Results 1 to 23 of 23
Thread: Is Windows hosting worth it?
-
08-13-2003, 04:01 PM #1Disabled
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 221
Is Windows hosting worth it?
This is mainly addressed to the hosts that offer both Windows and Linux hosting. Are the Windows acconts worth it?
Windows seems like so much hassle to administrate remotely, and then there is the issue of control panels for the users and licensing.
For those of you that sell both types of hosting, is Windows worth the hassle? (Not getting rid of Linux for Windows, but offering a few Windows plans).
-
08-13-2003, 05:08 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Duluth MN
- Posts
- 3,863
It is worth it if you can justify it. I have several clients who would LOVE to be able to be hosted on a windows box and be able to do ASP, and as soon as I can get the funds to get an additional box, and buy win2k server, I will be able to do so.
I use H-sphere and so I can add windows boxes to the mix just fine, and manage my windows and linux users with the same control panel.
I dont offer windows hosting currently, but I plan on doing so within the next 6 months or so.
-
08-13-2003, 05:11 PM #3Tells All!
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 1,887
??? Windows remote administration - Terminal Services thats what it was designed for, you have the full Windows GUI in front of you, just like sitting at the server itself.
Windows indeed would be worth the hassle, but only of course if you think that your customers would want the full version of ASP. Other than that there are no real "customer-value" added bonuses. I say "customer-value" because there obviously are hundreds of reasons to and not to use windows, but that is the main one that customers would be interested in and a reason to go with a Windows plan.
-
08-13-2003, 05:11 PM #4Disabled
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Posts
- 221
How is H-Sphere on bandwidth limiting? I know that that has been a problem with Windows hosts in the past.
-
08-13-2003, 05:24 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Duluth MN
- Posts
- 3,863
AFIK H-Sphere handles bandwidth and space limiting just like linux, it keeps track of usage, and bills for over usage.
Visit PSofts website (www.psoft.net) and check out the specs. You can email them at info@psoft.net or ask some questions of H-Sphere users in the forums.
I love H-sphere!
-
08-13-2003, 05:30 PM #6Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Posts
- 290
Be *very* careful not to host too many sites on each server, a windows server can quickly become *very* unstable.
I would say at most between 50-100 from personal experience,
also from what I've tried so far it seems 2003 is alot more stable than 2000 for webhosting.
-
08-13-2003, 06:12 PM #7Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 30
Hassle to administrate??? It's a million times easier than linux! I do both and am ok at the command prompt, but with a remote desktop in front of you how easy do you want it???
-
08-13-2003, 06:30 PM #8
We just got a Window's 2003 Standard server and I am loving it. This has Ensim and we plan on getting a Helm version once RS releases it.
Our reason for adding window's was several customers had asked for that option. We wanted to wait until there was enough demand to justify it.
Some people won't host on anything but Window's while others won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
-
08-13-2003, 10:05 PM #9Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Posts
- 782
I'd have to say that securing Windows for hosting is a giant PITA. Windows makes a decent OS for file serving and various other tasks, but I find it that IIS is just a complete pain to lock down properly.
Easy to Administer? I doubt that, even if you are into GUIs. If you think that just because you know Win2k Pro, you can figure out Server. You will be sorely dissappointed.
This is coming from an MCSE's perspective, Windows IS NOT easy to administer. You run into a lot more problems and they are generally harder to fix.
However, this all has nothing to do with it being profitable or not. There is a giant market for it, especially since dot NET came out.
-
08-13-2003, 10:14 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2003
- Posts
- 567
Originally posted by whoppe
Be *very* careful not to host too many sites on each server, a windows server can quickly become *very* unstable.
I would say at most between 50-100 from personal experience,
also from what I've tried so far it seems 2003 is alot more stable than 2000 for webhosting.
-
08-13-2003, 10:25 PM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2001
- Posts
- 8,076
Well, with Windows 2003, the entire server is in Lockdown mode and thus it is your task to permit access since by default everything is denied.
I had a Linux server and until today I am still afraid to do anything with it. With the Windows server, took me three days to set up and now it is working pretty nicely. Okay, I come from a Windows background. The three days was mainly spent in handling the new permission framework.
Windows hosting is not only about ASP. It is about utilizing development of Dot.Net Application, DCOM tools, SOAP and so on.
The Windows environment is what most of us lived with in a home and probably office environment and it is the familiarity which is an extra draw.
When the server runs into problems, I know how to fix them. For Linux, I never can understand all the cryptic codes.
As for whether it is worth doing Windows hosting, well, it is a niche market. Most websites are just generally a few simple scripts or just plain static pages for which the linux would do. If you need something more complex, you might find the solution in Windows.
If you allow hosting of ISAPIs, SOAP, DCOM or custom servers, you will have the upper hand. Because those are sought-after by developers.
