| Posted by jericho, 05-17-2002, 03:23 PM | | I am trying to decide on a basic reseller account to host many small client accounts. None of these sites are high bandwidth or processor intensive. My most important considerations are uptime, reliability, and support. I am considering the following hosts:
MCHost
Netacore
Splashhost
Voxtreme
jericho
|
| Posted by Lats, 05-17-2002, 06:09 PM | | I voted Voxtreme - they keep me happy.
Lats...
|
| Posted by appletreats, 05-17-2002, 06:21 PM | | Voxtreme had some problems in the past with downtime, but only on one server, and all new customers are going on a different server. Things are much better now, great uptime, and their support is VERY fast to respond.
You'll probably end up with more votes for MCHost just because they're so big.
|
| Posted by xirus, 05-17-2002, 07:21 PM | | If you're serious about reselling, go with MCHost
|
| Posted by zipcode, 05-17-2002, 07:22 PM | | Of those resellers you cant go wrong with Splashhost
|
| Posted by case, 05-17-2002, 07:38 PM | | if you want more uptime ,better servers , more cpanel skins , cheaper costs ,good bandwidth, faster customer service , less crowded servers , its all about splashhost , never had one complaint with splash , i prefer not to comment on mchost , and havent been with the other 2 . Good luck with your choice
case
Last edited by case; 05-17-2002 at 07:43 PM.
|
| Posted by acidHL, 05-17-2002, 07:45 PM | | Never had a problem with MCHost - Super People.
|
| Posted by IceBlaZe, 05-18-2002, 01:54 PM | | SplashHost hands down.
Less complaints from their costumers.
More for the buck.
And very high-quality servers... I can tell you because I know which servers they use.
|
| Posted by Typhoon, 05-18-2002, 05:54 PM | | Voxtreme, in my opinion have been tremendous over the last month.
Uptime has been great, tech support questions have been answered with lightning fast response times.
My vote goes to Voxtreme.
|
| Posted by MotleyFool, 05-20-2002, 09:18 AM | | I would also recommend Splash as I have had a nice experience as a reseller with Alan for 6 months [before moving to my own server]
Dont know about others
Good Luck
Balaji
|
| Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-20-2002, 09:51 AM | | Not taking anything away from Alan and his great hosting business BUT, they have less complaints because they have less customers than the likes of mchost. So basing your argument around the number of "complaints" when comparing hosts of different customer bases is a bit dodgy and not accurate, IMO.
|
| Posted by Alan - Vox, 05-20-2002, 10:08 AM | | Aussie Bob, since the fork bombing incident have you seen ANY complaints about my service? McHost have 17 servers on there status page, i have 7 servers. That means for every 2 and a half complaints about mchost there should be 1 about me. Im not seeing any complaints about my service.
|
| Posted by mdrussell, 05-20-2002, 10:15 AM | | Aussie Bob, this isn't always the case. Small hosts can have many more complaints than big hosts, size is not always proportional to the number of complaints - complaints just reflect the opinions of the customers, and I have yet to see anyone badmouth SplashHost's service since the fork bombs, which they sorted.
|
| Posted by wmac, 05-20-2002, 10:38 AM | | acidHL,
You never had a problem but what about others on mchost? Haven't you seen their recent problems that you suggest them to everyone?
I have been with mchost for about 4-5 months and I had long down times. First time it was about 11 hours and next time they had a very long down time(may be about 40 hours) during 8 days.
How if you come accross with the same problem we did? And if your website comes down for 8 days will you suggest them to everyone again?
People rely on your suggestions. Why don't you mention that they have had some problems and they are moving some of their servers and therefore they will have a hard job and their support may degrade for som time?
--
And from those suggested above I prefer splashhost.com.
Alan is very friendly (Marc from mchost is very friendly too but I am speaking about quality) and seems to sense himself more responsible for support and uptime.
The most important thing is that he spends as much as needed for a good service. For example I am sure he prefers to pay more but have more happy customers. Some of his servers are in NAC and have SCSI drives. He has a better backup policy I think.
The other important thing is the number of sites and resellers on aserver.
Mchost has unlimmited domains for each reseller. As a result some servers host more than 1500-2000 websites while splashhost has a domain limit for each reseller.
By the way my service with mchost will finish in next few days and I am not with any of these hosts. (In fact I use my own dedicated and an Ensim VPS now.)
Regards,
Mac
Last edited by wmac; 05-20-2002 at 11:43 AM.
|
| Posted by acidHL, 05-20-2002, 11:43 AM | | The bulk of the problems with MCHost was due to the big vegas crash (a hardware fault) that also had a knock on affect to support I admit yet they are getting back on track now.
