Windows Server Hosting

[highnote]

I need a recommendation for a company that offers Windows Server Hosting.

We're using 1&1, but are getting terrible service.

If you have experience with a particular company I'd appreciate hearing about it. Thanks!

[DJofSD]

Perhaps this list might help you: http://webhostinggeeks.com/bestwindowshosting.html

[wilderness]

I need a recommendation for a company that offers Windows Server Hosting.

We're using 1&1, but are getting terrible service.

If you have experience with a particular company I'd appreciate hearing about it. Thanks!

I'm not attempting to give you a hard time, rather (and for the long run) assist you.

In the long run, you'd be much better off obtaining standard Apache hosting.
The benefits outweigh detriments by leaps and bounds. You'll be able to do many more things in Apache than Windows (and you'll find many more solutions freely available). Once your HOOKED with Windows-based-hosting, you'll find the restrictions of that format a detriment.
In addition, Windows-based is generally higher priced than Apache.

[highnote]

Perhaps this list might help you: http://webhostinggeeks.com/bestwindowshosting.html

Thanks! Some good stuff here.

[highnote]

I'm not attempting to give you a hard time, rather (and for the long run) assist you.

In the long run, you'd be much better off obtaining standard Apache hosting.
The benefits outweigh detriments by leaps and bounds. You'll be able to do many more things in Apache than Windows (and you'll find many more solutions freely available). Once your HOOKED with Windows-based-hosting, you'll find the restrictions of that format a detriment.
In addition, Windows-based is generally higher priced than Apache.


I've been getting the same advice from some of the sites I've been visiting. Eventually, the site I'm helping develop will switch to a LINUX server, but for some reasons my developers chose Windows.

[wilderness]

but for some reasons my developers chose Windows.

Because their Putz's ;)

Hopefully they didn't create the site with Word Press, which is fairly common these days, and just as pitiful as using MS Front Page in the old days.

[highnote]

They used php, java and some c++ to write an extention for php so that the website can connect to a database. We also use html.

Because their Putz's ;)

Hopefully they didn't create the site with Word Press, which is fairly common these days, and just as pitiful as using MS Front Page in the old days.

[traynor]

They used php, java and some c++ to write an extention for php so that the website can connect to a database. We also use html.

Why would anyone who had developed a website in PHP, Java, and C++ want to publish it on a Windows server?

If it is for an organization, someone should ask early, "Who is going to fix this when it breaks?" Getting the site running is not a problem. Getting it running again when the mix of technologies stops playing together nicely can be a disaster.

[highnote]

That is a damn good question. I plan on asking them tonight.

It might be because this is the first web application they have ever built that requires database integration0.

They have been writing database software for years and the database we are using was built by them from the ground up. So they may have chosen to use a Windows server because they have always used Windows?




Why would anyone who had developed a website in PHP, Java, and C++ want to publish it on a Windows server?

If it is for an organization, someone should ask early, "Who is going to fix this when it breaks?" Getting the site running is not a problem. Getting it running again when the mix of technologies stops playing together nicely can be a disaster.

[traynor]

That is a damn good question. I plan on asking them tonight.

It might be because this is the first web application they have ever built that requires database integration0.

They have been writing database software for years and the database we are using was built by them from the ground up. So they may have chosen to use a Windows server because they have always used Windows?

That is even more curious. If your DB is SQL Server, and you are going to allow Internet access to that DB (!!!), that might explain a bit of it. However, MS makes some very good, very easy to use, freely available stuff to develop websites, all of which play nicely with Windows servers and SQL Server. So does Oracle (for Java).

Other than that, most websites are integrated with DBs, but those DBs are on the server (not your DB).

[traynor]

It might also be a good idea to check how the site is rendered in various browsers (and versions). Something that looks good in some browsers can look totally different (and possibly ghastly) in others.

For example, in IE there is a Tools dropdown that has "developer tools" (a way to test a site using various versions of IE). Other browsers have similar tools. Glued together sites that use a mix of different technologies tend to look good in the browser used by the developer, but may be rendered much differently by other browsers.

If you run into problems, remember:
http://www.sitepoint.com/

You can post a link to the webpage on their forum and get some really useful tips on what may be needed.

[traynor]

How did it all turn out?

[TonyMLake]

Hmmm... red flag there! Big one.

Anyone who wants to work on an IIS server does so because it implements ASP.net and Microsoft SQL.

Anyone who writes in PHP is free to do whatever but it's likely they'd expect MySQL, a non propietary and free SQL flavor as the backend DB.

Also, there's pretty much NO reason to have a C++ app attached to an IIS server OR website (why? When there's C# or just whatever you're rolling your ASP in... Makes no sense). A C++ app might be running backend on a linux box with PHP, but that seems odd on a windows OS?

