1  |   Order by index

Apr 3, 2001, 5:54pm

The Commonwealth is announcing their hosting prices today. If your
interested why not check out : www.commonwealth.domainvalet.com/product.htm

The prices are yearly, but if you want the hosting for 1 month/ 6 months
then get in contact with: Hosting at commonwealth.domainvalet.com
Fill out the application form today for your hosting services.


The Commonwealth!

Apr 3, 2001, 9:12pm

lol you copied that exactly of the other hosting page ive seen (i think it
was stuffx.com)
excpet chnaged it to win 95 (which sucks for hosting) and your using the
3.0 server (which you'll need 3.1 if you want to host)...you even copied
there prices....very bad

very funny.....not trying to be mean but it sounds like your just a wannabe
Hoster

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Owner Of The World A'Dude
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://adudesite.homestead.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 9:47pm

Yeah it was stuffx.com they copied.

"Backed by Microsoft Windows 1995 Operating System". It's '95, not 1995.

Also try to get your own domain instead of using free hosting. Brandon is
right.




[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 10:06pm

very bad.. that's for sure.. stuffx pricing is very bad.. lol.. why they charge that much is beyond me.. oh well.. i'm actually
thinking about lowering my prices.. and it's already down to $5/three months of world hosting, lol hosting.awjbell.com

--
--
J B E L L
http://platinum.awjbell.com
G O I N G P L A T I N U M


[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 10:23pm

Very lazy if you ask me. Most people who copy websites are too lazy to make
their own. Would you like me to make you one that isn't copied?

Apr 3, 2001, 10:34pm

How are the Stuff-X prices "bad"? Most of them are lower than
Activeworlds.com, Inc.'s yearly charge of $199 USD for personal world
servers. I admit the original prices I first had on the site were high,
but the current pricing on the website is fine in my opinion. Like
others have said in this newsgroup, if you don't or can't pay the price,
than go elsewhere. There are not many commercial Active Worlds hosting
companies that I have come across with pricing starting at under $10 USD
monthly.

Builderz
Stuff-X - Bot & World Hosting Services
http://www.stuffx.com/aw/

[View Quote]

Apr 3, 2001, 10:40pm

By my standards Builderz would be a good host for the reason the prices will
only get a few customers, therefore, less lag. If there is no lag then your
world runs good. However, your hosting would be bad because you are acting
immature about hosting worlds. Your trying to run the other company's out
of business by not charging hardly anything. You will not be getting many
customers when you get about 6 or 7 and they are lagging.

Apr 4, 2001, 10:02am

Yer hosting on Win95? Good luck with THAT. :)

[View Quote] > The Commonwealth is announcing their hosting prices today. If your
> interested why not check out : www.commonwealth.domainvalet.com/product.htm
>
> The prices are yearly, but if you want the hosting for 1 month/ 6 months
> then get in contact with: Hosting at commonwealth.domainvalet.com
> Fill out the application form today for your hosting services.
>
> The Commonwealth!

Apr 4, 2001, 10:06am

Really? Sheesh I charge a bit more than they do. However, I have a better connect, daily backups, ftp access to logs, a linux
server (NT version of the worlds server has sucked forever) etc. so my expenses are quite a bit higher.

[View Quote] > very bad.. that's for sure.. stuffx pricing is very bad.. lol.. why they charge that much is beyond me.. oh well.. i'm actually
> thinking about lowering my prices.. and it's already down to $5/three months of world hosting, lol hosting.awjbell.com
>
> --
> --
> J B E L L
> http://platinum.awjbell.com
> G O I N G P L A T I N U M
>
[View Quote]

Apr 4, 2001, 10:07am

Heh my prices start at $100/year and I gotta lot more in the package...

[View Quote] > How are the Stuff-X prices "bad"? Most of them are lower than
> Activeworlds.com, Inc.'s yearly charge of $199 USD for personal world
> servers. I admit the original prices I first had on the site were high,
> but the current pricing on the website is fine in my opinion. Like
> others have said in this newsgroup, if you don't or can't pay the price,
> than go elsewhere. There are not many commercial Active Worlds hosting
> companies that I have come across with pricing starting at under $10 USD
> monthly.
>
> Builderz
> Stuff-X - Bot & World Hosting Services
> http://www.stuffx.com/aw/
>
[View Quote]

Apr 4, 2001, 10:09am

Um, noooooo, ISDN is not a big pipe. I host on a T1 that is *very* quick (not
all T1s or ISDNs are the same ya know, depends on the provider etc.) and it's
never overloaded. So if there's any lag, it's not on this end. :)

[View Quote] > By my standards Builderz would be a good host for the reason the prices will
> only get a few customers, therefore, less lag. If there is no lag then your
> world runs good. However, your hosting would be bad because you are acting
> immature about hosting worlds. Your trying to run the other company's out
> of business by not charging hardly anything. You will not be getting many
> customers when you get about 6 or 7 and they are lagging.