The trouble is that most sites offering Windows hosting just merely offers CGI as just scripting languages like php, perl and asp. Most of which can be handled on a linux based servers.http://www.batchimage.com - Offering Batch Image Processing and TIFF/PDF Software Solutions
-
08-14-2003, 12:09 PM #12The E-Commerce Answer Guy
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Location
- Chesapeake, VA
- Posts
- 3,381
One question to ask yourself, in response to your question, is - do you have the skillset to admin a Windows server?
I'm happy as can be on any Linux box - I'm comfortable and able to do whatever I need to do. I'm not experienced with Windows servers and therefore, we don't offer them.
From what I can see, the costs are very high for Windows servers especially when you add in the licensing fees for the various software needed. Much higher on a per-server basis than a Linux box whereby almost everything is free. (o/s, most apps, etc.)
So the next question is whether you have enough customers to justify doing it in the first place. Normally you can charge a premium for Windows hosting but you will want to make sure you can cover the investment. Usually a Windows server can't host as many virtual hosts either and I've heard horror stories about Windows servers that constantly freeze, need reboots, etc.
So - in my opinion, at least for our business, nope - its not worth hosting Windows since it is not our specialty nor has there been enough demand. But for other companies, it may be the perfect thing to do.
Best regards,
Chris West
CDGcommerce
-
08-15-2003, 08:02 AM #13Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Posts
- 353
Something to bear in mind for potential Windows hosters is that you're average Windows customer is more demanding of the package than your average Linux hoster.
Most will want the ability to use MS SQL (even if not immediate they want to know it's there for the future) and most are used to having access to quality stats packages like livestats or webtrends. Most will also be used to iMail and expect all it's features (though mailenable can cover this at 1/10th the price).
Altogether, to become competitive in the market you're looking at laying out some serious coin.
On the other hand Windows hosters expect to pay a decent rate for the services and are generally not looking for $5/month deals.
There probably is a niche for budget asp / access / awstats type packages but i think it's quite a small one, as the guys say above this could be better served using the Linux equivalents for the same or lower price.
-
08-15-2003, 04:48 PM #14Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- United States
- Posts
- 1,435
Personally, I prefer Linux systems because they are more stable and are not as restricted. However, Windows is a good system to use if you are trying to reach a specific group of people, i.e. those who need to use ASP.
Windows systems also take more time, and often have many steps to complete a simple task. Not to mention it does require a higher skill set as the system is more complicated to use.
But if done right, it can be profitable.
-
08-15-2003, 04:55 PM #15Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- In My Own World
- Posts
- 973
NO. Windows hosting is horrible stay as far away as humanly possible. You can never make any money at it. Danger Will Robinson Danger
Tracy Phillips
-
08-15-2003, 04:59 PM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- In My Own World
- Posts
- 973
Originally posted by Velostream
Personally, I prefer Linux systems because they are more stable and are not as restricted.
Have you used Windows in a hosting environment? I use both and have for quite some time, I don't buy that argument.
Windows systems also take more time, and often have many steps to complete a simple task. Not to mention it does require a higher skill set as the system is more complicated to use.
I don't have to worry about chmod -R 755 on windows.
And how much more complicated can it be when you just pop open remote desktop and have your whole system right infront of you just like your workstation.
tsk, tsk... FUD.
Tracy Phillips
-
08-15-2003, 05:11 PM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Posts
- 782
And how much more complicated can it be when you just pop open remote desktop and have your whole system right infront of you just like your workstation.
Just becuase it has a GUI does not mean that it will be easy to manage, in point of fact I do alot of my basic Admin tasks using Win2k's cmd prompt.
-
08-15-2003, 05:20 PM #18Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- In My Own World
- Posts
- 973
Guys I am sorry but windows administration is by far less difficult than admining (if there is such a word) a UNIX boxen.
Tracy Phillips
-
08-15-2003, 05:31 PM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Posts
- 782
For someone experienced in the feild, yes.
But for these newbies, then no.
-
08-15-2003, 05:36 PM #20Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Constanta, RO
- Posts
- 619
Originally posted by Weberz
NO. Windows hosting is horrible stay as far away as humanly possible. You can never make any money at it. Danger Will Robinson Danger
Windows has ASP
*NIX has PHP/MySQL
Windows has expensive licences, *NIX is almost free.
"Unix - because we love our customers"
(lol, it just came into my mind...well..i don't run a hosting company )
-
08-15-2003, 05:54 PM #21Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Location
- In My Own World
- Posts
- 973
Windows does all of the above.
Albeit the licensing is stout to get up and running with it.
Tracy Phillips
-
08-15-2003, 06:04 PM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Posts
- 782
Windows doesn't work that well with PHP, just as *nix doesn't work that well with ASP.
-
08-15-2003, 06:07 PM #23Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Location
- Constanta, RO
- Posts
- 619
Originally posted by neonlexx
Windows doesn't work that well with PHP, just as *nix doesn't work that well with ASP.
there are many threads in WHT about PHP ad MySQL on Windows/*NIX, and every book about PHP will notice that there are plenty of functions not working on Windows OS.
Any PHP Guru will confirm.