Windows Or Linux Hosting?

[megabytehosting]

I prefer a *nix host. More stable and preformace is killer on a machine running freebsd. Only thing windows has is asp which some people prefer to code in. =/ Whats wrong with php?

[IndigoHosts]

We normally go for the linux side but then we are biased I suppose lol.

Both have their good and bad points but we've always founf Linux to offer more though with us venturing into .net things may change

[frankad_60]

Personally I prefer Windows but if you looking for better preformance choose Linux.

[theheavenly]

Seems there's a great support for Linux. My thumbs up for Linux too.

[megabytehosting]

I have recently switched platforms to FreeBSD and a dedicated connection. It seems to be performing alot better and a little more organized then linux. It also has some nice firewall features that doesn't come with linux.

[cyberhostpro]

if your after basic hosting choose linux, if you are after advanced hosting choose windows.

[noobs]

Linux has been great so far. Can't imagine the need for Windows.

[hotcomputers]

i think it is better linux
i am using both

here you can find some Hosting Plans By Category
http://www.hosting-buyers-guide.com/planlist2.php

It is very good website

[DonPMitchell]

In terms of chosing a hosting service, you get what you pay for. Regardless of Linux or Windows, if you are paying $6/month for hosting, users are being packed onto servers like clowns in a circus car! You know those web pages where you count to ten before it displays? That's where they come from.

My site is hosted by a Windows Server 2003 service, costing $29/month. It's up all the time, it downloads fast even though it is very graphics intensive, its backed up by the IT staff every day, and it survived a few "slashdotting" usage ****es (after a BBC news article about something on my site) without the slightest hiccup. My hosting service has also been in business for over 10 years.

A company that provides Windows, Linux and BSD probably has a very professional staff. Check if they offer Microsoft SQL Server or DB2 or Oracle, even if you never plan to use them, just to see if they have highly trained staff on site. Check to see how long they have been in business!

If you want to host a modest website, it won't make much difference what you use. Linux and Windows are both mature products. Beware of people with political axes to grind, who try to tell you that one OS or the other will crash all the time or is slow. None of that is true of current major operating systems.

If you are hosting a heavy-duty e-commerce site, then you want Windows Server 2003 and MS SQL Server or some other database that supports atomic transactions and failure recovery. Don't try to use Access or FoxPro or MySQL to back up a busy site, they won't bear up under the load, and they won't recover from crashes or failures without corruption of your database. Look at TCP-C benchmarking. The MySQL companies do not condone it, but people have run the TCP-C kit on their products, and the news is not good. For example, MS SQL Server is about 40 times faster than MySQL at atomic transaction processing. And MySQL is about 10 times faster than PostgreSQL. This is why they rant and rave against TPC benchmarks, because they don't want you to realize how poorly they implement atomic transactions.

[HostBriefer G]

I took a quick survey around the office over here and Linux seems to be a more popular choice; it's cheaper, usually free and it's an open-source software, which means anyone can alter the source code and make improvements, updates, and additions.
Windows is the better choice if you need to support Microsoft products or if you already understand IIS and don't have time to learn UNIX/Linux.