting from dz5.5 and pw5.3, the WYSIWYG editor has been replaced by ubbcode (the names of the two forums are different, Here we use a more popular name, temporarily called UBBCode) editor, and abandon the original HTML visual editor.

Speaking of which, this ubbcode visual editor has indeed solved the problem of the previous code method, which was unable to be visualized, resulting in many non-IT people posting unable to control the format; and using the HTML method like Dongwang, which produced a lot of redundant code and security risks.

However, the consequence is that when reposting, you could directly repost from other people’s webpages, including pictures and text, but it is very convenient, although there is a suspicion of hotlinking. After switching to this kind of editor, it is no longer so convenient. Therefore, after changing the editor, there were a lot of complaints in the official forum. . . . Moreover, the new editor has many small bugs, which has caused widespread dissatisfaction (another note: after using DZ for a while, I found that the WYSIWYG editor of dz 5.3 seems to have many problems and is almost unusable. There may be some problems in this aspect. Not as easy to use as pw’s editor)

8. Attachment upload and WYSIWYG function:

pw’s attachments can only be mixed with images and text after submitting a post and uploading it. In terms of dz, it is much better. You can mix and match before uploading, which is much more convenient.

dz still displays too much information for image attachments that do not participate in uploading, which seems to affect the appearance (it seems to be affected by vbb and phpbb) bigger). And pw only displays the word "picture" and description information, but what's even more disgusting is that it puts these pictures above the text. It's really incorrigible.

9. Analysis of attachment anti-hotlinking technology:

dz uses methods of hiding image addresses and detecting access sources (optional) to prevent hotlinking. It should be said that the server burden is relatively large, and the effect is okay, but it cannot completely solve the problem.

The method used by pw is simpler, but more effective: it is to modify the attachment directory name regularly or automatically. It should be said that this is a good method with low investment and quick effect, and it is also technically very simple. However, the latest pw5.3 version also introduces a method of hiding attachment addresses. It seems that this function cannot be turned off in the background, which seems to be a bit superfluous. . . .

I found that dz can also manually modify the attachment directory in the background, which can also have a certain effect, but there is no automatic modification function.

10. Advertising function:

dz is better than pw, and the advertising function is more complete. For example, the position of in-post advertisements below the post is similar to that of Dongwang, which looks neater, while the position of pw makes the post layout look messy and unsightly. dz's inter-post advertisements can be inserted into large Google Banner advertisements or other image-based advertisements, and the display effect is very good.

Compared with dz, pw advertisements have fewer insertion positions and the effect is worse.

11. Avatar display:

dz cannot limit the length and width of the uploaded avatar, but can only limit the total number of pixels, which is not flexible enough and not as convenient as pw. Moreover, avatars that exceed a certain size are automatically scaled and stretched, making them look ugly. Moreover, dz also automatically added a border to the avatar, which is very disgusting. It can be seen that dz complicates simple things. In fact, as long as its size is limited like pw, there is no need to stretch at all.

12. Attachment size limit:

pw can only set the size of all attachments, while dz can set the upload size for attachments in individual formats, which is more flexible and especially suitable for some flash websites or technologies. website (such as uploading large-size drawings, etc.).

13. Word filtering:

pw can only filter in the normal way, and does not support upper and lower case (it is a very simple thing, but the official does not do it, it can be done easily).

And dz can not only recognize upper and lower case, but also has a certain fuzzy recognition function, which is quite good. Of course, it would be even better if it could directly support regular expressions.

14. Custom code function:

pw does not support custom wincode code so far, which is relatively rigid. To add functionality, you can only modify the js file, which is too troublesome. . . .

dz has done a perfect job in this regard. It is easy to add or reduce code and modify the size of the playback interface. Just set it in the background.

15. Recycle bin function:

dz can be set to automatically clean up, but pw cannot

16. IP source display function:

dz’s IP address and source display is similar to Dongwang, which seems inconvenient. You need to click on the small computer icon. The IP address source display of pw looks more comfortable.

17. Anti-CC attack:

pw added anti-CC attack function as early as 4.3.2, and it is relatively simple to set up and can be understood by novices. It was for this reason that I used pw.

Although dz5.5 claims to have CC attack protection, it seems difficult to understand. I searched for it in the background for a long time and couldn’t find it. It is estimated that novices cannot operate it. At that time, a famous webmaster forum (using dz) was unable to open for a long time due to CC attacks. It seems that dz's anti-CC attack function needs to be improved.

18. Backup function

pw can support the backup of data tables other than the pw program, and the judgment standard is not based on the table prefix. Data tables other than the pw table can be backed up separately. For those plug-ins that create new tables, it is super easy to back up data, which is more user-friendly.

dz only performs backup based on the table prefix. For example, if you set a table called cdb_test, it will consider it as a forum data table and backup it. But if you set up a table called test, then find your own way. . . .

But what makes dz better than pw is that the backup can be compressed. Downloading and transferring the backup file after compression should save huge space and time, which should be very useful for very large forums. dz backup can specify the file name, and the backup data is expressed in hexadecimal (which is safer, but takes up more space). It is estimated that the problem of imported and restored Chinese internal code will not exist.

In addition, dz can also back up MySQL Dump backup (not recommended).

19. File and database verification:

dz has built-in file and database verification functions. pw only officially provides a file verification tool, but it is a bit confusing to use. , sometimes the function used does not exist in the php file

20. Topic recommendation and related post functions:

dz has implemented the related post function through qihoo, and can also support themes Recommended, much better than pw in this aspect.

21. Template and style settings

phpwind can set style CSS files in the background. Although it is not easy for novices to get started, it is indeed relatively convenient.
dz goes one step further and interprets the content of CSS into a form so that novices can operate it, but the disadvantages are even greater: if you want to add controls to CSS (such as adjusting line spacing, etc.), I didn’t know how to do it, so I had to modify the template. Fortunately, dz also provides an additional function: the template can be modified directly in the background, and the editing interface also has a search function. Finally, it has made up for the situation

dz has a greater advantage than pw in terms of functionality, and in dz In terms of some functions that are better than pw, many of them win with greater advantages.

4. Summary

Generally speaking, dz outperforms pw in terms of functionality, interface, technology, and extension of forum functions. But pw is not without its merits. Its anti-CC attack function, simple and fast interface, powerful management functions, and unique anti-leeching technology are all unique. As the saying goes, benevolence sees benevolence, and the wise see wisdom. Choosing pw or dz is still a personalized question, depending on whether you value a certain characteristic of them.

In addition, I feel that dz has a little problem with browser compatibility. Sometimes there will be prompts about submitting information from unknown sources, annoying problems such as checking Norton Internet Security configuration, and dz's The verification code is so disgusting that I can't understand it at all. It's just like Dongwang's bad verification code. It's basically useless, so I have to turn it off and finish it.

It should be noted that if you are a novice and need to choose a forum, it is recommended to choose dz, because there are more functions and the extension of the forum is better developed (supsite/X-space is very good), and it is easy to use It is more convenient, and the template is relatively simple to modify and easy to use.
pw is only suitable for veterans and those who are not very interested in the extended functions of the forum. Moreover, the template of pw is quite difficult to modify. It is easy to make mistakes if you are not careful, so it is not suitable for novices.

PW is suitable for entertainment sites. It is fast and has many functions. It officially integrates various plug-ins and requires almost no maintenance

pw Existing functions=dz Banking Multiple attachments upload Online member statistics Special user group addition Holiday gift giving

For more programming-related knowledge, please visit:Programming Teaching! !

The above is the detailed content of A simple comparison between phpwind and discuz. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!