In the world of web development, the choice of which development language to use commonly comes down to two popular choices. Web applications, specifically those relying on back end databases, are typically being created using either Microsoft’s ASP.Net language, or the Open Source alternative language of PHP. Reasons why one might choose one over the other can include: The cost of development tools, or availability of such tools, or even ones comfort level with the Open Source initiative. The goal of this article is to provide some perspective on reasons why one might choose one over the other.
Active Server Pages or ASP has long been an option for creating dynamic web content. Active Server Pages facilitates the ability to use databases such as Access or SQL just to name a few, to create dynamic, feature rich websites. The work going on behind the scenes in serving up the dynamic content is being done at the server level by the Active Server Pages source code. Microsoft has spent a great deal of time and resources promoting their .Net family of programming languages of which ASP.Net is a member. In order to develop with ASP.Net one must obtain the extremely expensive Microsoft Visual Studio Programming Suite. While expensive, Visual Studio is an asset to any programmer due to its vast amount of features.
As with all of Microsoft’s products, support and updates are constantly made available for ASP.Net. The shear amount of features that Microsoft packs into Visual Studio, coupled with Microsoft’s extensive support make certainly make ASP.Net an attractive solution for any corporation’s web development needs, but the cost can be prohibitive, if not impossible to afford for the individual web developer.
PHP, which is in its 5th+ revision now, is an Open Source web development language that also facilitates the creation of feature rich, dynamic websites that can use
databases. Being Open Source means simply that PHP isn’t owned by anyone. Just as with Active Server Pages, the work going on behind the scenes of serving up the dynamic web content is being done by PHP at the server level. As with most Open Source products, the resources available to a PHP developer are free of charge. This makes PHP extremely attractive to the independent web developer.
There are some commercial quality development suites available from companies like Zend, but there is also wealth of free resources just a Google Search away. Because there is really no corporate entity behind PHP, support and development on PHP is done by the community of its users and developers themselves. Surprisingly this does not seem to adversely affect the ability to find support for PHP.
All in all, ASP.Net and PHP are both excellent options, offering basically the “same” functionality in the ultimate sense. Whether the decision comes down to the cost of initial investment, or the comfort level one has regarding Open Source, or something else entirely, the end result depends upon the mastery of whichever language is chosen.
-Tony
Dedicated photo printers differ from all-purpose printers as they are designed to print photos only, as opposed to text or graphics documents in addition to photos. They are generally compact in size and lightweight, and some models even feature batteries that allow you to print without the need for an outlet. Most photo printers, including dye-sublimation (or dye-sub) printers, are built around a thermal dye engine, though there are a few that feature inkjet technology.
For many years, dye-sublimation printers were specialist devices used in demanding graphic arts and photographic applications. The advent of digital photography led to the entry of this technology into the mainstream, forming the basis of many of the standalone, portable photo printers that surfaced in the second half of the 1990s.
The term “dye” in the name refers to the solid dyes that were used in the process instead of inks or toner. “Sublimation” is the scientific term for a process where solids (in this case, dyes) are converted into their gaseous form without going through an intervening liquid phase. In my opinion, XEROX has been the leader in this field.
The printing process employed by true dye-sublimation printers differs from that of inkjets. Instead of spraying tiny jets of ink onto a page as inkjet printers do, dye-sublimation printers apply a dye from a plastic film.
A three-pass system (featuring solid dyes in tape form on either a ribbon or a roll) layers cyan, magenta, yellow, and black dyes on top of one another. The print head on a dye-sub printer uses tiny heaters to vaporize the dye, which permeates the glossy surface of the paper. A clear coat is added to protect the print against ultraviolet light. Although this method is capable of producing excellent results, it is far from economical. Even if a particular image does not need any one of the pigments, that ribbon segment is still consumed. This is the reason it is common for dye-sub printer compatible paper packs to contain a transfer film capable of producing the same number of prints. In addition, dye sublimation inks need a paper that allows the ink to remain on the surface of the paper.
These days, a number of inkjet printers on the market are capable of deploying dye-sublimation techniques. The cartridges in such printers spray the ink, covering the page one strip at a time. The print head heats the inks to form a gas, controlled by a heating element that reaches temperatures of up to 500° C (higher than the average dye sublimation printer). A big difference in the results with dye-sublimation technique is that because the dyes are applied to the paper in gas form, they do not form distinct dots with a hard edge like inkjet printers. Instead, the edges are softer and blend into each other easily. Additionally, the infusion of the gaseous dye into the paper yields a more colour-fast picture.
Comparing Dye-Sublimation Printers and Inkjet Printers
Although it is difficult to point out every possible advantage and disadvantage when comparing inkjet and dye-sub printers, the following list mentions the major points that apply to most people printing photos at home.
Advantages of Inkjet Printers over Dye-Sub Printers:
- Prints are very precise with sharp edges
- Latest models offer incredible detail that exceeds most dye-sub printers
- Variety of papers/surfaces available—including matte, luster, glossy.
- Not locked in to one manufacturer’s paper
- Some archival inkjets can produce prints that long-lasting
- Most inkjets can print on many different surfaces that are designed to accept ink, including CDs, CD inserts, envelopes, etc.
