Would be interested in comments / observations from anyone who has worked with both asp (classic) and aspx (.net) hands-on. I have heard that an aspx page can support up to 3x the traffic of a similar asp page.
My subjective, user experience is that aspx pages appear to be slightly slower. However there are many factors to consider - web host, traffic, recompilation requirements, caching, page state information, http compression, use of "keep alive" polling, etc.
While I have yet to see an aspx page respond with the sort of speed that spells "just gotta have that", the amount of literature I've come across about squeezing performance out of aspx pages is suggestive of a complexity overload that - from the end-user perspective - does result in this perception of slower throughput.
Two examples (1) recently did r&d in aspx developing a web site in an open source framework. This was dogged by performance issues - although ultimately partially rescued by deploying http compression. In the end, depsite the framework's exceptional flexibility the people I wrote the pro-forma site for decided to go with an alternative technology. (2) My bank is a leading-edge deployer of Microsoft technology - yet their on-line banking system remains firmly rooted in asp classic. Is this a case of performance = profit?
The key question is thus how to nudge aspx towards realising the marketing "3x" factor - have I just had indifferent experiences? Ultimately the user perspective is where the money goes.
Thanks in advance.