skip to main content

kiesler.at

Comparing TYPO3 with phpWebSite
updated by rck, 2006-03-25

I've been using phpWebSite for about a year now and think that it can be adapted to most content management needs. TYPO3 is leading the open source CMS market right now and has very powerful features no other CMS can offer.

Still, I think phpWebSite is the better choice most of the times. I will show you why.

Creating content

I'll start with phpWebSite this time. In phpWebSite, everything is an object. You create an user, it's an object. You enter an Article, it's an object. You create a new forum, a new thread in the Forums, it's an object.

Everything is an object and can be managed through the phpWebSite core classes. And the core objects interact with each other. From a programers point of view, modules are extended through a similar concept like interfaces in JAVA.

What does that mean to the average user? phpWebSite is very, very flexible. If it is unable to do something you want, just write a module. If written correctly, it will feel exactly like everything else on your site.

The Article Manager

new article
new article

Let me give you an example on using phpWebSite by talking a bit about Article Manager, my personal favorite module.

In case you are wondering: I've switched from Fallout (the current developer release) to 0.10 here. phpWebSite 0.10 is the current productive release of that product.

To create a new article, simply call the url of your homepage. You're probably already logged in, if you told phpWebSite to remember you. So all you do is scroll down to the very bottom of your site: if you've already installed the Article Manager press “Submit a new article”.

Writing an article

enter content
enter content

Now, you see an empty article in front of you. It doesn't have a title, a summary or anything else yet. Just like pressing the “new” button in Word and like in virtually any other opensource cms I've seen this far (except TYPO3 of course).

You have an image manager called “Image Library” included here as well. I prefer to fix each of my images right before uploading it in Photoshop, though, since this gives me more control.

Some people are confused by the concept of sections, a similarity to TYPO3. Actually, it's very straight forward. See them as subheadings. You can also add pagebreaks before sections, this allows for multi-page articles.

The first section title of a page is also the name of the direct-link to that page, as you might already have noticed while reading this article. An article can have as many sections (and thus as many pages) as you like.

After pressing save, you are presented with a new, empty section. You can also move around existing sections and edit them as well.

Saving the article

saving
saving

When you are done, you could just press the “Save Article” button on the very bottom. If you are allowed to, it would show right on the front page. If not, it would be sent to approval for someone who is allowed to publish it.

But wait. If you're lucky enough, you'll see a couple of options here. You can decide, whether it should show up on the homepage at all or only be available via menu / categories / whatever.

You can also restrict commenting -- if the comment module is installed. All in all, you'll notice big similarities to products like word. Products, you probably use every day and know to use already.

Content in TYPO3

TYPO3 is different. I had a hard time finding a way to enter content, it's not exactly the way you might thing it is. Once you know it, it's manageable. But I still prefer Article Manager.

First of all, you need to create the page. That's similar to the “Submit a new article” link, with a couple of major differences.

  1. You need to map your content to the sitemap right away
  2. You need to enter a title before you can insert actual content and
  3. You use the administrative interface -- a different url and a completely different look and feel than your main site.

This isn't only counter-intuitive for most experienced users. It also takes away a certain degree of spontaneity. If you have a quick idea, you can write it down right away with phpWebSite in a new article. Write now, structure later.

In TYPO3, it's the other way around. Like having to find and reserve a parking-lot before buying a car and before driving somewhere with it.

Create Pages

create pages
create pages

I searched a while to find to create a page. There are at least two ways, probably more. The one way I've just found while creating this article is simply pressing “New page” after pressing “Page” in functions and clicking on an existing page of your site in the site map

The administration interface, as I mentioned earlier, is very, very crowded and one has a hard time finding stuff in it.

The other, even less obvious way includes pressing “Functions”, choosing the “Create multiple pages” wizard and entering one or more page titles.

These pages will appear in the site map, where you can edit them afterwards.

Entering Content

new record
new record

In TYPO3, and this is a totally different concept than in phpWebSite, everything is a Page. And everything is somewhere within your site map. Third party plugins are included in these pages as well, simply press “new record” to create something similar to the section in article manager.

You will be presented with a quite big list of possibilities which can be a bit confusing. But that's the way TYPO3 works: You have a huge list of stuff. If what you want is in it, you are lucky. If not, you might be able to increase the size of the list even further by installing plugins. Not exactly a clear interface.

phpWebSite makes creating content a lot easier and lets you focus on content through specialised modules.