I wasn't affected because I was not on that server and the MCHost crew have allways gone above and beyond to help me out when i've had problems - THATS why I recommend them.
|
| Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-20-2002, 11:04 PM | | SplashHost.com: I simply commented on the fact that someone said you had "less complaints" and therefore they were implying that you were somehow delivering superior service than mchost. They were stating an opinion and using the variable of "less complaints" to back up their opinion. You can't state an opinion as fact and then use a wrong variable to back up the "fact". In NO WAY was I implying that you don't run a very good business. I admire what you've built.
voxtreme-matt -The amount of clients is directly proportional to the amount of complaints. That is a scientific FACT. For you to claim it is not is to comparable to argue against the law of gravity. Look at RS for a perfect example. They have thousands of clients and get a LOT of complaints in this forum. But what are the % of clients who have a bad experience with RS?? I bet it's the same % that you have and that we all have.
|
| Posted by case, 05-21-2002, 01:13 AM | | Really ? And what are you basing this FACT on ? Let alone a scientifical FACT.
|
| Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-21-2002, 01:39 AM | | Logic. The more clients you have, the more complaints you will receive. Care to claim that is not true??
Let's say you have 50 clients on the 1 box and another host has 50,000 clients on 50 boxes. Who will get more complaints?? To say that "X" host is better than "Y" host or more reliable because they get "less complaints" is absurd without quanifying the client bases of each host etc...
Last edited by Aussie Bob; 05-21-2002 at 03:27 AM.
|
| Posted by mdrussell, 05-21-2002, 04:12 AM | | You would assume the number of customers is proportional to the number of complaints. In some cases it is, but in many it is not - people are a huge variable, some will be inclined to complain, others may not, even if they have a bad experience. You can't factor this into the equation.
|
| Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-21-2002, 05:43 AM | | No I don't "assume" that at all. That's a statistical fact. The more customers and servers you have, then the more complaints you will receive.
What, so now you're talking about "in some cases" ??
Let us backtrack a tad
IceBlaZe said - SplashHost hands down.
Less complaints from their costumers.
Aussie Bob [that's me ] then replied with - Not taking anything away from Alan and his great hosting business BUT, they have less complaints because they have less customers than the likes of mchost. So basing your argument around the number of "complaints" when comparing hosts of different customer bases is a bit dodgy and not accurate, IMO.
So my argument here [if you call it that ] is that they have less complaints because they have less customers. [kind of makes sense, doesn't it??]
voxtreme-matt -Would you compare Rackshack to Splashhost and say "Splashhost is better because they have less "complaints" ????? No, I didn't think so
|
| Posted by mdrussell, 05-21-2002, 06:35 AM | | Aussie Bob, I'm afraid I still disagree
It isn't a fact. It is a theory, which in many cases can prove to be correct, but in just as many cases it can prove to be incorrect.
Lets look at Pair for an example. A well respected and estabilished host, larger than many other hosts on this board.
I do not know exactly how big they are, but lets say they are 5 times larger than ourselves. Do you see 5 x more complaints about Pair than you do Voxtreme? I don't - infact I don't think I have ever seen a complaint about Pair.
To sum up my opinion, I believe there are too many other factors to say the larger the host, the larger the number of complaints as a rule of thumb.
No one is perfect, you will always get the odd complaint. But generally when you don't see any complaints appearing, then the company must be doing something right
|
| Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-21-2002, 07:09 AM | | That's quite alright.
Ok. We meet at high noon in the main street with guns drawn then!!
|
| Posted by Wismie, 05-21-2002, 08:07 AM | | Sorry to go back on topic, but I voted Voxtreme. I am happy with them so far
|
| Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-21-2002, 09:11 AM | | always someone to spoil the fun hey??
|
| Posted by Alan - Vox, 05-21-2002, 09:57 AM | | If x host has 1000 customers and you can find 5 complaints about that host, and y host has 2000 customers and you find 20 complaints about that host then which host is better x or y? That is what i was getting at.
|
| Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-21-2002, 10:47 AM | | Statistically as an overall average, the more clients you have, the more complaints you will have. BUT a host like yourself with less clients than someone like mchost can have less complaints due to better service etc. I'm talking about generalities here and not "how Splashhost.com performs against mchost". Both are GREAT hosting providers and I believe that BOTH will do very well with their business models.
|
| Posted by Coder, 05-21-2002, 04:29 PM | | But based on what you have been saying, Alan would have less complaints because he has less clients, not necessarily because he has better service.
I don't believe you can justify that Splashhost is better than McHost because they have less complaints, perhaps if they had the same number of clients you could think Splashhost is better.
(Not saying Splashhost isn't as good as McHost or even better than them though)
It's not easy to compare two hosts and choose the best one, because there are a number of factors that could decide who is better, not just who has less complaints.
