Thread: shared hosting at low prices
Hybrid View
-
22-07-16, 17:43 #1
shared hosting at low prices
Comparing services from iFastNet.com and QHoster.com, which host would you sign up with being in my place?
-
25-07-16, 14:10 #2
Master Member Just starting here
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 905
- Rep Power
- 0
This is an excellent host, which is well-priced and easy to work with. Really glad to deal with QHoster.com
Support is fast, efficient, friendly and understandable even for technical twits like I am! No complains about stupidity of the questions or late time (you know, several conversations went past midnight - great plus to their support service).
-
28-07-16, 14:32 #3
Senior Member Just starting here
- Join Date
- Aug 2015
- Posts
- 161
- Rep Power
- 0
I think you need more reliable options. According to my experience ViUX.com is great webhost which plans are featured and low-cost. They are providing stable servers and 24/7 available support.
-
29-07-16, 12:47 #4
Master Member Just starting here
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 972
- Rep Power
- 0
QHoster.com would work fine for your needs. They offer various server locations:
UK, USA (FL,NJ, TX & CA), Mexico, Canada, Bulgaria, Italy, Lithuania, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Russia, Singapore
-
04-08-16, 14:45 #5
Master Member Just starting here
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Posts
- 900
- Rep Power
- 0
Very pleased that I stumbled on to QHoster.com. Not only is their hardware awesome, they respond like instantly to questions and support issues. Try getting a response from the big hosting companies...lol. That's why I chose them.
-
11-08-16, 15:33 #6
Master Member Just starting here
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Posts
- 878
- Rep Power
- 0
Superb support - I maintain 3 sites, all at QHoster.com.
I tend to place fairly technical support calls. In over 50 support calls (almost never for a problem, almost always for an implementation or coding question) I have never (ever) had worse than 15 min first response, usually with an appropriate resolution. Calls that took longer clearly needed to take longer.
Bookmarks