11 Apr 2004
I said earlier that I would write about why I’ve made the move from Movabletype to WordPress. I want to say right at the start that my decision really isn’t a criticism of Movabletype. It has served me extremely well for more than a year, and has made my life immeasurably easier. But one thing I’ve found as I’ve been keeping this blog is that your needs (and skills) change as time goes on, so that you can’t necessarily forsee what you will need in a blogging tool a year or two years down the line. The thing that prompted my itchy feet in the end was the problem of rebuilding the site.
Movabletype (MT) and WordPress (WP) have a lot of similarities (indeed, many of the new features I’ve included in my new design could have been accomplished with MT), but one fundamental difference: MT produces static web pages, and WP produces dynamic ones. This difference is an important one; every time the content of the page needs to change in a static system (which can happen quite frequently with a weblog with comments, trackbacks and so on), the entire page needs to be rebuilt. If you have monthly and category archives, those pages need to be rebuilt too. Rebuilding is pretty speedy when you have a small number of posts, but it gets slower as time goes on and you accumulate more content. However, with a dynamic system, the changes are made the instant someone reloads the page.
I tried a number of different blogging tools, but eventually settled on WP after setting up a test blog and playing with it for a while. It’s a great system—extremely easy to install and configure, and yet with a lot of scope for advanced customization. Better yet, it’s Open Source, so anyone can contribute hacks and fixes for it. It’s also free as in beer. Not that I begrudge paying for software, especially something that I depend on every day. I donated to MT when I started using it, and I consider that money very well spent.
So, what’s so great about WP? As I said, many of the features can be achieved in MT with plugins, but these are the main virtues of WP ‘out of the box’:
../archives/year/month/day/title-of-post/ and you can view all the posts for a particular month or day by entering part of the URI (e.g. ../archives/2004/03/).Those are just the features that are built in; you can add a lot more functionality with Hacks, which is remarkably easy—even for someone who doesn’t know PHP (of which more later).
I’m really pleased with the move. I think that I’ve got all of the functionality that I had before and a bit more, and I feel confident that the system will scale well as the content builds over time. The only major thing WP lacks at the moment is the ability to run multiple blogs from one installation (though you can install it multiple times in different directories and share one mySQL database). I wouldn’t be surprised if this feature gets added at some point.
Over the next few days, I’ll provide a bit more detail of how I set the WP blog up, for anyone who is interested.
2
I really like the new style you’ve created. It’s enough like the old that it doesn’t feel drastically different… just upgraded.
3
Dynamic pages put a lot more stress on your server, though, because the page has to be regenerated every time it’s viewed; not just when you update or when someone leaves a comment.
(there is less process-generation stress involved in using PHP rather than Perl/CGI; but I’d still estimate that for most sites MT takes up less CPU time overall than WP. There was an interesting rant I read once - I think it was on kuro5hin.org - about Why MT Is Evil, which went on about process-creation a lot. And there was a lot of ‘because I don’t like the sort of people that use MT†in it too, of course.)
4
bob: Thanks. It’s worth a try. Since it’s free, you can easily install it in a sub-directory off your site root and play around with it. One word of warning; it uses mod_rewrite, so don’t install it in a subdirectory of your main blog, or it will re-write your URLs.
Nathan: That was the plan—a fresher, brighter look.
Caitlin: Yes, I should have said that. It’s swings and roundabouts I suppose, and the advantages and disadvantages probably depend a bit on how much traffic you get. If you get lots of traffic, but few comments, a PHP system will be using more server CPU, but if you get lots of comments relative to visits, it might be the other way around. From a purely selfish point of view, I don’t really care about the server load as I don’t have to worry about it (unless my hosts complain about it), but I do care about rebuilding which takes up my time :-D I certainly wouldn’t claim that a PHP system is better in all respects. For one thing, if something in your installation breaks, people instantly see the errors on the page!
5
The CPU usage issue may surprise you. Unfortunately, I don’t have any figures to reference, but one of my former hosting providers had a number of users that ran ‘blogs. The majority of them ran PHP-Nuke, which is dynamic (in fact, the setup and configuration was provided as a part of their user control panel software.)
However, I and a few other users ran MT instead. For months where we had a lot of posts we all received numerous warnings about CPU utilization that corresponded with the times that we rebuilt MT due to new posts. The process time was short, but heavy (as opposed to the folks running the dynamic system–I received some logs for that for comparison: CPU usage was more constant, but didn’t have any heavy usage peaks the way MT did.)
6
for whatever reason, the font is very difficult for me to read, and there’s a twenty sec-ncd lag when i tyuupe my comments….
7
Welcome onboard. Cool layout
(Except for the yellow color, I’m not much of a fan of that)
by Michael Heilemann @ 13/04/2004 6:05 am • Permalink •
8
![]()
by dave m @ 13/04/2004 10:04 am • Permalink •
9
![]()
by dave m @ 13/04/2004 10:05 am • Permalink •
10
Welcome to the WP family! ![]()
Regarding CPU usage, peaks of CPU utilization is not good, compared to continuous use amounting to very little process cycles. Spikes of CPU use can take down a server, like I learned.
