Sorry for the repeat post.... I realize this is very similar to Countryboy's post...maybe my needs are a little different? This would be my very first website, and I would like to create it myself mostly for the experience.

I'm looking for a host for a non-profit Jeep club website, nothing too fancy. This would be a gathering place for our members - a place to post pics and vids, tech articles, member info, and possibly a message board/blog. No sales of anything, no need for e-commerce. I'd like to start simple then grow as my experince grows.

I have been searching for days now reading reviews and such on hosts in the $5-$10 dollar range. My head is spinning since I've discovered that some sites are nothing more than advertising vehicles for the sites they review, so I no longer know who to trust. Looking for the best user friendly "Windows" site that includes decent web page building tools, and is reliable. I'll probably buy Frontpage or similar and eventually design a more pro site later once I get it up and running. Our domain name is already registered at GoDaddy.

Thanks for any and all info!

Frontpage is essentially gone, and as time goes, it will be supported by fewer and fewer hosts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_FrontPage
http://www.weberzforum.com/showthread.php?t=441 - should make a good read as it details some options, and the reasoning of a host.

Thanks. For my purposes then, just to get started, looking for a good site for a beginner with decent web page building tools. Any site suggestions?

Rather than relying on online/host provided website building tools, I'd recommend using kompozer(.net), getting a free template from sites such as http://www.freecsstemplates.org and http://www.oswd.org, and adapting it for your site.

Another method to consider is Joomla or Mambo, which are CMS's (content management scripts). Both may be a little intimidating at first, but they provide a means for users to join and add content such as blogs and can integrate with a discussion board. Both can be automatically installed by cPanel, a hosting control panel.

When you're looking for hosts, consider linux versus Windows. In general both provide the same service, however, linux hosting is more common and inexpensive. Windows is needed for MSSQL (database) and .asp web pages/sites. However, linux provides much of the same functionality in different languages, such as PHP and can server MySQL.

Thanks for the great info. Please explain Linux vs. Windows....and if it's compatible with my Windows XP O/S.

Generally when talking about hosting and referring to Windows hosting or Linux hosting, it means the operating system running on the server.

The servers operating system uses web server software that presents data that is not user operating system dependent. Meaning that you can use Windows or Linux and while using your web browser such as Firebird or IE and see the same results.

If you'll notice while you're surfing that some pages end in .htm or .html others in .php, .asp and several others. In general, a Windows or Linux OS based server is able to serve up .htm and .html. On the other hand it takes a Windows server to serve up .asp and a Linux server to serve up .PHP. Notice that I stated 'In general', because it's possible to run .asp on a Linux server with the right software, it's just not all that common. Conversely, a Windows server can run .php with the correct software and is probably more common.

Linux is a free to use software versus Windows which must be licensed. PHP is also free, but generally ASP must be licensed.

So what do you need to use for your web site?
It just depends on your needs. If you need to use .asp then Windows is the way to go. If not, Linux is usually more inexpensive and a bit more flexible.

There are many arguments for each OS and there is no clear one-fits-all answer. I could be wrong, but I believe that the majority of web sites are hosted on a Linux based server. After all Linux is free to use as are many of it's applications such as the web server, database server, mail server and so on. This makes it less expensive for the web host which in turn should make it less expensive for the customer.

I think you should also consider using free alternatives instead of frontpage, like NVU. I also agree that you should also try using Joomla or Wordpress. There are also a number of webhosts which have a site builder included in their plans.

another tip - try looking for a hosting provider which offers sponsored hosting. sometimes, they only require a link on your website.

For a first-time website, it might be worth checking out some of the recent crop of web-based site building tools, such as Weebly or SyntaSite. They won't give you all the control you would have with something like Joomla or even constructing HTML with Dreamweaver, but they let you quickly get a nice-looking site setup quickly and concentrate on the content of your site. Later, you could experiment with migrating to something more complex, if you find that you've outgrown these tools.

I've narrowed it down to HostGator or Lunarpages, leaning more towards Lunar. Is there any way to sample (see) websites for each hosting company, as a way to see how they appear and perform?

Anything else I should know before I dive in?

With regard to seeing a sample of the web sites they host, one of the mentioned host had several templates. However, in general the sites that they host are not an indicator of their service beyond uptime. Designs may or may not use their template system, they could be the property of the site owner.

A few more points to consider, however, these are not a reflection in any way of the companies you've mentioned.

1 Free domains for life or for a year should be utilized with caution. There have been many a 'horror' story about individuals who could not transfer their domain registration because they weren't the listed registrant. The company has some right to remain in control of the domain registration until they've been compensated for the cost. So at what point in the year has it been paid for? When is it your's? What if the company folds, even if you have site backups if you have cannot gain control of the domain what are you left with. I realize that this could be said even if you register through a separate company, but there's something to the old adage about not having all of your eggs in one basket.

2 If you use a template that they provide, who owns the design? Many of the same issues regarding the domain apply here as well. If you pay a designer up front it's yours and there are no questions.

3 Willingness to provide support. Smaller companies are sometimes more generous with their time. Larger companies may have stricter rules and charge or not provide the services you ask of them. This issue is a two way street, not everything you request is going to be covered by your agreement with them.

3 Stability: Larger companies that are more established provide some comfort that they'll be around for many years to come.

4 I say 'never sign up without a money-back guarantee of some sort'. Why wouldn't a company provide a 20 day money-back guarantee? Too many sign ups per day, they don't need the business? Too much hassle? There's a million reasons I'm sure, but you must ask yourself if you're willing to pay to experiment with their service or if they should be willing to give you a test drive. One issue is fraud, so it's completely understandable for a host to require some type of payment that helps to guarantee that you are you. If Paypal or the credit card processor screams fraud, the host can cancel the account.

I could go on longer but I hope if gives you something to think about.

This could be an interesting 10 minutes read. It sure was an eye opener for me: http://spacytracie.com/dreamhost-and-lunarpages/391/

Definitely worth reading. I can't say that it's fact or fiction, but it is interesting nonetheless. There is so much competition in the hosting industry that many companies will try anything to under cut others, so it's believable that a company has done or will do this. The author tries to prove that his article is true, but it's simply impossible to do so. You can show all of the screen shots and IM text you like, however, it all can be manufactured.

Again, I'm not making any comment about either company mentioned, nor am I trying to assert that the article is either true or untrue.

Well, I did contact Amy for her side of the story. No reply.

Like I said I'm not trying to make an accusation. I'm really just trying to point out that caution should be exercised due to just what that article discussed.

It's hard to defend statements made in forums or blogs, so some entities just do not respond to accusations in order to avoid giving them credence. Who really knows the best way to handle such problems? Of course, if the article is accurate how is that proven by the average web surfer.

It's just the nature of the web.