To me, it sounds like you're working with an amateur who just got used to rolling some PHP code on an IIS box but doesn't realize that it would work BETTER on an Apache box, OR, more likely, someone is using prebuilt Visual Studio code and is just saying it's PHP when in fact it's ready pre-rolled Windows Objects.

What matters is one thing ****and one thing only*****, though... are YOU happy with the OUTPUT of what these developers have written? If so, discuss all this with them, and then do what they say!

My two cents (developer, 20 some years).

[highnote]

How did it all turn out?


I'm just starting to look at various hosting companies.

I looked into buying a server and software and hosting the site from my house during development. The cost is in the $1,000 range.

It looks like web hosting sites are about $10-$15 per month. Using a web hosting site seems to make more sense, costwise, at this point.

Hostgator gets good reviews. There are a couple others I still need to evaluate.

Actually, hostgator gets good reviews depending on the site that is offering the reviews.

We are using 1&1 now, but the tech support is awful.

Many of the bad reviews about hostgator are about their awful tech support.

Arvixe seems to get good reviews. So I'll give them a closer look.

[traynor]

I'm just starting to look at various hosting companies.

I looked into buying a server and software and hosting the site from my house during development. The cost is in the $1,000 range.

It looks like web hosting sites are about $10-$15 per month. Using a web hosting site seems to make more sense, costwise, at this point.

Hostgator gets good reviews. There are a couple others I still need to evaluate.

Actually, hostgator gets good reviews depending on the site that is offering the reviews.

We are using 1&1 now, but the tech support is awful.

Many of the bad reviews about hostgator are about their awful tech support.

Arvixe seems to get good reviews. So I'll give them a closer look.

It looks like you are working your way through the Google search that popped up
www.consumer-rankings.com (http://www.consumer-rankings.com).

That (and others like it) is a commercial ad site, not a "consumer site." Meaning, they "rank" their advertisers, not hosting services in general.

[traynor]

Try:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2424725,00.asp

for the most reliable reviews. Or just take a shortcut (like many, many others do) and go straight to GoDaddy.

[DeltaLover]

Try https://www.linode.com/ or https://www.digitalocean.com/
I am using the former but both are top choices today when it comes to server hosting

[wilderness]

Try:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2424725,00.asp

for the most reliable reviews. Or just take a shortcut (like many, many others do) and go straight to GoDaddy.

A few years ago, I did some preliminary administrative work a local C of C, whose hosting was with GoDaddy.
I found their CP quite frustrating, even though I was experienced with multiple shared hosts. In addition, they offer a variety of price structures, some of which I found to be very close to padding. Their support I found to be excellent, however GoDaddy is simply not to my liking.

There are a variety of pricing and structures for shared hosting (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=shared+hosting+&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1) to suit each customers needs/choices. Many hosts offer unlimited data at approximately $5 monthly, although their support is generally less than desired for a noob. Other hosts offer data caps, where your site (s) simply go down after reaching the cap (unless you've made previous arrangements).

BlueHost is another major seller for hosting, and there are some resellers that utilize BlueHost at lesser rates. (many shared hosts are in fact resellers).

[traynor]

A few years ago, I did some preliminary administrative work a local C of C, whose hosting was with GoDaddy.
I found their CP quite frustrating, even though I was experienced with multiple shared hosts. In addition, they offer a variety of price structures, some of which I found to be very close to padding. Their support I found to be excellent, however GoDaddy is simply not to my liking.

There are a variety of pricing and structures for shared hosting (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=shared+hosting+&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1) to suit each customers needs/choices. Many hosts offer unlimited data at approximately $5 monthly, although their support is generally less than desired for a noob. Other hosts offer data caps, where your site (s) simply go down after reaching the cap (unless you've made previous arrangements).

BlueHost is another major seller for hosting, and there are some resellers that utilize BlueHost at lesser rates. (many shared hosts are in fact resellers).

There are factors that make GoDaddy a very good choice for a first venture. Not the least of which is uptime, and a low entry bar to what is perceived (by users/customers) as a "professional" site. I think debating "differences" of a couple of dollars a month one way or the other is probably not the best way to evaluate hosting services.

Again, I recommend "professional" advice and recommendations (from active developers in the industry) rather than individuals. A little time spent researching on SitePoint (for example) can save one mountains of grief and regret later. The same thing goes for "web developers" cobbling together a mish-mash (or the trendier term "mashup") of various technologies that tend to be throwaways when the inevitable problems arise.

[highnote]

A little time spent researching on SitePoint (for example) can save one mountains of grief and regret later.

Thanks for the sitepoint tip. Good stuff!