11
markku: (Our comments got interleaved) Your site was another that impressed me. I know that design has little to do with the engine you use to power a site, but subjectively if you find that a lot of people using a particular engine have really cool site designs, it is encouraging. ![]()
12
Nathan: That’s interesting. I guess that hosts would rather have steady CPU usage rather than unpredictable peaks.
stacy: Which font? The preview seems to work OK for me. What browser are you using on which platform?
Michael Heilemann: Thanks! Your site was one of the ones that made me think it might be very cool to use WP. You don’t like the yellow? I quite like it, though I wish it was possible to get a paler yellow without it disappearing altogether. It might be one of those colours that looks radically different on different platforms.
dave m: Your smilies didn’t get converted. Weird. You broke it! :-p
13
Welcome to Wordpress, and I’m glad you’ve made rapid and excellent use of the media manager ![]()
14
Nice layout… I wish I had the artistic ability to even design such things. Instead, I just found one I liked on www.alexking.org and played with some of the colors and just went from there… I added a few hacks here and there to suit my needs and now I have a blog I actually somewhat like instead of that lame blogger.com way of doing things. I guess that was a good place to start, but I prefer having my blog on my own server, to say the least. Plus if you don’t like something about WP, you have the ability to change it exactly the way you want it. Can’t beat that. ![]()
15
denyerec: I love your Media manager! It’s been something I’ve been wanting to do for ages, but didn’t have the proper know-how to implement myself. It’s so easy to maintain. ![]()
Kevin: Thanks! There’s nothing wrong with using a pre-made stylesheet, and the ones on Alex King’s site are very good. Mine was mostly an upgrade of my old style, so it wasn’t as bad as having to start from scratch. I’m really loving WordPress, and I’m surprised how much I can tinker with, even with my limited PHP knowledge.
16
Well, it took me a while to notice your site had been updated since the RSS link changed, and it took me a little while after that to write a comment about it ![]()
Your site was probably the second MT site that I ever saw and it was one of the reasons I looked into using MT. I guess now’s as good a time as any to do a feature comparison of MT and WP for myself.
Congrats on the redesign… looks great.
17
Adios MovableType El tan ansiado upgrade esperado a MovableType 3.0 para muchos ha llegado como un balde de agua fria. Valió la...
18
I know this is an older post, but it seemed relevant.
I was just curious: with the furor of the newly-released licensing prices for Movable Type 3.0, how do you feel now about your move to WordPress?
19
Nathan: Hehe, pretty good
I've been away for a couple of days, so missed all the brouhaha. I think it's fair enough for them to charge, but there don't seem to be any new features in 3.0, and the 'free version' is much more restricted than the previous version. I think it's fair to say that it hasn't gone down too well. I'm glad I'm not faced with the decision of whether to cough up the money or not—I don't think it would be an easy choice.
20
MovableType 3 Sting Completely sick of the comment spammers. MT-Blacklist is great at what it does, but only works after a string has been blacklisted, so every morning brings a heap of new garbage, "flies buzzing around my eyes, blood on my saddle." Is the only viable ...
by birdhouse.org @ 04/06/2004 9:07 am • Permalink •
21
In which I consider the WordPress exodus. But she's a girl: Why WordPress? via birdhouse.org: MovableType 3 Sting Movabletype (MT) and WordPress (WP) have a lot of similarities (indeed, many of the new features I've included in my new design could have been accomplished with MT), but...
by Snappy the Clam @ 04/06/2004 3:07 pm • Permalink •
22
Making the switch I'm thinking of switching from Movable Type. Why? Well, a couple reasons, purely personal. I like to try new things, and I'd like to extend this to blogging software and see what else is out there. The Ben-Mena-SFO-MT-cutesy-hipness annoys me,...
by Letter Never Sent @ 23/06/2004 8:06 pm • Permalink •
23
[...] 2:27
From PhotoMatt: A recent convert to WordPress (from Movable Type) <a href="http://www.rousette.org.uk/?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rousette.org.uk%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2004%2F04%2F11%2Fwhy-wordpress%2F" rel="external" title="Link to the post">blogs</a> about why she did it. [...]
by Jeremy's Little Corner Of The Web... » Why Word @ 24/06/2004 1:06 am • Permalink •
24
And a few more links lingering in the in-box This housecleaning is endless.
by clock -- watching time, the only true currency @ 15/07/2004 5:08 am • Permalink •
25
Why WordPress?
Filed under: WordPress, Blogging — bsag @ 7:59 pm GMT
by recnow' blog @ 24/12/2004 2:12 pm • Permalink •
1
Like a (MT) Refugee It was unexpected that I might be joining the MT exodus after 6A announced its pricing policy for MT 3.0.----- what a nice clean layout, and the preview in the comments (which I now notice) is pretty cool too. anyway, thanks for the detailed overview of wordpress vs. mt – you make me want to abandon mt again (which I took up again after having used blosxom and then tinderbox). I’ll probably start playing with wordpress for fun….
by bob @ 11/04/2004 8:05 pm • Permalink •