I have just started thinking about signing up for web hosting and one of the first things that I have noticed is that some offer Windows hosting and/or Red Hat/Linux/Apache.

I would be grateful if someone could explain the pros and cons of each please.

Thank you, Alixier.

Alixier,
I think you will find many different answers to this one but esentially one is on a windows platform or either a UNIX flavor such as FreeBSD, RedHat or Mandrake. One main difference you will notice is that UNIX hosts offer things much cheaper than windows because hosting on a windows platform can be much more expensive with the cost of MS products. Also some advantages to UNIX hosts are there are thousands of free scripts that will run with Apache and you will find a much more stable platform than Windows. Plus im sure a lot of people will agree with me when I say that Microsoft products are terrible as far as security flaws. Go with a UNIX HOST! :D

Windows/IIS

Pros: ASP, MS ACCCESS DATABASES, MS SQL

Cons: Insecure, Micro$oft, Servers crash more

Linux/FreeBSD/Unix/Apache

Pros: Secure, PHP & MySQL work better, more scripts work, more scripting languages

Cons: None

I recommend Linux/Apache

1 tip, don't signup with any host that offers unlimited or unmetered space or bandwidth

Linux/Unix scripts == $free as well, if you didn't know, but i also wouldn't go with redhat, if i could, i would without a doubt go with FreeBSD. FreeBSD > rh 7.*

Originally posted by roly
1 tip, don't signup with any host that offers unlimited or unmetered space or bandwidth

there's a lot that offer that... how do you know if the "unlimited" is legit or what to look for when they say that?

unlimited bandwidth is never legit.

so what should we look for when they say it is...
do they all have "restrictions" buried somewhere?
if they don't, what are the limitations?

just saying it's never legit doesn't answer the 2nd part...
nor does it help us newbies...

Unlimited is not really unlimited. If they say unlimited storage or transfer that is something they can not really provide you with that. Try going with an unlimited host and host a huge site on their servers. They will say you are taking up too much bandwidth.

They offer unlimited transfer right? No they say they do but if you actally push it by using 500 gigs a month (in legitimate traffic) for example they will terminate your site. Its a scam. Unlimited hosts are no good. Avoid them.

Hi criosa...a few suggestions on things to look for:

Check the host TOS page (terms of service) or AUP (acceptable users policy)
Usually (not always though!) somewhere in the terms you will find the limits stated. Its just very MISleading to advertise it this way. Alot of hosts still do this, and its an effective marketing tool FOR THEM. The consumer, on the other hand is thinking they've found the best host, plan for the buck....and usually within a very short period of time, the consumer finds his website has suddenly disappeared, and then finding out later the reasons were:
They exceeded their UNLIMITED LIMIT!
There are soooo many choices now for good quality webhosting, and many to pick from, that its just unnecessary to fall for the trap.
If you do a quick search here in the forums, for 'unlimited' (search button..upper right hand corner) I am sure you will be reading for DAYS!
Good Luck...and always research your own potential host!

well, something to consider, regardless of whether you're going to buy into the 'U' word or not is the chances are you'll be sharing the server will high bandwidth, heavy use sites. It's all fine and well to think you're fine as your small site will never chew that much juice, but wouldn't it seem more practical to place your site on a server where your fellow hostees are using less of the available resources?

On a server with few others onboard this probably won't create much of an issue, but dollars to donuts, to make that box profitable, they're going to have to load it up pretty high.

Having seen this discussion so many times now, I no longer have a view on unlimited bandwidth/transfer/beer. People will still go for it, regardless of the overwhelming reasons not to. In time most people find themselves migrating to hosts with more realistic pricing and plan options. The boon for the rest of us is, by the time that happens, they're usually seasoned experienced customers who can do most things by themselves, and require very little in the way of support.

So I say, keep the 'U'-hosts out there. They provide a wonderful training ground for new users, who end up with the rest of us after a period of time. The only concern I have is people sometimes have to go through some frustration to end up making that decision to spend a little more, for a little less, get gain a better sense of wellbeing.

No doubt as usual some 'U'-host will drop by and give the usual reasons for why it's possible, how great it is, and how crazy everyone is for not doing the same - regardless of the facts. They may even fire off that old gem 'unmetered'. Personally, anyone not watching their servers transfer needs their head read on so many different levels.

Greg Moore

PROS:

Windows IIS:

1. Typically has better ASP support.
2. You'll only find Microsoft SQL server available here, if it's what you require. Although it usually costs more.
3. If you need the database features in Microsoft FrontPage, you'll need this.

UNIX/Linux Apache:

1. Typically has better PHP support.
2. Typically has better MySQL support.
3. Typically has better uptime, and more performance with the same hardware.
4. More secure.

CONS:

Just reverse the PROS.

A lot of customers think that they will be better off using a Windows host, because they are more familiar with Windows. On the server side, it really makes little difference. You will generally be using the same client software to publish your software on either platform. The end user will generally notice very little difference.

Originally posted by bitserve
PROS:

Windows IIS:

1. Typically has better ASP support.
2. You'll only find Microsoft SQL server available here, if it's what you require. Although it usually costs more.
3. If you need the database features in Microsoft FrontPage, you'll need this.

UNIX/Linux Apache:

1. Typically has better PHP support.
2. Typically has better MySQL support.
3. Typically has better uptime, and more performance with the same hardware.
4. More secure.

CONS:

Just reverse the PROS.

A lot of customers think that they will be better off using a Windows host, because they are more familiar with Windows. On the server side, it really makes little difference. You will generally be using the same client software to publish your software on either platform. The end user will generally notice very little difference.

Unix wins - 4-3 Yeah!!!

Nicely said Mark :)

I've used both. I remember being really impressed when I picked up some ASP skills, which works on Microsoft. But then I learned PHP and went to Linux, and never looked back. Stay with a Unix-flavor.