After you've created your record, you click on it and customize it. If it's text, the whole content is one big link which you can edit after clicking on it. While you almost see your site the way it will be afterwards in phpWebSite, you'll only see a draft in TYPO3.




RSSComments - Make a comment
The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content.

  • Wonderful Article and Well Illustrated

    Posted on 2005-03-06 17:54:31 By Anonymous

    Thanks for creating that, Rck!

    Bobby Kennedy

    [Reply ]

  • phpwebsite vs typo3

    Posted on 2005-03-07 19:09:46 By Anonymous

    I tried typo3 myself on a windows box and i mostly agree with you. I did not encounter any install problems though. I gave up typo3 because i found it hard to manage and configure. I am sure it has a lot of possibilities, but i got lost many times.

    What i did like on typo3 was the instant module extensions, where one could ad modules the installation direct form the typo3 website. Cool feature! Also i find, altough not always complete, that typo3 has an extensive documetation library.
    Also nice: Kasper took the effort to make some informative training video's.

    As said before i agree with your conclusions, bud i regret that you incorporated Jesus in your evaluation.

    P!eter

    [Reply ]

    • Re: phpwebsite vs typo3

      Posted on 2005-03-07 23:24:45 By rkennedy[2]

      If Jesus assumed human form, I'm sure he has a sense of humor as well.

      ;-]

      Bobby

      [Reply ]

    • Why Jesus?

      Posted on 2005-03-08 07:32:49 By rck[110]

      You know, I had my objections about including Jesus into my article myself. Still, I guess I took the right approach about that. Why?

      I am in fact not a very believing person. It's less of a Jesus but more of a church thing. Here in Austria, the catholic church doesn't have a very good standing. More and more people bail out of it, it has very bad media at times.

      The big issue I am having is the “it's all my fault” thing about the catholic church. It makes people feel guilty. And that's bad. Very bad.

      Also, I respect Kaspers decision to follow Jesus' life as good as possible. What I don't like though is, that there are, as I wrote, tons of Jesus images in the installer. It must have offended me the same way my Article is offending you.

      I can't stand looking at Jesus' poor looking face. Of course one has always the choice of not using Typo3. But I for one did not know that there are any Jesus images at all in Typo3. And thus I'd rather like people to see my article as a notice. Nothing more and nothing less.

      [Reply ]

      • Jesus part rewritten

        Posted on 2005-03-08 19:59:24 By rck[110]

        changed On 2005-03-08 19:59:44 Edited By rck (reason: rewriten -> rewritten)

        As there were a lot of people more or less complaining about that part, I've completely rewritten that part. I've also added a bit more information about the installer to make up for it.

        [Reply ]

        • Re: Jesus part rewritten

          Posted on 2005-03-08 21:12:24 By thimscool[1]

          I think you got it now, except that Kaspar is evidently a "personal Christian", which is probably not Catholic!

          Anyway, I think it is all much ado about nothing. I like Bobby's comment.

          Your site is very cool. I will be looking into this Health Module...

          [Reply ]

    • Documentation and other things

      Posted on 2005-03-08 07:38:17 By rck[110]

      I must agree with you here. Kasper did an amazing job with the documentation of Typo3. It seems very complete to me and there are also 3rd party manuals available.

      Most open source products, including phpWebSite are unable to offer nearly as much. And I understand that even phpWebSite is not as intuitive as one might like it to be.

      Also, I think that the phpWebSite concept of boost is nice. But it can be improved. I already made a feature request for a packet manager / remote installation long ago. Nobody implemented it yet, though.

      It should be actually quite possible to simply list a text file that has been parsed by boost, click on one of the items, download it and install it. The technology is there but lacking polish.

      The same is true for approval, multi-language, etc. etc. The good news is, that the current developement release of phpWebSite will include versioning amongst other things.

      [Reply ]

  • Links a little confusing

    Posted on 2005-03-08 03:52:54 By Anonymous

    At first I was confused by the link section because the links themselves are the section titles. I kept hitting the links in the sections and getting sites that don't run phpWebSite! Then I realized what was up.

