PDA

View Full Version : Why Brinkster sucks ?


aspwebserver
October 10th, 2002, 04:15
brinkster.com seems to be the most publicized ASP.NET host.
However I saw a few posts on this forum from peope who were not happy ?

Why is this, it seems that they provide a very stable free ASP.NET hosting plan.

Then what are their weak points ? That makes them bad for many..

Pleas post your comments , this wold help my study :chinese2:
conkermaniac
October 10th, 2002, 05:24
It doesn't suck. It's just that people who don't know anything about running a site that complain about the fact that Brinkster dosen't offer FTP. :rolleyes:
kabatak
October 10th, 2002, 06:35
if it only had ftp, then it would be a perfect host for asp coders
conkermaniac
October 10th, 2002, 06:49
Originally posted by kabatak
if it only had ftp, then it would be a perfect host for asp coders

See, the question is why you need FTP.
aspwebserver
October 10th, 2002, 06:56
Originally posted by conkermaniac


See, the question is why you need FTP.

Having FTP certainly makes the uploading process simple and easy for the developer. :classic2:
kabatak
October 10th, 2002, 06:59
exactly, I have uploaded a website at brinkster which took me an hour using their web based uploader.. which could have been minutes with an ftp client. =)
netnexus
October 10th, 2002, 07:40
low bw?
kabatak
October 10th, 2002, 07:47
not really, im on a 128 connection, its just that a have too many files... and it sucks to upload only 5 files at a time then click and browse and click and brows all the time... :confused2
Kaliber
October 10th, 2002, 08:14
Originally posted by netnexus
low bw? I think he meant the hosts b/w
Jan
October 10th, 2002, 08:39
Originally posted by kabatak
not really, im on a 128 connection, its just that a have too many files... and it sucks to upload only 5 files at a time then click and browse and click and brows all the time... :confused2
Obviously it is not suitable for someone who has an established site that they want to transfer, but for those that are just starting out, it would be ideal. Just browser upload as you add more pages.
Cracker
October 10th, 2002, 08:40
Originally posted by Kaliber
I think he meant the hosts b/w

He actually means your site's allowed data transfer. Currently, it is only 16.7 mb/day.
webpagekid90
October 10th, 2002, 19:10
Brinkster is fine for me
Weirds
October 10th, 2002, 19:22
well, ftp isn't really necessary
and brinkster doesn't suck.
Majin
October 10th, 2002, 19:33
If I could only swap ASP with PHP....
xsnetwork
October 11th, 2002, 03:27
There are plenty of other hosts which offer PHP, very few offer ASP and none are as stable as Brinkster :)
conkermaniac
October 11th, 2002, 05:04
Originally posted by aspwebserver


Having FTP certainly makes the uploading process simple and easy for the developer. :classic2:

Yep, I know, but it's not necessary...

Does it really take an hour for you, kabatak? :eek:
EpidemiK
October 11th, 2002, 19:34
well i used to have a site with 2000 unique hits each day and i was using a free host with browser upload only ..
netnexus
October 11th, 2002, 20:34
Originally posted by Cracker


He actually means your site's allowed data transfer. Currently, it is only 16.7 mb/day.

rite on cracker
aspwebserver
October 12th, 2002, 10:59
Originally posted by kabatak
exactly, I have uploaded a website at brinkster which took me an hour using their web based uploader.. which could have been minutes with an ftp client. =)

Yes this is a very important issue, i agree :rolleyes:
Some one said that thier bandwidth for free server is also very low. How much is that ?