web hosting question

mangled

Senior member
Oct 19, 2000
335
0
0
I'm looking at signing up for different web hosting...the place I'm looking at offers Linux or Windows hosting for the same price. What are the advantages and disadvantages of both? Not sure which I should go with for a photography website with some possible e-commerce.

Thanks.
 

Rogue

Banned
Jan 28, 2000
5,774
0
0
In either case it's important to ask how well versed they are in securing and maintaining either solution. Also, are they hosting on a Windows server running Apache or are they using IIS?
 

DWW

Platinum Member
Apr 4, 2003
2,030
0
0
Windows 2000 and 2003 are pretty damn stable so I wouldn't argue that Linux is better in that arena. As far as security is concerned I've seen so many root exploits for Apache I wouldn't consider it the best either (by no means is IIS, but as long as the admin uses windowsupdate daily then most worms are prevented seeing as how the patches are generally available before the worms are doing their run) so its all personal preference. As long as the admins are competent its a toss up.

If you want ASP or ASP .NET not to mention a few other things, you are limited to Windows anyhow.
 

DeviousTrap

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2002
4,841
0
71
Linux - generally it is more stable if patched well and in my opinion is a more secure operating system. Basically if you need ASP, ASP.NET or MSSQL get windows. Otherwise get linux.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
If they offer you Windows and Linux hosting for the same price, you're probably getting ripped off on the Linux hosting. Post the account details and price.

Beyond that, it really depends on what your needs are. If you want to run ASP scripts (or develop ASP.NET apps if they have .NET), get the Windows... if not, Linux would do just fine.
 

mangled

Senior member
Oct 19, 2000
335
0
0
Originally posted by: mugs
If they offer you Windows and Linux hosting for the same price, you're probably getting ripped off on the Linux hosting. Post the account details and price.

Beyond that, it really depends on what your needs are. If you want to run ASP scripts (or develop ASP.NET apps if they have .NET), get the Windows... if not, Linux would do just fine.



Here's the service.

I'm looking at the business package for either linux or windows. Don't need asp scripts. Just php.
 

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
If you have no preference, it really doesn't matter cause you wont be using any features specific to one or the other anyway.
 

tm37

Lifer
Jan 24, 2001
12,436
1
0
Originally posted by: mangled
Originally posted by: DeviousTrap
I beg you please do not go with 1and1 :(


A few more details than that would help.

http://forums.scrappingforus.com/

Have 10 of your friends log in at the same time.

Also Every thing takes a day with 1and1.

Subdomains, ftp accounts, email accounts, and the servers are SLOW AS HELL.

On my addaction site everything is nearly instant. email ftp accounrs the whole deal.
 

MikePanic

Senior member
Apr 5, 2004
913
0
0
unless you plan on using asp, go w/ linux

if you are interested in what other photographers use to host their sites, check out iPhotoForum.com - most everyone their has a website and a good majority sell prints on them.

for hosting, i recomend towardex.com

not the cheapest, but the best customer service hands down - and ive used everything from free to really spendy
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
linux
apache
php
mysql

the only place windows servers need to be used are running corporate windows domains/exchange servers, why windows servers are used for anything else boggles my mind
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
The biggest reason for wanting a Windows server is if you're using FrontPage. You won't get all the FP features unless a Windows server is being used. FrontPage extensions for Linux suck.

NOTE: I don't use FP, but several people at work do and I spend a lot of time troubleshooting their crap.
 

mangled

Senior member
Oct 19, 2000
335
0
0
A little update and perhaps some advice.

I've decided against 1and1. But have found two other hosts which look appealing.

P4host.com
http://www.p4host.com/webhosting.php
Looking at the Extra plan for $8.99/month

Strikehosting.com
http://strikehosting.com/?x=personal&PHPSESSID=e79ff687edb0715672a11e8622a74249
Looking at the Punch plan for $10/month

For $1 more, strikehosting offers double the storage. Other than that, both services seem to offer nearly identical options. However strikehosting only offers 2 add on domains and p4hosting offers unlimited domains. This could a deciding factor for me because I already have 2 domains I want to host and want the option for more in the future.

However, I like the fact that P4hosting has user forums where questions are answered by support very quickly and you can also get help from other users. Strikehosting doesn't have forums so you have to rely on trouble tickets or email. Not necessarily bad, but I like the idea of user forums.

So, opinions on these hosts? Opinions on which would make the better plan? 2gb is nice, but both my sites combined right now don't even take up 200mb.
 

Zee

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 1999
5,171
3
76
why not just sign up with someone here?

I resell under DeviousTrap and he's is the f@ckin man. Or buy from one of his resellers. A bunch of people host through him I believe.
 

mangled

Senior member
Oct 19, 2000
335
0
0
Sent him a PM about his service.

Found another one that looks interesting

http://webhelix.net/hosting.php

Their extra plan is 2gb storage for $10/month. Many of the same features as the others, with virtually no limits to add on domains. Better than strikehosting with same specs. But no forums there either.
 

RichieZ

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2000
6,551
40
91
1and1 is good enuf since i got one of htose 3yr 500MB 5G/mo plans that they where giving out for free a while back
 

inteltechs

Member
Mar 21, 2003
28
0
0
Originally posted by: mangled
A little update and perhaps some advice.

I've decided against 1and1. But have found two other hosts which look appealing.

P4host.com
http://www.p4host.com/webhosting.php
Looking at the Extra plan for $8.99/month

Strikehosting.com
http://strikehosting.com/?x=personal&PHPSESSID=e79ff687edb0715672a11e8622a74249
Looking at the Punch plan for $10/month

For $1 more, strikehosting offers double the storage. Other than that, both services seem to offer nearly identical options. However strikehosting only offers 2 add on domains and p4hosting offers unlimited domains. This could a deciding factor for me because I already have 2 domains I want to host and want the option for more in the future.

However, I like the fact that P4hosting has user forums where questions are answered by support very quickly and you can also get help from other users. Strikehosting doesn't have forums so you have to rely on trouble tickets or email. Not necessarily bad, but I like the idea of user forums.

So, opinions on these hosts? Opinions on which would make the better plan? 2gb is nice, but both my sites combined right now don't even take up 200mb.


Hi mangled,

Let me tell you why you should choose P4host over strikehosting:

1. P4host has been in business since March of 2003. Strikehosting is fairly new. http://www.whois.sc/strikehosting.com.
2. We have a private rack with www.gnax.com at Atlanta, their network is 99.999% uptime, it has been proved.
3. We use quality hardware, our servers are Dual Xeon 2.4 ghz hyperthreading, 1u supermicro server, 2*160 gig hd, some of them with raid 1, with 2 gig of ram minumum, daily, weekly, monthly backup and remote backup as well.
4. We don't overload our servers
5. Our uptime reports have been fantastic, 99% or above on all servers. http://knowledgehost.net/forums/showthread.php?t=376
6. Our prices are affordable for budget host
7. Our tech support is helpful and friendly
8. We also have an active forum

that is all I can think of now, if you have any questions, let me know. I'll be glad to help you.

Thanks,

Thanks to RossMan as well...

Kevin