Why are windows hosting providers so expensive?

So perhaps one of the biggest things holding me back from taking the CS plunge is the cost of hosting.  Seems like for every decent windows deal I find, I can find 100 equal linux ones.  The bandwidth most windows hosts give you is a pittance and finding a host that will be able to grow as your site grows, is well almost impossible.

Yeah, Windows hosting services are expensive in compare with Linux hostings and the reason (in my mind) is licenses. Genereally Microsoft licenses are more expensive than Linux hostings.

But if you're interested to use CS, I highly recommend ASPnix. They have great quality and excellent prices.

I was going to recommend Server Intellect, but looking at ASPnix, they have some excellent prices.  Wow!

I started out with GoDaddy as my ASP.NET host, which offers some INSANE amout of bandwidth and storage for not many dollars. I haven't exactly had a bad experience with them, but it's been negative enough to where I'm currently in the process of switching over to ASPnix. Thus far, I've been quite please with them. Excellent tech support, and very decent prices for what you get. Also important for me is growth, and aparently the upgrade from one plan to the next is quite painless.

Just my 2 cents. 

Well Aspnix is the best priced but still overpriced in some of their higher end lines.  Example, I pay about 25 a month for my own virtual server with a extremely well run host, Mediatemple. I want to make the leap to CS but the cost of hosting, is scaring me away.  In th end I'll likely go with aspnix as they are the most compeditive.

Garthilk:

Well Aspnix is the best priced but still overpriced in some of their higher end lines.  Example, I pay about 25 a month for my own virtual server with a extremely well run host, Mediatemple. I want to make the leap to CS but the cost of hosting, is scaring me away.  In th end I'll likely go with aspnix as they are the most compeditive.

Please show me the package you get for $25 

I'd like to see that, too, since I was ready to sign-up with ASPnix!

 

Dave you better hurry you don't want to be the last one do you?

http://www.mediatemple.net/services/webhosting/dv/linux-standard/

Note, I'm a Linux user currently.

Currently I get the DV Base

256mb Ram, 4gb storage, 1tb bandwidth though currently I will likely be upgrading to their DV Rage.

 

That's $49 ? Not $25 ?

Yeah, I got in on a coupon that gives it to me for 25$.  Still even at 49$ a month, for an identical Windows host most packages give a measy 50 or 100 mb's for bandwidth. For example my linux community site launched about 8 months ago, run a reletively lite graphics site and use close to 100 gigs a month already with 4000 registered users and site growth being in the doube digits monthly. The biggest difference is that most windows hosts charge an arm and a leg for bandwidth.

I mean if we're talking about running communities here, not just hosting your blog or fiddling with CS because you want to have fun, they are going to need a lot more than 50 or 100 gigs. Also I've gone and compared apples to apples for the most part.  Checked ram configs, processor, database limitations, static IP addresses but for the most part, windows hosting providers just don't compete in the areas of bandwidth and a few anciallary hosting features.

 

 

Read up on webhosts at sites like webhostingtalk.com... that forum has a lot of junk on it, but basically, there are far more Linux hosts because it is far cheaper (sometimes nearly free) to run and you get a whole lot of fly-by-night shops.  Windows hosting is less popular because of the licensing and complications to get going, so the ones that are there are often serious about what they're doing.

One item, I highly doubt you could actually use 1 TB monthly transfer, especially for $25-50/mo.  Look in the terms of service, acceptable use, whatever legal documents they have.  It'll likely mention something about high use of resources, affecting other users, etc.  They are lose defitions.  If you used your 1TB, they'd often claim high CPU usage or it is affecting other customers on the server.

I never trust anyone who offers bandwidth like that.  I've worked directly with some data centers... for bandwidth, they don't price things directly for GB transferred, they look at sustained transfer.  But doing some conversions, I've seen 1TB of bandwidth cost anywhere from $120/mo to $700/mo... that is just the bandwidth.