- Inkjets have a considerably larger colour gamut and usually produce more vivid photos than dye-subs
- Easier to obtain large format inkjets that can print 11×14, 13×20 sizes, or larger
- Inkjet printing is often cheaper than dye-sub printing
Inkjet Printer Disadvantages:
- Often much slower than dye-sub printers
- Most non-archival inkjets produce prints that fade a little (sometimes a lot) faster than dye-sub prints
- Print heads sometimes clog and require cleaning, or even replacement
Advantages of Dye-Sub Printers over Inkjet Printers:
- Very fast
- Relatively maintenance-free
- Smooth with no dot patterns visible, even under magnification
- Produce excellent shadow detail in dark areas where some inkjets may be “blotchy”
- Prints are usually more durable and more waterproof than inkjet prints
- For many viewers, dye-sub printers produce photos that look and feel more like real photographs due to the smoothness of the prints and the absence of visible dot patterns
Dye-Sub Printer Disadvantages:
- Consumer level models often smear high contrast edges (like a black square on a white background) to some degree, making charts, graphs, and line art look a little less “precise”
- Dye-sub prints typically only last as long or slightly longer than a good non-archival inkjet printer and are generally not considered “archival”
- Paper type selection is very limited and while dye-sub printers produce excellent glossy photos, most fall behind or do not even offer the option of matte prints
- Dye-sub printers use an entire page and an entire page worth of ribbon even to print one small wallet size photo
- Pages cannot be normally fed through the printer twice to fill more of the page as they can in inkjets
- Dust can sometimes get inside and cause vertical scratches on prints
- Dye sub printing and the cost of paper and toner (ribbon) is often higher than inkjet printing
Most of you who read my old blog know why I often buy used and refurbished. Here are a few of the popular models of dye-sublimation printers that have been “tried and true” and generally tested:
Canon SELPHY CP710 Compact Photo Printer
Dye-sub printer for 150x100mm photographs
Samsung SPP-2040 Digital Photo Printer ( Windows Macintosh )
Dye-sub printer with 300x300dpi resolution
Samsung SPP-2020 Photo Printer
Digital photo printer that produces 100x150mm snapshots
Sony DPP-FP30 Digital Photo Printer
A user-friendly dye-sub photo printer
Kodak Easyshare Printer Dock 6000 for CX/DX 6000, LS 600 and LS 700 Series Cameras
A dye-sublimation printer for compatible Kodak cameras
Olympus Camedia P-10 Digital Photo Printer
A dye-sublimation printer that prints straight from your Olympus digital camera
Olympus P-440 Photo Printer
Dye-sub printer capable of printing A4 photographs
Sony DPP-EX50 Digital Photo Printer
Dye-sublimation photo printer
Of course, there are also the laser printers. I have not included them in this discussion for one simple reason: heat. Dye sublimation and inkjet printers generate little or no heat, so you can use them to print things like iron-ons. With Lasers, though, you can print solder (etching) patterns – so, of course, your useage will determine which printer you need for the when comparing apples to oranges.
- Tony
My friend and mentor, Steve Noble, finally set up his promised and very long awaited blog… it’s like a gold mine of free business knowledge from the the real Ad World King. You know my recommendations don’t come lightly, but I encourage you to doubt me all you want as you head on over to his new site, the Ad World King, and see for yourself.
I guarantee you will absolutely agree that its an obvious treasure trove of the stuff people have been paying big money to see for decades. Steve’s humble for such a wealthy guy – and I don’t know why he’s putting all the work into doing this – but I’m going to take advantage of it while the takings good, and you should too. Don’t miss out on this people…
Why are there so many questions about the usefulness of Alexa Traffic Ratings?
Because the algorithm is so well-known amongst webmasters, for one. And because the “biggest of the big” indexing and traffic directing services (read: Google) don’t really use Alexa’s type of rankings.
If you’re writing code that’s web-facing, or if you’re doing SEO, or if you’re working for a pretty small mom-and-pop shop, the question of whether or not to spend time on Alexa is going to come up. For me, the answer is, “If the client can afford to cover labor that may or may not be worthwhile, go for it.”
I’m sorry that it’s not more definitive than that. Most coders out there know the algorithm ultimately boils down to simplicity itself. The one main step that comes instantly to mind is:
Install the Alexa toolbar and set your client’s site as the home page
You’re gonna want to do this on every computer at the firm. Perhaps bizarrely, Alexa rank is determined almost completely on the information collected from people using the toolbar.
The fact is, if you can afford it, Alexa is probably important. It still has buzz, and it’s unique.
And that’s most of what there is to say about that.
Many of you who know me quite well may never have realized that I’ve always struggled with my weight. I know that topic is really unrelated to the TonyLake.me site, so, I’ve started a separate blog just for that topic.
The weight-loss site is over at http://www.notfatnow.com
Some of you are probably asking, “What qualifies you as an expert?” I should tell you that I’m one of those “lucky” people who “wears it well”. I ballooned up to over 250 pounds. On August 22nd, I went on a diet. As of this posting, I’m down over 80 pounds.
Read about my weight loss journey here.

