Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,984

    Cheap Linux Expensive Windows Servers : (

    I have send Linux dedicated servers at less than US$30/mth with controlpanels and so on. But Windows servers still remain quite expensive. Wonder why is it so? Windows only require a onetime license fees. And quite a number of dedicated server providers just provide linux, no windows. Compatibility shouldnt be an issue, from experience, Windows is much more compatible with basically any server compared to Linux.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    565

    Re: Cheap Linux Expensive Windows Servers : (

    Originally posted by boonchuan
    IWindows is much more compatible with basically any server compared to Linux.
    also,because peoples know windows more than linux..And I rather run linux for webhosting than use window... just my opinion

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    London/Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,131
    .
    Europhase UK Limited - XEN/OpenVZ UK/US Virtual Private Servers | R1Soft Backups for Web Hosts
    Custom R1Soft Backups | UK/US Web Hosting | UK/US Virtual Private Servers
    99.9% Uptime SLA | Non Overloaded Service | Guaranteed Ram / Resources
    Company: SC345142 VAT: GB-947754180 Tel: 0870 4710 895

  4. #4

    Re: Cheap Linux Expensive Windows Servers : (

    Originally posted by boonchuan
    Windows is much more compatible with basically any server compared to Linux.


    Good thing you didn't say something like that at slashdot


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    London/Edinburgh
    Posts
    1,131
    Dk2,

    Thats what my first post was about, but i could not be arsed with typing it out, heh....
    I even had the in my first post. lol.

    Regards,
    Thomas Currie
    Europhase UK Limited - XEN/OpenVZ UK/US Virtual Private Servers | R1Soft Backups for Web Hosts
    Custom R1Soft Backups | UK/US Web Hosting | UK/US Virtual Private Servers
    99.9% Uptime SLA | Non Overloaded Service | Guaranteed Ram / Resources
    Company: SC345142 VAT: GB-947754180 Tel: 0870 4710 895

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,984
    Strange I use both Windows and Linux but I found out a lot of rivalry among the two camps, each has their advantage depending on your applications. To just support one and dismiss the other is missing out a lot.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    North Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    2,565
    In order to get a Windows server from a Datacenter that Datacenter has to license it from Microsoft on a monthly basis. it's not a one time fee. That adds cost to the server.

    Also, Windows servers, for the most part, require more support then Unix machines. I've found that people who ask for Windows servers are not as experienced with the workings of a server, or computers in general as thier Linux counterparts.

    Aaron
    Aaron Wendel
    Wholesale Internet, Inc. - http://www.wholesaleinternet.net
    Kansas City Internet eXchange - http://www.kcix.net

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,984
    Not actually , Windows if u are careful and patch well, disable all unnecessary services, put in firewall, filter off the ports, put in anti virus. (unplug the NIC port : ) sure no attacks, a joke). It is as stable and as troublefree as Linux. Of course it depends on a lot on the users.

  9. #9

    Re: Cheap Linux Expensive Windows Servers : (

    Originally posted by boonchuan
    I have send Linux dedicated servers at less than US$30/mth with controlpanels and so on. But Windows servers still remain quite expensive. Wonder why is it so? Windows only require a onetime license fees.
    Some Linux distributions don't require a license fee at all - and the most expensive Linux distributions are usually cheaper than Windows - so what's your point?

    Originally posted by boonchuan
    Compatibility shouldnt be an issue, from experience, Windows is much more compatible with basically any server compared to Linux.
    I'm sorry, but your statement doesn't make much sense to me. Could you explain it a little better?

    If you're talking about hardware, I can tell you that Linux has excellent support for almost all hardware, and a lot of server manufacturers such as Dell and IBM provide servers with Linux pre-installed.
    Jonas Koch Bentzen

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,984
    Try setting up hardware Raid on say Fedora or Redhat 9 and you will see my point. Even Adaptec cards for Redhat 9 was "minimally" tested

  11. #11
    Originally posted by boonchuan
    Try setting up hardware Raid on say Fedora or Redhat 9 and you will see my point.
    I've tried setting up RAID on a Red Hat Linux system, and it was extremely easy and there were no hardware compatability problems.
    Jonas Koch Bentzen

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,984
    Which Raid card did you use and which version of Redhat?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,984
    Maybe I use the wrong product, I am using on Intel Xeon Board 7501, with Adaptac Raid 2410. http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/sup...key=AAR-2410SA

  14. #14
    Originally posted by boonchuan
    Which Raid card did you use and which version of Redhat?
    I can't remember, to be honest - it was some time ago. Anyway, you should probably contact Red Hat for help - or try one of the many Linux newsgroups.
    Jonas Koch Bentzen

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Darmstadt, Germany
    Posts
    1,096
    Originally posted by boonchuan
    Maybe I use the wrong product, I am using on Intel Xeon Board 7501, with Adaptac Raid 2410. http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/sup...key=AAR-2410SA
    If that happens to be onboard then you probably have the reason...
    everything that's onboard, exotic etc. is much better supported by Windows
    In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,984
    It is not on board, it is an added on card, basic installation with the minimally tested driver is ok , just that without management tools can be a bother. But Redhat 9.0 installation , once u upgrade the kernel , it is kernel panic, force to use the default.
    Really minimally tested : )

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •