Free domain names and free web hosting

[herme3]

Microsoft is going to be offering free domain names and free web hosting! Visit: http://officelive.microsoft.com/officelivebasic.aspx

 

This is amazing! A domain name, 30MB of storage, 10GB of monthly bandwidth, and 5 e-mail accounts. I can't believe all of this is free! It's better than my current hosting company, and I'm paying about $175 a year for it.

 

What do you all think?

[RyanJ]

30MB - Can't do a great deal with that

 

My site is currently at about 100Mb but I bet a large part of that is my forum

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[drochaid]

I think you're paying too much.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Notice that it doesn't come with any scripting language and such. It's a low-end package.

 

And you are paying way too much for your current hosting.

[EvoN1020v]

I agree about the price of hosting. $175 is simply too much.

 

Also Ryan Jones, what is the link of your website?

[RyanJ]

Also Ryan Jones[/b'], what is the link of your website?

 

The links in my signature

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

(The fact of the week, not WiSci)

[RyanJ]

(The fact of the week, not WiSci)

 

Indeed, Capt' owns WikiSci

 

Should have pointed that out, sorry.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[herme3]

30MB - Can't do a great deal with that

 

My site is currently at about 100Mb but I bet a large part of that is my forum

 

Cheers' date='

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

 

I think that many web sites would be fine with just 30MB. I'm sure that some web sites will require more, but 30MB would be enough for all of my web sites.

 

 

Actually I only pay $99 a year for hosting. The rest is for several domain names that I own.

 

I'm really happy with my current host because they have tons of really good templates and other tools to build a web site. They have lots of clipart images, animations, and text effects. They also have software that easily lets you create chat rooms, web polls, guest books, and forms where customers can send me information.

 

They are also much more reliable than other web hosts. I've used them for about 5 years, and I can only think of one time that my web sites were down. They fixed the problem in about half an hour.

[Klaynos]

Yes because that's what seriouse designers look for hosts with templates and animations...

 

I pay £7 / 2years for a *.??.uk domain name...

 

Also if you have to upload everythint through a http interface like you suggest in another thread you really are paying too much.

 

On this thread, 30MB isn't bad for most people, the problem with most of these deals (beside the obviouse lack of scripting languages/databases) is that the host maintains ownership of the domain and will either remove it from you if they think it makes good business sence or charge you lots of money to move it to a new host... I cannot comment directly on this as it firstly wouldn't let me sign up as I don't (and can't because it's incompatable ) use ie, and secondly havn't read the t&c...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Indeed' date=' Capt' owns WikiSci

 

Should have pointed that out, sorry.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

No, blike does

 

 

And indeed, herme3, if you pay that much, you should at least have FTP access and such.

[RyanJ]

No' date=' blike does

 

 

And indeed, herme3, if you pay that much, you should at least have FTP access and such.[/quote']

 

Yes well you run it so I was close enough... ;-)

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[herme3]

Yes because that's what seriouse designers look for hosts with templates and animations...

 

They have some very good templates and animations. It is also easy for me to edit them to make my own designs. Usually my sites look very different from the original template when I'm done. However, they look much better than if I designed them from nothing.

 

I pay £7 / 2years for a *.??.uk domain name...

 

I don't understand why so many people in the United Kingdom love those .uk domain names. I could get a .us domain name, but I choose not to. Actually, most Americans don't get a .us domain name. I think it just sounds more professional using .com, .net. org, or whatever best relates to your web site.

 

Which sounds better? http://news.bbc.co.uk or http://cnn.com?

 

On this thread, 30MB isn't bad for most people, the problem with most of these deals (beside the obviouse lack of scripting languages/databases) is that the host maintains ownership of the domain and will either remove it from you if they think it makes good business sence or charge you lots of money to move it to a new host... I cannot comment directly on this as it firstly wouldn't let me sign up as I don't (and can't because it's incompatable ) use ie, and secondly havn't read the t&c...

 

My host recognizes me as the owner of my domains. I could transfer any of my domains to another host for free. Don't you think Microsoft would be the same way?

 

And indeed, herme3, if you pay that much, you should at least have FTP access and such.

 

I do have FTP access to all of my web sites. However, it is limited to prevent viruses and harmful software from being installed on their servers. I can only upload files with certain extensions. If I want to upload a program, it will need to be in a ZIP folder and extracted by each person who downloads it.

