Managed ASP Web Hosts?

maumedia asks: "I'm hoping someone can help me here, as I'm nearing frantic on this issue. I need a good Windows/ASP managed host -- a company that will manage/troubleshoot a dedicated server for us. My research has turned up either shared hosts, or dedicated hosts, and not very much in-between. If we're not ready to hire a sysadmin and pay for our own backbone, but we've outgrown the massively-shared hosting system, where can we go? I'm really hoping for an answer that doesn't involve a move to PHP/Linux, as it makes much more sense to us to utilize the resources we have at hand."

Comments

Re:ASP on Linux

[Billly Gates]

Not to start a flamewar but .NET was designed for vendor lockin as a solution to Microsoft's threat with Java Enterprise edition.

Mono is still alpha depending on which libraries you use. Does it even support winforms yet? .Net 2.0 is coming with VS.net 2005 and Mono has still not caught up with VS.net 2003.

C#.net is a great technology. Especially if your an MS shop that needs MS integration with win32 apps for your intranet servers.

But cross platform it is not and its a MS technology just like win32 is, though you can have limited success with wine.

Just use Windows. If the server is cracked its the ISP's problem. Not yours if you outsource the server.

Re:Good Luck

[Planesdragon]

Not to be a negative Nancy but since Apache is 70% of the market

Apache is 0% of the market. IE, Firefox, and their peers are. When you sell webhosting you aren't selling a product -- you're selling space on mall, and virtually no one cares if you use FedEx or UPS to get your books to your store, so long as they're in English (HTML) when they get them.

In contrast, if you write for Linux, you CANNOT just give your app to Windows users and have them get as much out of it as Linux users. (While if you write for Firefox / Apache, you CAN get the IE user to pick it up and use it. Same for most IE / IIS / ASP pages going to FIrefox.)

Re:Good Luck

[toadlife]

"...the fact still remains that Apache is far better, far faster and far more secure than Microsoft has ever been... which is why they have always had the market."

Better? What exactly do you mean by "better"?

Faster? Perhaps, but by who's measure? I've never seen a useful (yes, Microsoft's don't count as useful) Apache/IIS performance comparison.

More secure? Why do you think that? IIS6 has never had a critical vulnerability discovered for it. In the same time frame you can't say that for Apache 1.x and 2.x.

Since you claim that your assertions are "facts", I can only hope that you've got some "facts" to back it up, right?