is netfirms better than f2s

[autographsbymai]

is netfirms better than f2s

[niv]

overall?

yes and no

pros and cons of netfirms over f2s:

pro: faster speeds
pro: 5 MB more
con: no mySQL/pSQL
con: ads

[niv]

hey... shouldn't this be in the free webhosting forum?...yeah it should! :p

[zazoo]

well
free services...
free hosting is a free serivce if you look at it that way I geuss

oh and eventualy f2s is bound to get ads, I dunno when but theres no way they can last to long at this rate

[Gayowulf]

I think netfirms wins. the host domains, and if you name all your pages .asp then there are no ats :)

[el crapo]

Originally posted by Gayowulf
I think netfirms wins. the host domains, and if you name all your pages .asp then there are no ats :)

Then how come everyone recommends F2S first rather than Netfirms?

[Gayowulf]

everyone is sheep. thats why. i guess F2s is the cool place to host

[gyrbo]

Doesn't the server slow down if you parse all html files as asp?

[el crapo]

Hey Zazoo, why does your avatar, say Zazzo instead of Zazoo?

[cowax]

Originally posted by el crapo


Then how come everyone recommends F2S first rather than Netfirms?

'Cause everyone wants pHp and no ads.

[Gayowulf]

Originally posted by gyrbo
Doesn't the server slow down if you parse all html files as asp?

nope. all you have to do is change the file extension

[Hoth]

Originally posted by zazoo
oh and eventualy f2s is bound to get ads, I dunno when but theres no way they can last to long at this rate

They've lasted years this way already. Especially with ads not being worth much these days, it seems likely they'll stick with their current plan of just trying to get people to upgrade to paid hosting. I don't know how it works for them, but obviously it does or they wouldn't still be around.

I presume Netfirms will eventually fix their mistake and put ads on the pages that have asp extensions. Netfirms is still good if you have to have domain hosting, but if you can afford a domain then you can afford maybe $10 a year for paid hosting anyhow, right?

[WorldWarGeneral]

There's decent paid hosting for $10 a year? I didn't know that... (But I don't often venture into the paid hosting forum.) :)

[Phan]

I like F2S better than Netfirms. I mean, I would rather have no ads & 5mb less plus a little slower than have ads & 5mb more.

F2S speed is fine by me....even if it is a little slower.

Plus a better subdomain :)

Phan ;)

[Toefur]

Personally, i'd be more inclined to think that F2S has a better chance of staying around. They've managed to keep things good (without ads) the last few years, and show no signs of changing that.

Whereas Netfirms is supported by banners, and we all know how little money they bring in these days. Although Netfirms is one of the only free hosts I would use if I wanted a free host; i'd still stick with F2S.

[niv]

Originally posted by gyrbo
Doesn't the server slow down if you parse all html files as asp?

you can name it index.aigja if you wanted to... netfirms has ASP? i didn't know that...it's just that it's targeting the standard file extensions, so you might want to go with index.ajghsadjifhsfiuasdtkjashgfaadsfgnduocxha :D

[Chris]

But then netscape might not support it.

[txia]

Well netfirm is not good for me, because I don't want ads
I was quite happy with f2s the first week, after then I could upload files. I think this is their only weakness..The problem is in the upload process, the ftp flatten my index to 0Ko...sad:(