[Klaynos]

My host recognizes me as the owner of my domains. I could transfer any of my domains to another host for free. Don't you think Microsoft would be the same way?

 

Bassed on experiance with these free offers I'd say the chances are low... But I cannot say for definite.

 

I have to say I do prefere tld's BUT .uk's are nearly always cheaper, the chance of what you are looking for is more like to be avaliable, it indicates uk specific content (which can be usefull) and most people don't think anything of it as .co.uk specifically is so common here... I just used a .uk as an example as I could remember how much that cost me...

[RyanJ]

No scripting access = useless. You can decrease the size of your site by a large degree by using databases and Server Side Code.

 

If its not there its not really worth anything for me

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't understand why so many people in the United Kingdom love those .uk domain names. I could get a .us domain name' date=' but I choose not to. Actually, most Americans don't get a .us domain name. I think it just sounds more professional using .com, .net. org, or whatever best relates to your web site.

 

Which sounds better? http://news.bbc.co.uk or http://cnn.com?[/quote']

Perhaps it's because they're IN the UK. If you had a business located in the UK, it would make sense to have a .uk domain name. And news.bbc.co.uk makes perfect sense. It's the news section of the BBC's site.

 

My host recognizes me as the owner of my domains. I could transfer any of my domains to another host for free. Don't you think Microsoft would be the same way?

Your host isn't free. Klaynos was making a statement about free hosts.

 

Reading the TOS gives no clear answer.

 

I do have FTP access to all of my web sites. However, it is limited to prevent viruses and harmful software from being installed on their servers. I can only upload files with certain extensions. If I want to upload a program, it will need to be in a ZIP folder and extracted by each person who downloads it.

If a server is properly configured, that should not be necessary. Especially if it's a Linux server, as those files would be restricted and couldn't do anything even if they were a virus. (This does not cause problems with hosting, unless you try to get a program to access something outside of your directory provided by the host. But you shouldn't do that anyways.)

 

Who is this host anyways?

[penagate]

This is amazing! A domain name, 30MB of storage, 10GB of monthly bandwidth, and 5 e-mail accounts.

 

:snore:

[herme3]

Perhaps it's because they're IN the UK. If you had a business located in the UK, it would make sense to have a .uk domain name. And news.bbc.co.uk makes perfect sense. It's the news section of the BBC's site.

 

Yes, but most American companies don't feel the need to put .us in their domain name. I used CNN and BBC as an example because they are very similar web sites. CNN just uses cnn.com for their domain. They don't use cnn.co.us for their domain.

 

If a server is properly configured, that should not be necessary. Especially if it's a Linux server, as those files would be restricted and couldn't do anything even if they were a virus. (This does not cause problems with hosting, unless you try to get a program to access something outside of your directory provided by the host. But you shouldn't do that anyways.)

 

No, the reason is so people wouldn't use the host to create web sites with viruses and spyware. This was a major problem when my host was a free service. That was a long time ago. They used to be free, then they were around $75 every two years, then they were around $150 every two years, and now they are $99 every year. Their service really hasn't changed that much.

 

Who is this host anyways?

 

Homestead.com

 

I think they are a really good host because my web sites have only gone down one time in about 5 years. They fixed the problem in about a half-hour. I've seen other web sites go down for days.

 

:snore:

 

Can you name one service that provides something better for free?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, but most American companies don't feel the need to put .us in their domain name. I used CNN and BBC as an example because they are very similar web sites. CNN just uses cnn.com for their domain. They don't use cnn.co.us for their domain.

You don't understand.

CNN is an INTERNATIONAL company. They operate in many countries.

The BBC operates in the UK.

And the .co.uk is for the Commonwealth (anything formerly in the British empire). You wouldn't get .co.us.

 

No, the reason is so people wouldn't use the host to create web sites with viruses and spyware. This was a major problem when my host was a free service. That was a long time ago. They used to be free, then they were around $75 every two years, then they were around $150 every two years, and now they are $99 every year. Their service really hasn't changed that much.

A properly configured server would typically include a virus scanner. And you can't stop them from using spyware on their site, it's pretty easy to use JS to link to another site's spyware.

 

Homestead.com

 

I think they are a really good host because my web sites have only gone down one time in about 5 years. They fixed the problem in about a half-hour. I've seen other web sites go down for days.

Expensive with few features. With no PHP' date=' perl, or anything useful like that, a good dynamic website is nearly impossible. Reading through their homepage, it seems that they're catered to people who know little to nothing about what a website is or how to create one, so they don't bother including features that people would only want if they knew a bit more.

 

PHP/MySQL is useful if you want a blog, forum, gallery, news system, shopping system, etc. Plain HTML is pretty limited.

 

 

Can you name one service that provides something better for free?

http://www.5gigs.com

http://www.awardspace.com

http://www.uni.cc

[herme3]

You don't understand.

CNN is an INTERNATIONAL company. They operate in many countries.

The BBC operates in the UK.

And the .co.uk is for the Commonwealth (anything formerly in the British empire). You wouldn't get .co.us.

 

CNN is an international company' date=' and so is BBC. When I visit the web site, I am taken to their "International version".

 

There are also many companies that are only in America with a .com domain. I can only think of a very few .us domains. However, lots of companies in the United Kingdom get a .co.uk domain. Many of us in America do not understand the purpose. It can be very confusing to remember ".co.uk" if you don't live in the United Kingdom.

 

http://www.5gigs.com

http://www.awardspace.com

http://www.uni.cc

 

Thank you for the links. AwardSpace.com looks very interesting, and I will check it out.

[Klaynos]

You don't understand.

CNN is an INTERNATIONAL company. They operate in many countries.

The BBC operates in the UK.

And the .co.uk is for the Commonwealth (anything formerly in the British empire). You wouldn't get .co.us.

 

The bbc is the biggest broadcasting news agency in the world. They operate internationally and in many recent conficts have had more "front line" journalists than anyone else.

 

Personally more importantly why the hell would you consider the domain name over the content which is imo far more important....

 

This is getting WAY off track...

 

As I understood it .co.uk was for comertial uk only... not sure how tightly the restrict it though, I know for .net.uk you have to be a network provider operating in the uk, and be able to prove it...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

CNN is an international company' date=' and so is BBC. When I visit the web site, I am taken to their "International version".

 

There are also many companies that are only in America with a .com domain. I can only think of a very few .us domains. However, lots of companies in the United Kingdom get a .co.uk domain. Many of us in America do not understand the purpose. It can be very confusing to remember ".co.uk" if you don't live in the United Kingdom.[/quote']

You get an International Version because you're not in the UK. That's not because the BBC is international, it's because their website offers multiple languages and such.

 

Americans tend to like their .com domains. But in other countries, .whatever (there's one for every country) tends to be more popular, as those domains are usually cheaper.

 

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/ln4L7cWr2l1aP6/Use-of-US-Domain-Name-Extension-Rises-Sharply.xhtml

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The bbc is the biggest broadcasting news agency in the world. They operate internationally and in many recent conficts have had more "front line" journalists than anyone else.

I know that they have journalists in other countries. It's just that they're based in the UK. CNN is everywhere.

 

Personally more importantly why the hell would you consider the domain name over the content which is imo far more important....

 

This is getting WAY off track...

Indeed.

 

As I understood it .co.uk was for comertial uk only... not sure how tightly the restrict it though, I know for .net.uk you have to be a network provider operating in the uk, and be able to prove it...

.co stands for Commonwealth, I believe. You can also get .co.nz and such (New Zealand) as it was (is?) also part of the Commonwealth.

[1veedo]

Can you get the domain but not the hosting? Most sites that offer cheap domain registrations also want you to use their hosting. This really pisses me off because it's like they assume they're selling to idiots who don't know shit yet want a website. When I say "buy domain name," I mean I want to BUY a domain name! Not crappy hosting, no site building templates, no security protection, nothing! Why do they assume we're stupid! They make me want to pull my hair out!

 

If they'd let you get a free domain name, no strings attached, this would be pretty cool.

[Klaynos]

I know that they have journalists in other countries. It's just that they're based in the UK. CNN is everywhere.

 

 

Indeed.

 

 

.co stands for Commonwealth' date=' I believe. You can also get .co.nz and such (New Zealand) as it was (is?) also part of the Commonwealth.[/quote']

 

 

co stands for company.

 

The BBC worldservice... The bbc is as international if not more so than CNN...