I'm sure this has been asked before (running a search as I type this), but which is better... I mean I assumed Co-Located would be, but Burlee (I know I know, but they were the first guys I called to figure out how expensive it COULD be) was going to charge me more for CoLocated then for Ded...

I can get a server, I'm just in that awkward "paying too much for shared hosting but don't have the money for a full dedicated" place. I've found a company to team up with to share the dedicated until we start making more money online...

Anyways, I digress. Advantages/Disadvantages of Ded vs CoL?

I guess my next step after this will be to start looking at prices for whichever is best. Looking for a relatively cheap Windows server (between 1500-2200$/year) which I can drop SQL Server, bunch of COM's on, etc.

Advantages to Co-Lo:
Full control over the hardware, and therefore know everything that's in there
If you need to move to another center you can just move the whole box
You can typically visit the box if need be (like you need to do something you can only do from a console)

Advantages to Ded:
You don't have to worry about spare parts, as that's the responsibility of the server provider
There's some excellent dedicated server deals out there
You don't have the pay for the server up front
You don't worry about how much space the server takes up (it's part of the server pricing already)

The reverse of each is generally a disadvantage to the other one. Other things depend on the place where the server is going.

You don't want to put SQL on any server running windows in that price range. If you get any type of traffic the box will buckle and break. For any type of traffic you would need at a box around $3600 to $4500 a year.

Putting IIS and SQL on any NT/Win2k box is a very bad idea.

You don't want to put SQL on any server running windows in that price range. If you get any type of traffic the box will buckle and break. For any type of traffic you would need at a box around $3600 to $4500 a year.

Bullarkey! :)

Though I understand your point, if he's just using it for lightweight production or development work, it'll do fine. Go to ubid, or similar sites, get you a dual P3 1Ghz IBM server with 1GB of RAM for $1000 and live happily ever after. One of my clients is running Win2K + IIS + SQL2000 on just such a box (single processor, actually) and it's been humming happily along for around 6 months now without a single reboot. Would they prefer to be on two boxes? Of course. Does it work well enough for their needs now? You bet. They're running what basically amounts to a B2B exchange/marketplace, and it does just fine.

Similarly, I was onsite with another company last week that has a single Dell Poweredge running 2000 + IIS + SQL. They were ASP'ing an application they developed, evidently they had several large customers running off that one box. For what they charged, they really should've had more horsepower in place.

Anyway, my point is everyone always recommends ten million degrees of overkill around here. You don't always need the biggest hammer available to drive a ten penny nail. Same argument goes for a RaQ vs. the latest and greatest. If you're a small business with a static site and a few dozen email accounts, a RaQ or Cube will do a GREAT job. Come on, you can only serve static content so fast, folks. :) Anyway, I digress.

My 0.02,

Brandon