    You may want to explicitly link in the section content too.

    Very nice article. There are a few English issues, but I take it this is not your first language? If not, you have done extremely well.

    I am curious why you regard Typo3 as the one to beat, though? I think Mambo is the one to beat, but I guess it depends on what you are tryng to achieve. Is there a site that collects statistics of how many installations of CMS's are in use?

    Again, very nice work. I will probably link here from my site. I also wrote an article about phpWebSite. Link is available here:
    http://www.alloraconsulting.com/index.php?module=article&view=8

    Cheers,
    Luke

    [Reply ]

    • Primary language

      Posted on 2005-03-08 07:23:01 By rck[110]

      My primary language is actually german, you are right :-) Thank you for your nice words, Bobby Kennedy already gave my article an overhaul and I will edit mine to reflect his changes soon.

      If you have any further suggestions about improving the article, I'll have an open ear for you.

      [Reply ]

    • Why Typo3?

      Posted on 2005-03-08 07:26:01 By rck[110]

      From a conceptual point of view, you are right. phpWebSite and Typo3 have different goals. One would probably want to compare phpWebSite with e107, Xoops, Mambo, Xaraya, Postnuke, etc.

      Still, I made the experience that for most people having something that they can edit stuff online with and Typo3 are the same thing. I wanted to point out that there is actually a different way of doing things than Typo3, and phpWebSite isn't the worst of them.

      [Reply ]

    • Re: Links a little confusing

      Posted on 2005-03-08 07:44:47 By rck[110]

      changed On 2005-03-08 07:46:37 Edited By rck (reason: )

      You are right. I've changed that, thank you for your suggestion!

      And your site is very good looking, I like your writing style.

      [Reply ]

  • My organization is looking at these 2 CMS systems

    Posted on 2005-03-11 21:16:00 By Anonymous

    Hi. Great job!!!!! It just so happens that I have used phpwebsite personally for over a year on some half dozen sites. Loved it after going thru Mambo, Drupal, Xoops, and some others. phpwebsite is in my opinion the best, most stable (in terms of being developed and used by a university), and easiest to modify (love the themes:-)
    However, I work for a government agency in Florida USA and we are going to remake all our websites (4) and intranet site (1) using CMS. I am team leader of my group, so I can use open source or whatever I want. Well, of course I thought phpwebsite would be a natural, since I know it so well. I did start an extensive online search to double check that Mambo or something else hadn't overtaken phpwebsite in soem critical way - that is when I found out about typo3. Now I am still doing testing and having some of my team do their own testing - but typo3 from our standpoint of a "place of business/government" seems to have some big advantages. I am really leaning toward it right now, mainly because it can make some REALLY complex website structures that I don't see easily replicated with phpwebsite or others like it. We have have a staff team structure, as well as jurisdictions (geographic zones basically), and other complex ways of organizing all our sites and stuff (content :-( here. I am "forced" in many ways to build often illogical structures here based on these institutional restrictions, unlike my own free flowing and "easy-to-use" personal site designs. typo3's tree structure seems better suited to sites that need very complex depth and organization.
    I have used phpwebite's category system on my own sites and loved it, but typo3 seems to have a system more flexible along the lines of Drupal. BTW, Drupal has always come back to me as probably the most powerful of the open sourtce CMS packages out there - but how difficult to change a logo or other simple task.
    The other thing that I have to contend with is mySQL verses other database systems. We do lots of GIS work here and run something called SDE (from ESRI) using mssql. Well, of course virtually no open source CMS supports other databases. I understand the reasoning, but typo3 has atleast the dream of database abstraction discussed on its site. I think we can make a cleaner module that accesses mssql databases (while keeping mysql as the main CMS database for "normal" CMS functions). This is an area where more institutional users would have an interest that a "regular" CMS users (like my personally) who is loading phpwebsite, or XOOPS, or other cms using fantastico on a hosting service.
    BTW, I did not have any real problems loading typo3 on one of our own Linux servers here at work. Of course, I have no restrictions on memory usage (had to boost apache2 memory limit from 8Mb (12Mb for phpwebiste) to 25 Mb for typo3. I use Mepis distro of Linux, which is terrific AND is Debian, so getting typo3 was easy.
    Sorry this is so long. I will update our progress later. Thansk again! Jamie
    PS I can always fall back on phpwebsite if typo3 is a bust ;-)

    [Reply ]

  • INSO site

    Posted on 2005-03-30 13:20:49 By Anonymous

    Hey,

    I clicked on the INSO site and found some good stuff that isn't on the page you have hosted here. Particularly I was interested in the way they have done the people/publications pages. Plus, they seem to have a kind of url rewrite that is different that what i've seen. Do you have any pointers to where I might find ways of implementing those things in my site? I'm actually working on a similiar academic department site.

