Can cheap hosting be quality hosting?

[novelty]

The topic is in the title, I just wanted to know if the so called affordable, or cheap hosting can be quality? I'm talking about the basic features of the package, decent uptime (at least 99,5%) and sensitive support. If you are using cheap hosting services of 1&1.com, webhostingbuzz.com or the like companies, please, share your experience.

 

[CrazyTech]

It pretty much depends upon the needs. For example, I know of people who are satisfied with companies such as HostGator and I know of others who abhor the company and have moved away.

It generally comes down to these companies are able to provide the hardware and backend features. However, support sometimes (and I'd almost say oftentimes) suffers because costs have to be cut somewhere. If you're a person who does not require support often, then you should be fine. However, if you have my luck, a host that is more dedicated to each client is in order.

Many support reps. for these companies are paid in the lower wage category - note that I am not targeting any company in particular here - simply because there is a lesser degree of technical skill required to answer basic questions. This results in slower times for the more advanced issue and sometimes language barriers when support is outsourced. The money has to be saved to ensure such high amounts of resources are available.

 

[novelty]

I see, thanks for the reply, you've managed to present details of the inner side of hosting biz, from what you said about hosting companies offering low-budget hosting I may conclude that this is what the most computer-savvy people go for ( unless they need bigger hardware resources).

 

[squatter]

If you need webhostingbuzz.com reviews, you can get them at WHT, just one of the threads.

 

[CrazyTech]

Actually novelty, I wouldn't draw that conclusion from what I have said above. The massive resource hosts tend to pull in most of the new-to-HTML etc. group. There is no doubt that they pull some of the tech-savvy group as well, but I'd hesitate to say most because there is a large group that will go with a more expensive and less resources provider for a myriad of reasons. Smaller hosts and those that offer less per package tend to specialize in one arena or another.

The drawback to these big guys that offer so much is you'll never make it to those levels in a shared environment. I'd say just about every website (99.9%) that makes it even in the vicinity of resources - as low as half of what they pay for - are removed because of strains on the hardware such as RAM and CPU.

A lot of people take the "just in case" mentality when the choose these guys, but what they don't understand is they're, in effect, paying for the same thing and may actually lose money when their website is suspended for resource issues.

 

[snareklutz]

I personally use hostingzoom.com - I've been using then for a year, and I must say, I've been quite impressed considering the low cost (I signed up when it was $4.95 /month) Their servers were had never been down unexpectedly, and their customer service are avaliable 24 hours, and reply in about 5 minutes.

 

[MutoGen]

Hello
If I were you I'd choose webhostingbuzz.com. I have heard a lot of bad words about 1&1. www.webhostingbuzz.com not too big and they have to do good service and there are no bad reviews of thm over there.

 

[ennui]

Novelty, if the site you are going to host with www.webhostingbuzz.com or www.1and1.com isn't going to take up a lot of CPU resources and you aren't very support-dependent (btw, what kind of panel do they offer on the shared account?), go for a low-budget hosting, there's really nothing bad about it if your project isn't mission-critical.

 

[Domainator]

my 2 cents

Check out Mosso.com....there is a difference between wannabees and the real mccoy...just my 2 cents....still doing my due diligence for a customer but have found this to be very true--most small hosts are bullshit artisits.....you get what you pay for just like most things in life...

 

[Amnezia]

Hostgator is pretty good

 

[manadospace]

is depend the service and system, in my experience many web hosting site WITH EXPENSIVE AND COOL website BUT the last is BAD OR MISSING in action, and some time a simple website hosting have good service and system.

good look website not mean good service beware. people always see first the website NOT the system.

about cheap, yes a lot out there have cheap price and good system and company and many too have cheap price but BAD system!

is depend what we choose and get.

greetings
josh fs
manadospace egold hosting

 

[ennui]

The hosting I'm using can be considered cheap, the cheapest package of hqhost.net is about $0.99, but they don't offer anything unmetered or unlimited plus they provide decent support for the money they take. So, I conclude the hosting can be cheap if the package doesn't include enormous amounts of disk space and bandwidth.

 

[novelty]

Thanks to all, what do you call cheap is it $0,01 or $3?? or 5?
Is www.onthespothosting.net shared service is cheap?

 

[WiiSaid]

Cheap hosting is very good depending on were you buy from. GreenLush.com is very cheap and very good.

 

[FagEnd]

hostgator.com is good for cheap hosting, if you intend to host many sites and need a lot of parked/add on domains.

Just search google for "hostgator coupon codes" and you should find many codes to get the first month for only 1 cent.. after that you make up your own mind if it's value for money I have used them for a while and was sceptical at first but never had any issues so far. I even backed up all my sites after 1 month, signed up again with a new coupon code and started again... I'm bad, I know, but I wanted to ensure the service was good, and it is.

 

[Waiter]

Hello. Agree Hostgator is the biggest host in the world. So they don't worry about each customer, not because they are lazy or something like that. In this case Webhostingbuzz.com looks more attractive. Because they not so big as Hostgator and take care of each customer.

 

[DCB_Hosting]

I say that it depends on the company. If they care enough about the happiness of their customers as I do, then you should be abvle to find quality cheap hosting. I offer my customers free stuff all the time as an added bonus.

 

[euk-damien]

Cheap prices of the hosting packages don't necessarily mean lesser quality service, similarly high priced hosting packages don't necessarily imply top quality customer service. It usually depends on the service the companies offer and how they split the expenses among their users to keep the costs low.

 

[levis]

Being a satisfied client of indyahozting.com,I can say cheap hosts can also provide quality hosting.The hosting rates are affordable here and the services are good too.

 

[mbuna]

Affil link edited out.
Do Not post affiliate links.

NP Staff

 

[Swizi]

Here's a non affiliate link:
www.doreo.com

 

[antic]

I personaly think that affrodable web hosting can be quality. I personaly sympatize with Webhostingbuzz.com budget offers They are low enough and quality to be happy.

 

[jarmas]

Definitely cheap hosting can be good!

I myself provide hosting from my ded server, have sold over 35 packages both on NP and DP over the last 1 month since I got my server. 0 second downtime so far as recorded in the tracking. No on said a single bad review about my hosting, it's only $1 a month with 1gb space and 20gb BW a month and no overselling. Not to promote it but just to add in that cheap hosting doesnt mean it's bad. You can look at some reviews of it here:

http://www.namepros.com/web-hosting-offers/358298-affordable-hosting-at-only-1-month.html

Cheers!

 

[squatter]

Well, this one is really the thread with the beard, I would make the conclusion, if chosen correctly (with RAM to meet your site's needs), it could bring you considerable saving.

 

[Cicero]

Well it depends on your needs. For a personal site go for a cheap one.

Another thing I have noted in cheap hosting is the wonderful support to even the most noobiest questions. So definitely my vote goes for cheap hosting :D