Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Running a Web Hosting Business : Anyone managing to sell windows 2003 hosting ?

[my_forum_id]

This is really weird - we're a Windows only host and have been offering 2000 for the past three years or so with steady if not amazing signup rates.

In the last few months we had umpteen enquiries from people asking after Windows 2003 / .NET hosting so sweated blood to be one of the first in the country to offer it to customers.

No buggers ordering though !

We're still getting the same number of signups for 2000 but virtually nothing for 2003.

As an ex-developer I was always dead keen to get the 'latest and greatest' and I thought we'd sell a heap of accounts in the first few months.

Just wondered if everyone is seeing the same thing or if we're doing something wrong.

[Zach]

Not yet.


We just purchased it and plan to install it in house to learn the ins and outs first.

Its something for the future though.

[123x]

yeah me too still planing to offer it

[Shannara]

What is your pricing for windows hosting? Im looking for win2k hosting /w .net (but for ded or semi-ded). Have a website? 2003 is virtually worthless (??) compared to 2002 for hosting, after all, you can easily install the .NET framework on 2002 and pristo, all set...

[my_forum_id]

Originally posted by Shannara
What is your pricing for windows hosting? Im looking for win2k hosting /w .net (but for ded or semi-ded). Have a website? 2003 is virtually worthless (??) compared to 2002 for hosting, after all, you can easily install the .NET framework on 2002 and pristo, all set...

Not sure where to start with this - it's wrong in so many ways . . .

1) 2002 doesn't exist
2) 2003 is faster and more stable than 2000
3) .NET on 2000 is inherently insecure (any user can see any other users files, and much more besides, if you know how and there's NO way to stop it without breaking .NET) we never offered .NET with 2000.

That said your post does raise an interesting point - if what you've written above is typical of most peoples understanding then I can see why we're not selling much, if most people perceive there's no gain to be had with 2003 then they'll stick with what they know

In a roundabout way you've given me a great idea how to proceed with this - thanks !

[Shannara]

sorry about that, I meant 2000, not 2003

I find win2000 stable compared to XP (Since XP crashes alot, and both Win2k Pro and Win2k Server never crashed once.), however we're talking servers here not desktops I can't compare much between 2000 and 2003, though according to the M$ website, 2003 hardly offer any difference to the end user (from what I can tell)

Please elaborate how you consider .NET on 2000 inherently insecure compared to .NET on 2003, this should be interesting.

[my_forum_id]

"Please elaborate how you consider .NET on 2000 inherently insecure compared to .NET on 2003, this should be interesting."

I came across the information (which is in the public domain) whilst looking into the security of .NET in it's first incarnation.

The 'exploit' worked then and it STILL works now, despite Microsoft engineers and MVP's being warned about it in public discussions. I'm not going to point you at the information as the fewer people that are aware of it the better off hosts will be, needless to say I found it easily enough and so can anyone else

[Shannara]

Thats interesting. Kinda like how Microsoft and all of it's lackeys toot .NEt languages as programming languages, and not scripting languages like they are.... after all, the less people know that, the more money it makes

Well, thanks for the info then, i wonder if that applies to 1.1 or 2.0 (yes some people has access to the "alpha" of 2.0)?

[my_forum_id]

It could easily apply to 1.1 on windows 2003 if the admin setting up the server is not aware of the problem and taking steps to block it (which IS possible with 2003).

My guess is it will also be in version 2, 3, 110, whatever as it's apparent Microsoft don't give a sh1t

[my_forum_id]

p.s. .NET languages ARE true programming languages and not just scripting - ASP's VBScript and Jscript were but that's not true of .NET.

[Shannara]

my_forum_id, hehe, thats a funny joke, I take it you are one of those people who believes everything? With that comment, you sound like it Im not trying to flame, but anybody who actually code for a living know that fact The only relation they have to true programming languages is the syntax, that is all.

If you have done your research on .NET's vulens, like you said (and I believe you), then try some research on comparing .NET scripting langauges to real progrogramming languages. You should be suprised.

p.s.: I should of refered to the pure "managed" languages only. I know that the VC++.net compiler has a switch for managed and unmanaged binary output of whatever is being built. Effectively making that language a programming language, or scripting language, depending on the switch.

p.s.s.: Another thing the "Vole" is known for, is covering up that any language can be disassemble, but real programming languages cannot be decompiled...... all managed .net languages can be decompiled on a whim. Except vc.net's unmanaged code, aka real binary.

[Rich2k]

Originally posted by Shannara
sorry about that, I meant 2000, not 2003

I find win2000 stable compared to XP (Since XP crashes alot, and both Win2k Pro and Win2k Server never crashed once.), however we're talking servers here not desktops I can't compare much between 2000 and 2003, though according to the M$ website, 2003 hardly offer any difference to the end user (from what I can tell)

Please elaborate how you consider .NET on 2000 inherently insecure compared to .NET on 2003, this should be interesting.

Comparing win2k to win xp cannot be used to compare 2000server to 2003 server.

2003 server has been in beta for YEARS! MS have spent a long time securing and stablising the code... and for once I think they have got it right. 2003 is the only MS server I'd choose now. (if choosing MS)

C# can be used in .net and I would class c# as a true programming languge... but with the added bonus of windows programming, web programming AND webservices (as applies to vb.net as well and probably some of the other .net stuff too)

ASP used VBscript (a scripting version of VB)
ASP.net doesn't use VBscript but uses VB itself.

[Shannara]

Rich2k:

Let me know when you read both of my posts. The one mentioned in the quote was comparing win2k pro to winxp, as mentioned in my post. Then it compared win2k server to win2k3 server, as mentioned in my post.

As for your comment on C#, you did not read my post, so the comment is moot.