I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.

Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.