Apr 4, 2001, 10:16am

Hi,

[View Quote] Thats worth a smile!

I remember a year or so ago and the response the thought of Linux got
from you :)

shame you went Red Hat though ;-)

gdr....

--
Cheers,

Who

Apr 4, 2001, 11:25am

Linux is a toy compared to NT IMO. However the world server software was originally written for unix and debugged there, whereas the
NT version always sucked because nobody involved really understood Winsock :)

Not that NT doesn't suck in many ways. And nobody hates MS as much as I do, hell I got physically ill (flu symptoms but no fever)
following my last visit to their Seattle campus some time ago..and a friend claims it was a psychological reaction to the visit. But
linux is really just not in the same league as NT for my money. I can't believe that IBM ships it with their systems and claims that
they have the answers to interplatform connectivity etc.

And since you mention Red Hat...one of the BIGgest problems with linux is all the different versions...I chose RH because someone had
a CD of it hehe, and it's supposedly good for newbies such as myself. But linux reminds me of the protestants, too many sects. :)
Also, the docs suck, support sux, etc. it's just not as easy to deal with as NT/2K. It certainly has its place but I think I'd
rather go BSD on my next unix box.

[View Quote] > Hi,
>
[View Quote]

Apr 4, 2001, 12:00pm

you have to remember Activeworlds.com is the same company who charges $70 for them to "license" a world.. wtf is that? but anywho..
of course your prices are gonna be less.. no matter what you charge it's almost guaranteed to be below the ghastly $200 a year ($800
+ $50 setup for 50 MB of FTP *puke*) oh well.. you can add my hosting service to your short list of *below $10 a month* because ALL
my services are below $10 a month.. most of them are even below $5 a month.. anywho.. I can't talk about my hosting without
providing a link-that would be just wrong! lol here's my pricing - hosting.awjbell.com
--
--
J B E L L
http://platinum.awjbell.com
G O I N G P L A T I N U M


[View Quote]

Apr 4, 2001, 12:37pm

Hi,

<..snip...>

> And since you mention Red Hat...one of the BIGgest problems with linux is all the different versions...I chose RH because someone had
> a CD of it hehe, and it's supposedly good for newbies such as myself. But linux reminds me of the protestants, too many sects. :)
> Also, the docs suck, support sux, etc. it's just not as easy to deal with as NT/2K. It certainly has its place but I think I'd
> rather go BSD on my next unix box.

Sorry, have to disagree. Linux is linux. The commands and OS are the
same on each distribution, its only in terms of installation and various
ways to incorporate extra apps that alters the paths etc betwen
distro's. And there isn't much difference to BSD. Btw, there are tons of
docs on everything - in a lot of cases you can't even avoid getting the
docs when you install apps etc even when you don't want them.

Just as "dir" is the sae no matter what version of MSDos or Win you are
using, "ls" is the same on every flavour of linux.

Still as you say, AW was written for Unix/Linux, so it runs better on
Linux, there are some things that run better on NT.

--
Cheers,

Who

Apr 4, 2001, 2:41pm

Well if they're all the same, WHY ARE THERE SO MANY hehe. Lots of docs don't mean DECENT docs, and what I mean really is like, what MS has
on their website. They have zillions of bugs yah, but they have support docs to deal with em. :)

In the case of the AW software it's just a shitty port to NT. :)



[View Quote] > Hi,
>
> <..snip...>
>
>
> Sorry, have to disagree. Linux is linux. The commands and OS are the
> same on each distribution, its only in terms of installation and various
> ways to incorporate extra apps that alters the paths etc betwen
> distro's. And there isn't much difference to BSD. Btw, there are tons of
> docs on everything - in a lot of cases you can't even avoid getting the
> docs when you install apps etc even when you don't want them.
>
> Just as "dir" is the sae no matter what version of MSDos or Win you are
> using, "ls" is the same on every flavour of linux.
>
> Still as you say, AW was written for Unix/Linux, so it runs better on
> Linux, there are some things that run better on NT.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Who

Apr 4, 2001, 5:16pm

[View Quote] I'll amen that vomit, the webserver that I'm running (at a friend's house due to the lack of ANYTHING faster than 56k, while he has
T3) only cost $800 in equipment so far (approximately comperable to my desktop machine minus the 3d power right this second, and a
million times more stable due to the lack of Windows), Of course, the monitor is a 9"thing I had stashed in the basement, but who
cares. $800 for 30 gigs of whatever the hell I want to use it for as opposed to $850 for 50 megs of FTP. HRMMMMMMMMM

Apr 4, 2001, 5:30pm

Forget Win95, HOW IN THE HELL CAN YOU CALL ISDN HIGH SPEED? I can clock my 56k modem to run faster than ISDN lines if it weren't for
the physical limitations of the phone system in this area
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index