    [Reply ]

    • Re: INSO site

      Posted on 2005-04-01 02:07:16 By rck[110]

      changed On 2006-03-26 19:02:22 Edited By rck (reason: )

      Hey Anonymous,

      to which INSO site are you referring? The current one with static html pages? Our new prototype based on phpWebSite as seen in the reference section of this article? Or the old protype, based on Typo 3?

      Also, which one of the three do you like most and why? smile

      [Reply ]

  • Little comment about Typo3

    Posted on 2005-04-12 21:15:03 By Anonymous

    Hi,

    In your article you stated you couldn't find a way to change the ugly green template.
    I think this comment isn't fair. On the typo3 site they tell you to read certrain documentation in order. These documents teach you the basics and also tell you how to create your templates.

    For the rest I agree. It is very powerfull, but also overwelming in it's complexity.

    kind regards,
    Ton van der Pol

    [Reply ]

    • Re: Little comment about Typo3

      Posted on 2005-04-12 22:55:40 By rck[110]

      Thank you. There's also some kind of different approach to templates available in Typo3, I figured out. I knew of the tutorials while I was doing this article. But ---

      they didn't work for me. On the one hand, the pages timed out. And when they didn't I had a hard time understanding the tutorial.

      I think Typo3 could need a couple of (free!) template-sets delivered with it and a very basic template-switcher. Like in phpWebSite, where you (used :-() to have a bunch of themes. And could select them in the layout manager.

      Even now, where you can download the themes from the community-site, it's 100 : 1 compared to Typo3. I don't know whether I'm being unfair. But I'm biased, no doubt. And it is a very subjectiv article, that seems to touch a lot of people.

      [Reply ]

      • Re: Little comment about Typo3

        Posted on 2005-05-06 23:47:49 By Anonymous

        Changing templates is quite easy. This is my approach:
        1 - Design a HTML and CSS layout in a standard editor (I personally use Programmer's NotePad 2). Once I have the basic layout done it is on to step 2.

        2 - Insert placeholders for Typo3 content items which are pretty straight forward (###CONTENT###, ###LEFTNAV###, ###TOPNAV##, etc). Check out http://www.mcuniverse.com/HTML_Template.848.0.html

        3 - Upload the template (html and css files) to a folder in the /fileadmin/ area of the site.

        4 - Next you have to create a Template in Typo3 that references your HTML/CSS template. This is done by selecting the root file of your site structure, click Create Content, and select Template. (For instructions on the format of Typo3's internal template, checkout
        http://www.mcuniverse.com/Typo3_Template.849.0.html )

        5 - Once your original template is uploaded, and you have a template in the tree root that tells Typo3 what HTML/CSS file to use, you should have a functioning new site.

        Figured I would spare you from any more, but the hardest part really is understanding the Typo3 internal template. Typo3.org has some good info/examples on that. You can even edit the internal template from the default "green" template and that should help you to figure out how things work.

        Kevin L.

        [Reply ]

  • Typo3 vs PHPWebsite

    Posted on 2005-09-20 00:12:53 By Anonymous

    I was looking at Typo3 for my church as well (Currently PHPWebsite is being used there). I found that Typo3 is too much for the average person to understand. All they really need to do is be able to add content. The reason that I was (and still am) looking for another CMS is because of the 3 column cookie-cutter limitation that PHPWebsite imposes. I did find a way around it but it is a hack that i fear will be more of a maintenence nightmare than it's worth.

    The search continues...