Long story short, comparing web hosts based on imbelished offerings is pointless.  Compare them on things you need.  If one offers 5gb disk storage the other offers 50gb, are you ever going to realistically need that space?  Do they actually have quality support?  24/7 support?  Helpful/friendly people?  How do existing customers like them?  How well does their site load?  Some webhosts use cheap/junk bandwidth, while others use premium bandwidth.  Huge difference in terms of performance and reliability.  Look at their legal docs... do they have an uptime guarantee?  How well do they meet it each month?

Ken Robertson:

Read up on web hosts at sites like webhostingtalk.com... that forum has a lot of junk on it, but basically, there are far more Linux hosts because it is far cheaper (sometimes nearly free) to run and you get a whole lot of fly-by-night shops.  Windows hosting is less popular because of the licensing and complications to get going, so the ones that are there are often serious about what they're doing.

Definitely.  Research is so very important to choosing a host. Thats why I ended up choosing MT for my Linux host, I looked at do they have any notable clients, companies like Starbucks, Sony, AAA, etc.  I call their support lines and ask basic questions to gauge their response. Checked review sites like you mentioned.  In the web design community how is the host perceived, etc.

Ken Robertson:

One item, I highly doubt you could actually use 1 TB monthly transfer, especially for $25-50/mo.  Look in the terms of service, acceptable use, whatever legal documents they have.  It'll likely mention something about high use of resources, affecting other users, etc.  They are lose definitions.  If you used your 1TB, they'd often claim high CPU usage or it is affecting other customers on the server.

Actually in the month of May I used 800+ mbs of bandwidth.  I received an exclusive video trailer from a video game developer. I've run into issues before with some hosts that try and get out of what they promise.  I've had websites slash-dotted before and promptly had my sites shut down because of it. So finding an honest host is important.  I've been lucky and found a quality Linux one. I agree some unscrupulous hosts out there say one thing and do another.

I never trust anyone who offers bandwidth like that.  I've worked directly with some data centers... for bandwidth, they don't price things directly for GB transferred, they look at sustained transfer.  But doing some conversions, I've seen 1TB of bandwidth cost anywhere from $120/mo to $700/mo... that is just the bandwidth.

Long story short, comparing web hosts based on embellished offerings is pointless.  Compare them on things you need.  If one offers 5gb disk storage the other offers 50gb, are you ever going to realistically need that space?  Do they actually have quality support?  24/7 support?  Helpful/friendly people?  How do existing customers like them?  How well does their site load?  Some web hosts use cheap/junk bandwidth, while others use premium bandwidth.  Huge difference in terms of performance and reliability.  Look at their legal docs... do they have an uptime guarantee?  How well do they meet it each month?

I've definitely gone through the ups and downs of finding a quality host.  Sure lots of unscrupulous hosts out there.  And when I do all the things you've suggested I'm finding a hard time locating a Windows host that is affordable.  I guess that's one of my problems, something thats keeping me from launching my next group of community sites.

I'll have to agree here, Linux hosting is, in general terms, MUCH, MUCH BETTER.

I think Microsoft should change the license scheme for hosting providers to make windows hosters more competitive. For example MS could give a 1 or 2 year "grace" period so the hoster can start making money BEFORE paying the licenses. MS can afford that.

Ken, want to be realistic? the reality is that ASP.NET and Windows only win in corporate environments, the little guy, small business, startups, fan sites etc THEY ALL USE an open source platform.

Lets see:

Technorati, Digg, Flikr, Yahoo, Craiglist, del.icio.us, and thousand of startups and "Web 2.0" sites, all run under linux and they all use PHP, Ruby, Phython and MySQL.

What does that tell you?

Note that this is not the typical lame Win vs Linux discussion, I'm talking about what platform is more convenient to start a website/build a product/community with less or no money.

Sorry Edgardo, though I do disagree.  Comparing what platform "Web 2.0" sites run on has nothing do with Windows web hosting.  If you code something in PHP/Ruby, you run it on Linux.  If you code it in .NET, you use Windows.

So because someone came up with the idea for those sites and they used PHP/Ruby and went with Linux, that means Windows hosting is for corporate environments?