Been asked to set up a website about 10 to 20 pages and would be easier for them to use frontpage and about

i have used 1&1 for our business customers for years.. brilliant service!!

needs to be

I have my website hosted in the US through superuser.net

http://www.superuser.net/ . Have good prices/traffic limits Also include frontpage extensions as standard. You will need to use a .com domain though, or already have your domain registered elsewhere.

These have my sites -

http://www.ryanhost.com/

Very relaible and the guy who runs it is always on MSN for help and assistance.

I use 123-REG http://www.123-reg.co.uk part of PIPEX. Nothing fancy but had good service from them, not much more than £30 p.a. but there's a one-off set-up cost.

1&1 here as well, no probs and they're cheap too

My mate runs http://www.macoman.co.uk/ good cheap and reliable, His name is colin and if you tell him Waller sent you he may sort you a deal

http://www.heartinternet.com

http://www.heartinternet.com

I use them at the moment...very good value for money, and the service is top notch.

Rob.

I have my domain registered with 123reg.co.uk, but hosted in the US with godaddy.com - all very straightforward and lots of facilities.

Heart also seem reasonable, but I think macoman will beat their prices.

godaddy are domin parkers :(

Sorry, but i know of cases where people have gone and looked to see if a domain is free using their site, it was free, then next day they go back to get it and what do you know it has been aquired and parked and now they want a larger fee for that domain.

I use reg123 for the domain and host myself as the sites are non essential.

As an asside note can I please beg you to get them to use mozilla composer or any other decent free tool as opposed to frontpage. Frontpage produces the most awful HTML i have seen in ages and a lot of the features in there are IE only which makes a site written using it painful at best.

I use 4u hosting. http://www.4uhosting.co.uk/

Have a look at their plans.

godaddy are domin parkers :(

Sorry' date=' but i know of cases where people have gone and looked to see if a domain is free using their site, it was free, then next day they go back to get it and what do you know it has been aquired and parked and now they want a larger fee for that domain.

I use reg123 for the domain and host myself as the sites are non essential.

As an asside note can I please beg you to get them to use mozilla composer or any other decent free tool as opposed to frontpage. Frontpage produces the most awful HTML i have seen in ages and a lot of the features in there are IE only which makes a site written using it painful at best.[/quote']

I have no axe to grind - but godaddy were very cheap by comparison with UK hosting, and I already had my domain registered.

When you say "host myself" do you actually mean host on your ISP's free webspace? or via your ISP's broadband connection? Do the terms of your ISP agreement allow this?

I've never found a free tool that's as easy to use as Frontpage - but I'd love to see one. Currently I mostly write html in a text editor.

Painful to people not using IE, maybe. However IE still forms nearly 85% of users on websites I maintain.

I have no axe to grind, I just don't like supporting a company that seem to whore up profits on the backs of potential customers.

Host myself means on my own server on the end of an appropriate line and yes the ISP do allow this, was the main reason I chose them along with a nice bank of static IP addresses and excellent customer service. Admittedly if i wanted to host it for large volumes of traffic I would call in some favours for an ISP I used to work for and have them host it, but still probably good enough for a few hundred hits an hour as is.

Frontpage may be a little easier to use but it depends on what you want to put up, as i suggested mozilla composer is a reasonably easy alternative. I do tend to handcode all my html and code in vim too

Your point about fine for IE may be true but an increasing amount of the market is moving away so why keep that 15% (and growing) away. There are Mac users and other users and mobile users who all won't use IE. IE7 won't render all the IE6 pages correctly so you will be cutting them off until you update your version of frontpage.

Also I wasn't aware that frontpage was free, just included with certain versions of office.

Frontpage isn't, but Frontpage Express was (and is).

Will have to look at Mozilla Composer - I guess I go to mozilla.org somewhere and search for it? - never heard of it until today. This will be the problem for Rob's client - they'll be used to Office products, and may not want to learn a tool from a different, and often somewhat quirky stable.

You're right that a proportion of the market is moving, but I'm not sure why one would favour the minority over the majority, that doesn't make commercial sense. I have some little bits of Javascript that work nicely in IE that I had to throw away for Firefox because it just won't execute them successfully - and we're not talking anything very complex, my scripting's pretty rudimentary so on Firefox, my pages look less attractive than they do on IE.

PS anyone know where to get one of those human input validators - the things that prompt you to retype some characters generated as an image? I want to protect one of my clients from bots who keep filling in an application form on one of the sites...

IMHO...the problem isn't really down to the tool which is used, it's the results of the final product. No development tool will be able to compensate for poor design and structure, and these are what harms a websites usability far more than whether the HTML is valid to specific standards (none of which seem to be consistently and properly implemented anyway).

Human input validators...why not just create one static image with a sequence of numbers and letters? If you're getting the sort of bot-filled garbage I think you are, they're not sophisticated beasts and will not be able (or even try) to read text from an image on the page...

Rob.

Human input validation tool here (It's PHP) :

http://sourceforge.net/projects/session-captcha

Mozilla composer last i checked was part of mozilla suite, but i tend to hand code so not used it in a while. It's fairly easy though.

I'm not suggesting he excludes the majority at all, just create standards compliant pages that work across most common browsers. JS does work fine under FF and opera etc, it's just that some JS is IE specific extensions and some can be easily used to do nasty things so is turned off by deafult on these browsers.

Human input validators...why not just create one static image with a sequence of numbers and letters? If you're getting the sort of bot-filled garbage I think you are' date=' they're not sophisticated beasts and will not be able (or even try) to read text from an image on the page...

Rob.[/quote']

Rob that's a great idea, I'll try that and if it doesn't work I can move onto cheeze's suggestion. Thanks both.

Admission - my PHP isn't good enough to implement either idea - obviously I need to replace the original form with a php page, with the form embedded in it, and the action redirected to a second php that will check if the validation passed or not. What I'm not sure about then is how to call the original action from the second php if the validation passed. Make sense? Presumably there's a call I can invoke to pass all the values in the $_POST array to the original script (which is a perl btw).

Apologies for this lengthy thread hijack - if someone has the answer perhaps they could PM me to avoid taking up any more of Rob's original thread. Ta.

Presumably there's a call I can invoke to pass all the values in the $_POST array to the original script (which is a perl btw).

You have a PM...

Rob.