    [Reply ]

    • Re: Typo3 vs PHPWebsite

      Posted on 2005-11-09 04:04:29 By Anonymous

      I just wanted to start off by saying that it was a mistake to compare Typo3 to PhpWebSite. They are not in the same class. Typo3 is Enterprise class while PhpWebSite is Hobbiest class. No multimillion dollar business would be cought dead using a Nuke variant. I agree that Typo3 is very hard to learn but so is most things that are powerful. I am really tired of people complaining that there is too much hacking needed to work with Typo3. If you are not a programmer, then you have no business creating web sites. This is a programmers playground. If you are too afraid to pop the hood, then you shouldn't be driving the car.

      I couldn't agree more about the Catholic church. When your worship service is geared around Mary and Idols, than there is something seriously wrong. But just because you had a bad experience with one church, that doesn't dispell the truth about Jesus Christ. He is real and you should open your bible and discover him. Find a church that focus's on Christ and nothing else. http://www.calvarychapel.org is a great place to start.

      [Reply ]

      • Re: Typo3 vs PHPWebsite

        Posted on 2006-07-21 16:18:48 By Anonymous

        "If you are too afraid to pop the hood, then you shouldn't be driving the car. "

        and then the evangelism

        First of websites are not techies playgrounds(just as cars are for transportation), they display content, sell products etc.

        as for religion, it's all based on faith. Some people like the spagettie and meatballs guy

        you sound like you are about 12.

        my 5 cents

        [Reply ]

      • Re: Typo3 vs PHPWebsite

        Posted on 2007-02-23 17:32:24 By rck[110]

        changed On 2007-02-23 17:35:23 Edited By rck (reason: )

        > I just wanted to start off by saying that it
        > was a mistake to compare Typo3 to PhpWebSite.
        > They are not in the same class. Typo3 is
        > Enterprise class while PhpWebSite is
        > Hobbiest class.

        And both maintain content. It's like comparing apples with oranges -- in a fruit comparison.

        Using phpWebSite for a whole college is "just" a hobby?

        [Reply ]

      • Re: Typo3 vs PHPWebsite

        Posted on 2008-05-26 22:00:10 By Anonymous

        Without having read possible replies that may follow: "CMS" does not stand for "programmers playground". If you´d earn money as a programmer, you´d know customers - these are the one who pay. Everything else indeed is "playground", and Typo3´s nothing for nice playing. But unfortunately you´re right, it´s adapted by those regarding themselves to be top geeks. That´s why tons of docu are just time consuming.

        [Reply ]

  • Typo3

    Posted on 2006-08-28 17:51:10 By Anonymous

    I found it easy after a little time how to create content.
    of course, it's a little structured, but straightforward.
    - create page and give it a name (which will be automatically used to create the navigation menus)
    - create a content object (usually a text with imge). you can even change your mind while writing the content, the input fields will be updated (e.g.: you chose 'text', wrote your text, then you decide to add an image, you just switch the content type to 'text w image' !)
    - that's it !

    ofc, you have plenty of editing options (texts, headers etc) and a cool thing is the image management (one reason I chose typo3: you can define for an image: its size, set some effects/frame, and for it to be a link, or a thumbnail.

    Also, I'm not quite sure about saying that typo3 is not object oriented. in my example above, you can select the text objet and move it before or after other content objects. you can even "copy/cut & paste" to other parts of your site.

    another great thing in the last version: multilanguage site: once a page created, the typo3 interface let you copy its content, you make the translation and that's it. you've got your page in another language but you don't have to bother about the links, or how to switch from a language to another while browsing (granted, I searched a while on how to make the little country flags work ! ;).

    Problems are, as said: defining the templates and be acquainted with the typoScript language if you want to adapt things to your taste, having the time and patience to read the documentations ! ;)


    About Kasper's faith:
    I'm not Christian myself, but what he said is just that he had a deep faith and that if he was a gifted programmer, then he felt compelled to use his best of abilities to make a good stuff.

    I respect Kasper when he states that he just took the time needed top make typo3 like he wanted it, without any time frame, and that he wanted it openSource and free. And for a piece of software of business-level, that's a pretty rare behaviour.

    [Reply ]

  • John 3:16

    Posted on 2006-10-18 20:14:06 By Anonymous

    Just wanted to point out that John 3:16 has nothing to do with "how nobody gets through the pearly gates without being Christian”.

    This is actually an extremely well known verse that says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son". It's about how God sent Jesus to the world to be sacrificed for the world's sin.

