mojoportal NOT Tested in Comparison of ASP.NET CMS

Noticed quite a few links in the logs coming from this article.

article no longer online

Its in German but I used google to tranlsate it, its a review of ASP.NET CMS solutions. mojoPortal, Cuyahoga and OmniPortal were all eliminated from the review because the author had difficulty with installation.

Its not a very elaborate test/comparison from what I can tell, no load testing or anything like that just one persons first reaction in terms of features and usability.

And no surprise DotNetNuke comes out on top. Its a shame to lose a comparison by not being compared. I have tried to make mojoPortal easy to install, I have helped a few people with installation in the forums but really not many problems reported in relation to the number of downloads. Is it fair to conclude from this article that mojoportal is hard to install or could it be that the author didn't put in much effort and didn't follow the instructions? Maybe a little of both?

What do you think? Is mojoPortal dificult to install and if so what could we do to make it easier? As a developer and thinking that the target audience is mostly developers I've always preferred x-copy deployment but maybe for windows I should provide a Windows installer?


re: mojoportal NOT Tested in Comparison of ASP.NET CMS

Friday, July 21, 2006 6:22:39 AM
My opinion is that mojoPortal is pretty easy to install if you follow the instructions.  I don't really understand what is so hard about it.  A Windows installer would be nice, but is that important?  I'd say no.

re: mojoportal NOT Tested in Comparison of ASP.NET CMS

Friday, July 21, 2006 6:30:12 AM
Yeah, he didn't mention what the difficulty was or ask for any help in the forum so I'm not sure what difficulty he was having.

I do have one theory though. Maybe he was using MS SQL 2000. It came to my attentiion recently that the table and proc scripts in the last release were not compatible with MS SQL 2000 even though I chose SQL 2000 compatible option when generating the scripts from Sql 2005. Turns out there was a bug in sql 2005 RTM where the script generated was not compatible even if you chose the sql 2000 option. It is fixed in SP1 of sql 2005 but I just found out about the issue and had assumed that the scripts I included with the release were compatible but they were not. No point in updating them now though since the 2.1.1 release will be this weekend and will have compatible scripts now that I know about the issue.

I don't know if thats the issue the author of the article ran into but it might be. Wish I had known about it sooner.

re: mojoportal NOT Tested in Comparison of ASP.NET CMS

Saturday, July 22, 2006 3:01:31 AM

Installing Mojo on MS with SQL2005 was easy.

And before I installed it I have read the documentation.

I used FTP Explorer to copy the files to the webserver and FTP Explorer sometimes "forget" to copy files. SoI had to manually check if all the file were on the webserver.

I already had a database on my webserver so I decided to skip SQL script 1

So I opened SQLmanager and just drag and dropped sql script 2 and 3 on the SQL manager. No problems there.

re: mojoportal NOT Tested in Comparison of ASP.NET CMS

Sunday, July 23, 2006 3:29:03 PM

I haven't installed a MS SQL version in awhile because my focus is on MySQL.  I have installed mojoPortal sites in much less time then DNN.  The core files are much smaller so there is less to upload.  I setup the database and it's user, run the install script, upload, change the r/w on the data directory. and test in about 5 minutes. 

It takes up to 15 mins just to upload DNN then you have to set up all the extra permissions because of the ASP.NET user rights.  Then sometimes DNN doesn't work the first time.  MojoPortal is the easiest thing to develop in also.  If you take into account the overall install with ftp time and include custom development, ROI is 10-20 times better than DNN.  Upkeep and maintenance is also much easier for a developer/user.

If all you want is a one click install after signing up for some low bandwidth hosting acount, then DNN is it.  If you want something more than the standard site but don't want to start from scratch go with mojoPortal.

Comments are closed on this post.