In this example between Splashhost and McHost, I would probably say Splashhost is better, I would probably pick them because I believe they have less accounts per server than McHost, and thats an important factor when choosing a host.
|
| Posted by Aussie Bob, 05-21-2002, 04:52 PM | | Ahhhh, I would say that the more important factor is the type of sites and loads on the server than the "number" of domains on the box.
|
| Posted by bravelion, 05-24-2002, 12:05 AM | | I'm new to hosting but have some business experience. A couple of thoughts:
1) On one level, the question can't be answered. It's like asking, what's the best flavor of icecream? It is a request for opinions and opinions can and will differ.
But...
2) The most important stated considerations in the original post were 1. uptime, 2. reliability, and 3. support. Those are somewhat quantifiable (actual uptime, consistency, response time/resolution ratios, live or email only) but are probably not readily attainable numbers for those answering the question. But the best host for this certain person would be the host that excells in these specific areas.
Another take -
3) If I were buying a company, I would think of a "good hosting company" in completely different terms. I presume everyone is in it to make money. So would a better host be a) a very popular and highly regarded host with low profitability that goes out of business in two years? or b) a reasonably well respected but not perfect host with extremely good margins?
Just some different ways to think about it I hope.
|
| Posted by etreus, 05-24-2002, 02:51 PM | | It took me a lot of reading these forums to take a decision, even taking into consideration more expensive VPS, than the resellers listed here.
It is true that the least talked about between MCHosts, Voxtreme and Splashosts, is the latter one.
I chose Splashosts, and another Reseller not talked about on these forums, to start and gather data about my main concearn which is uptime, and server speed. Nothing to complain with Splashosts. Their servers have been going nonstop since, and they are fast.
I don't fully agree with the quote above, in the sense that cheaper costs and good bandwith, should not go togeather, and I will certainly not believe any plans with huge bandwith.
I prefer very good uptime, and pay whatever is needed to be payed reasonably. Also hoping the Reseller will keep out abusive use of their servers.
Up to now I feel I get that reasonable deal with Splashosts.
About customer service with them, I have used it at the beginning a couple of times, just to tell them my concern on uptime, and they have answered immediatelly assuring me not to worry. True, I am not worrying now.
|
| Posted by case, 05-24-2002, 04:32 PM | | it is possible to pay less and get more , take for instance
i got cogent bandwidth with mchost
i now have level3 from splash
i had one processors at mchost
i have 2 at splash
i had uptime issues with mchost
none with splash
i cant say anything good or bad about the other provdiers , im just seriously satisfied with alans service , and would recommend splash to anyone
case
|
| Posted by IceBlaZe, 05-25-2002, 11:04 AM | | I was talking relatively.
I don't have info about the number of customers in both companies, I just know that I barely seen one complaint about SplashHost and Alan.
I don't think it is possible that Alan has 10 customers and MCHost 10,000, but according to your logic that should be the status.
Alan it top-notch and sets the line of quality when it comes to Uptime, Quality of the Servers, Speed, Bandwidth and Support.
Servers are Dual INTEL P3, DUAL SCSI and Supermicro.
Bandwidth is Level3.
Support Response time - Minimal.
Friendliness showed by Alan and Scott - As good as it can get.
|
| Posted by Alan - Vox, 05-25-2002, 11:10 AM | | Thats not completely true, some of our servers are lower spefication now but we still use high quality components. I need to update the site.
|
| Posted by IceBlaZe, 05-25-2002, 11:13 AM | | Oh yeah I forgot.
But you are still top notch!
|
| Posted by Alan - Vox, 05-25-2002, 11:25 AM | | Thanks
|
| Posted by freehtml, 05-26-2002, 02:20 PM | | Anyone had experience with netacore beside me?
I signed up with Netacore on 11 May 2002, its barely 2 weeks and I had some down time already, not that their service is not good but I still find it more comfortable that I can speak to any support guys on AIM or ICQ if things to happen and they be there to tell me whats going on.
Cos beside supporting ticket and AIM , and email, there isn't any forum or what so ever support.
Even their "Real-Time Support" when online status and click on it shows "Connecting to Operator" and after that no response.
As a matter of fact, when I tried it just now , it give me an error "System: Error -- Account Error"
Maybe I am asking for too much?
|
| Posted by netacore, 05-26-2002, 09:23 PM | | You should wait until the page (help.netacore.com) completely finishes loading, then click on the 'chat-now button'
Otherwise you will get errors
|
| Posted by freehtml, 05-26-2002, 11:11 PM | | Thx, I am trying it now again... I will see how long does it take to load the pages .
|
|
 Add to Favourites
 Print this Article
|