    Otherwise, good article on TYPO 3 and phpWebSite

    [Reply ]

  • Check the facts

    Posted on 2007-02-23 15:11:25 By Anonymous

    Go to http://cmsmatrix.org/matrix/cms-matrix
    check the boxes for phpWebsite and TYPO3 and submit.

    And then ask yourself, why the left column is almost red ;-)

    [Reply ]

    • Re: Check the facts

      Posted on 2007-02-23 17:29:29 By rck[110]

      Is it really always about the features? Why can't I take my Porsche Carrera for an offroad-trip? Why can't my chopper bike go 300 km/h?

      How many ways of e.g. creating themes/designs do you have in Typo3? In phpWebSite, there is only one, so everyone is talking about the same thing.

      Did you know that there are at least 24 modules for content alone (I'm not talking e.g. about showing the current weather) for phpWebSite?

      [Reply ]

  • Typo3 not only open source

    Posted on 2007-04-16 09:39:04 By Anonymous

    The thing I love about TYPO3 is that is open. You are not bound to strict (HTML)template structures. You can create your own content elements. You can customize everything - even the backend.
    The part I hated TYPO3 is that it is hard to learn in the beginning. I disagree that is has a steep learning curve. First the curve is very flat, because you misunderstand things - like the green template - maybe because you search too much within the filesystem - until you break the knot.
    After that the curve gets very steep - and you learn a lot in one go. After that period it becomes flat again. That is the time you start diving deeper in the material. Write your own extensions, make complex Typoscript setups and try to bend the output of your content ...

    I love T3 and won't miss learning it

    [Reply ]

  • Typo3..

    Posted on 2007-07-27 05:48:06 By Anonymous

    Typo3 is quite a tool. I learned it back in 2005 and find I continue to use it for new sites I develop ... why? Because its very flexible. It has a great separation of design and content and it is very easy for me to teach to content editors/creators on how to use the system. As a result, the system promotes true separation of job tasks.

    I can have a designer develop to overall look, I can hack away at typoscript and interface the design with Templaviola, an administrator can setup user accounts and rolls (let it be workflow policies or group restrictions) and content creators can umm.. create content, publish it, send it for review, have "draft" areas to develop new ideas, etc..

    The integration with GraphicsMagick and GD is also really nice. Its great to not have to explain resizing images or resaving images in JPEG to people just wanting to get content online. With Typo3, they can upload a variety of formats and Typo3 will faithfully convert to a standard web format and resize to minimize page size. Brilliant.

    Given the flexibility of Typo3, some things can be a bit overwhelming for newcomers to the platform. Individuals wanting to setup a website fast with Typo3 can almost forget it unless they use a third party package such as the WebEmpoweredChurch packages which come with up-to-date templates, default extensions and a guide on setting up the system.

    However, the flexibility and capabilities of the system can truly result in very powerful, massive content, graphically pleasing, easy to maintain web sites which is great. Typo3 is definitely a "power tool" and may not be suitable for a lot of tasks .. however, it is nice to have on my toolbelt in the event I need to develop a site built on a platform that is extremely flexible and extensible.

    [Reply ]

    • Re: Typo3..

      Posted on 2007-09-25 02:53:09 By Anonymous

      I would agree with you. Not just making an quick ansver, I would say. It`s a benefit, and a real help.
      So They have their controlpanel. The most wanted feature of the western world. Which seemed to help. Now they are in control.
      And you gy's, you are out of oil.

      not just to be dumb on a dumb site

      [Reply ]

RSSAll Articles
2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004

What's Related

Wiki

phpWebSite

Article Manager

phpWebSite

Link Manager

Demo Sites
Typo3
phpWebSite
Demo Sites

Photo Albums

phpWebSite

Documents

phpWebSite

Bulletin Board

phpWebSite

FAQ

phpWebSite

Latest Updates

AdministrativeTexts
updated by freddiemac1993, 2013-06-14
wiki

Re: adventures
created by brittdavis10, 2012-02-23 (1 rply, 3 views)
thread

Re: how to run phpwebsite...
created by alexander, 2011-08-25 (2 rpls, 3607 views)
thread

Re: Forum tags
created by HaroldFaragher, 2011-08-22 (3 rpls, 8488 views)
thread


Zu den KO2100 Foren