1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.


Discussion in 'HTML, Graphics & Programming' started by willthepirate, 28 May 2006.

  1. willthepirate


    Joined: 22 Jan 2006

    Posts: 460

    anyone ever used them?

    looking at the most basic package for £2.50/month

    only needs to be very basic just for hosting a few html pages etc...

    just wondering if there is anything i should know about the company, and if there will be any other costs involbed that i dont know about
  2. zetec452


    Joined: 15 Sep 2003

    Posts: 9,454

    A US host with those magic unlimited hard disks that just grow.

    You'd do much better with a company like tsohost.co.uk.

    Alternatively take a look at http://www.ochostreview.co.uk/
  3. uk_viper


    Joined: 30 Jun 2003

    Posts: 2,807

    Location: Berkshire

    Well ill give them credit that they have full contact details, they even live near me, but US datacenter, even though they say unlimited, it gets limited by the quota, first rule, never go for the "unlimited" word, in a lot of cases of this, their servers will be slow especially if theyre doing "unlimited mysql"

    you might also want to check forum2.co.uk, but beware of *** 13year old spammers
    Last edited: 28 May 2006
  4. blairw


    Joined: 19 Mar 2006

    Posts: 3,408

    Location: Scotland, UK

    It also has the word EVO in its name - which to me seems a little? I donno childish?
    tsohost is really good been with them just under a year :)
  5. Al Vallario


    Joined: 3 Aug 2005

    Posts: 4,534

    Location: UK

    I know someone who used to have an account with them. I too thought their choice of name and the fact they're using a generic TemplateMonster template made them look a bit unprofessional, but from what I've heard they've been fine. Speeds are reasonable, customer support is fair. Not the best host in the world, but there's certainly nothing wrong with them. At least they're not a fly-by-night take your money and run type operation :)

    P.S. What's all this about unlimited features? Obviously unlimited is not possible with storage space and transfer, but what's wrong with offering unlimited databases and email accounts? These are restricted by storage and transfer limitations - with most hosts - anyway. Also, what's with the "they have servers in the states, back off" mentality? The US is home to some bargain bucket hosting operations, but also some of the best in the world. Ping times aren't going to matter when it comes to plain old web hosting, so often it comes down to "we can get a rack of servers on an unlimited connection in the US, or a single server with 150GB/month bandwidth in the UK" for web hosts.
  6. Beansprout

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 31 Jan 2004

    Posts: 16,316

    Location: Plymouth

    Hehe, I suppose I have absolutely noleg to stand on but here goes :D

    US servers used to be a lot cheaper than their UK counterparts. The high-volume industry there (ThePlanet, EV1, LayeredTech) really helped drive down costs which, to be honest, was great. Because not only were they cheap, ThePlanet for one are actually an outstanding company. Sure, they have their faults at times - but simple economies of scale mean you get so much for your money. Stuff like actually owning the datacentre meaning they can get techs who know the kit looking at it properly very quickly, incredible networks, and stupendous extras like NAS, network-based IDS and so on.

    The only problem is download speed....as broadband connections get faster I've noticed that the sheer distance means my pipe sits half-used, so I need to do multiple connections and whatnot.

    Another issue is latency....but that's not much of an issue I don't think - what matters above all is the company behind the servers, ie how they run them. An overloaded server can be nextdoor but still slow.

    Yes it's quicker to have UK-based servers (due to the lower latency) and by heck I didn't realise by how much until I got one today, but I'd still pick a host based on the company first.

    UK hosting has come a long way in the last couple of years - and infact like-for-like servers are probably cheaper so long as you don't want a bargain-basement server. You just need to know where to look...2host.co.uk, 4pence.com and Register1.net all do very well-specced, well-priced kit and provide the good support, too (as they're some of the larger providers).

    I think that unless the hosting company is going for bargain-basement Celeron kit (in which case steer clear), the reason for going for US hosting now is perhaps the security of a large company - a few UK folk have gone bust recently due to price hikes - or inertia, or not knowing the right people in the UK ;)

    Also, another issue is VAT. There ain't none in the US but over here it whacks 17.5% onto the price if the company isn't VAT registered.

    So whereas in the past it was seen as the cheap option, now that the pricing playing field is more level I don't think there should be so much of a stigma about US hosting because the reasons are probably more valid than just cost-cutting.

    Note: I've just spent a fortune on a fancy new UK-based server so I should be biased and saying US hosting is evil.....hmm.....truth is I like them both for different reasons, and it's also useful to have physically diverse DNS/backup locations.
  7. willthepirate


    Joined: 22 Jan 2006

    Posts: 460

    cheers for the input