tricky77puzzle

I haven't heard of the Firefox problem. It's exactly the opposite for me. Whenever Messenger opens a link in IE7, it automatically redirects the request to Firefox.If Vista is this bad, I'd hate to see what Windows 7 is like.

Umm, thanks. I think I'll build up a complete PHP layout of the pages before moving on to this webhost...So right now I have about 31 credits. Does that mean that I only have 1 credit after registering, or does it always reset to 4?

So basically you "buy" a hosting account with 30 credits? I was confused because on Xisto, no matter how many credits above 30 you have, the number always gets reset to 4. Does this mean that if I have 60 credits when registering an account, it becomes 30 instead of 4?

Actually, the form would look exactly like the one that Free-Webhosts uses. Everything is based on compatibility with the database already there. The length portion of category 7 is well simple enough. The form the admins fill out is based on the actual name of the host, not the domain. Only the programming end is hard, but it is very light on computer resources (Light as in about 24 bytes of memory and about 30k processor cycles for calculations at most, possibly about a kilobyte/70k cycles total), and only the result is displayed. People will still rate the hosting. Even on free-webhosts.com, the features rating comes before the user ratings. The system takes low user ratings into account as well, as a "noteworthy" malus. If the average rating is below 6, then the NOTE is taken into account. Also, I never said that just because a webhost gets a lower rating will not be properly listed. It would still be listed, if I ever made a host-rating website for one, for people who want to try it.

I'll do a feature rating analysis based on my feature rating system: Name: X10Hosting Web space: 300 MB Bandwidth: 10 GB (10240 MB) Filesize limit: - File limit: - URL Type: Domain or Subdomain Upload Method: FTP, Browser Forced Ads?: Banner (728x90) - top (If no details about ads are given and ads are present, this is assumed.) Scripting: CGI, PHP, ASP, SSI, FrontPage Extensions, Perl, Python. (*free-webhosts.com review.) Databases: MySQL Miscellaneous: 11 "other" features (*according to Free-Webhosts.com) Penalties: Forum posting required. Total score: 0.43055857774619282877648985989815 (34.44%) So X10 does have a pretty low rating.

I use FireFTP when I'm on Windows and Konqueror when I'm on Kubuntu. Konqueror is a web browser/file manager/FTP client for KDE.

Well, there's always Free-Webhosts.com. Stuff like Add-on Domains, Parked Domains, and .htaccess go into Miscellaneous, and are worth 1.01 only if they exist. The webhost does not get any more points for things that there are more of, such as 10 addon domains compared to only 4.As soon as I get a paid host, I'll make a criterion for paid systems as well. (I don't feel like including one on the site that I'm going to host because you might be offended if I include a website that has a higher absolute rating [>2.21] than yours.)

Right, thanks a lot for clearing that up. How long do you think it will take before my topic is approved/rejected?Oh, never mind. It's already been shown.

Well, at least the programs I run in it. Even Firefox runs faster. Anyway, I don't like the general interface either, mostly because of the fonts. Let's see... Nonstandard programs like ALZip and Stepmania, maybe...

I posted a topic in the "Webhost Review" part of the site. I forgot that it was reserved for Level 1 members and higher and my post didn't show up. However, I still got 11 points for it (it was a REALLY long post, and I currently have 19.47). What happens now? Is it possible for me to delete the topic? Will I get points again if I post it once I become a level 1 member? I just don't want to cheat the system, that's all...

(I can't believe it. I'm only a 5-hour-old user and I'm already giving suggestions to the website such as this!) I once created a very complex features rating for webhosts that I was planning to use on my own website back when I had hyperPHP as a host. (Also 5 hours ago; I still have my site up there, but it will quickly be replaced by a page redirecting to Xisto!) Here's how it works: 0. Base Score The base score for any website is 2. This rating gets slowly chipped away if the features are less than a certain standard. The scoring is also divided into different categories, as follows: 1. Webspace available 2. Bandwidth 3. Filesize Limit 3.1 Maximum Filesize 3.2 File Limit 4. URL Type 5. Upload Method 6. Forced ads? 7. Total Name Rating 7.1 "Naturality" 7.2 Length 8. Scripting 9. Databases 10. Miscellaneous 11. Penalties I kept a lot of the categories that the original Free-Webhosts rating system has. 1. Webspace 1 - (5 / (<total webspace available in MB>)), or 0.1 is the webspace is less than 5.6 MB. If you can request extra webspace, the rating is multiplied by 1.1. So, for example, Xisto's webspace rating (at 500 MB) would be 0.99, or 99%. An unlimited webspace (which is not recommended for Xisto, since 99% is already pretty darn high) would make this 100%. 2. Bandwidth (0.5 - (<total webspace available> / <total bandwidth available>)) * 2 So, for example, Xisto's bandwidth rating (at 10000 MB, or 9.77 GB) is 0.90, or 90%. Note that this rating is relative to the amount of webspace that the host has, and is not an absolute measure. There is no minimum rating for this one. Also note that no units are used. MB/MB = 1, or a unit-free ratio. 3. Filesize limit 3.1 Filesize (<filesize limit> / <total webspace available> + 1) / 2 This one is relatively simple. Since Xisto does not have a file limit, its rating is 1, or 100%. This one has no minimum rating either, since a rating of 0 or a negative rating is impossible. UPDATE: A low filesize limit takes away way too many points. I updated it so that the lowest rating possible is 0.5. 3.2 File limit 1 - (<total webspace available> / (<filesize limit> * <file limit>)) No units are used here because the file limit is unit-free. Xisto's rating for a file limit, since it has none, is 1, or 100%. This one also has no minimum rating, as a rating of 0 or lower is nonsensical (why would a company give you 50 MB and then tell you your filesize limit is 500kb but your file limit is 20? Then you can only use 9.77 MB of space anyway.) 4. URL Type 1 / (1 + <number of directory levels in your root domain>) If only 2nd-level domains are allowed, then multiply the score by 0.5. Xisto's rating is, again, 100%, since it allows for 2nd-level domains as well as 3rd-level domains (subdomains). A site such as ZendURL (where the root domain is /dir/you) would be given a rating of 0.33 because it uses 2 directory levels. 5. Upload Method Base rating is 1. If FTP is not an option, multiply by 0.5. If Browser upload is not an option, multiply by 0.75. Xisto's rating is again, 100%, since it allows for both methods. 6. Forced ads? Base rating is 1. This one is probably the most complex out of all of them. The rating is 6 / (6 + <severity rating of ads>). UPDATE: Scores of infinity are possible. I've added a damping factor. For each banner ad placed on the page of the user's website: If the banner is smaller than 200x140, add 0.5 to the rating. If the banner is larger than 200x140 (either dimension) but smaller than 600x320, add 1.5 to the rating. If the banner is larger than 600x320 (either dimension), add 2.5 to the rating. If the banner is placed on the top, multiply this "plus" score by 1.1. If the banner is placed on the bottom, multiply this "plus" score by 0.8. If the banner is placed in the center, multiply this "plus" score by 1.4. For each pop-up ad placed on the page: If the pop-up is smaller than 240x180, add 1 to the rating. If the pop-up is larger than 240x180 (either dimension) but smaller than 640x480, add 3 to the rating. If the pop-up is larger than 640x480 (either dimension), add 6 to the rating. For each textlink banner placed on the page: Add 0.5 to the severity rating for every link that appears on the text. Xisto's rating is, of course, 100%, because they don't have ads. If your own ads are allowed, multiply the rating by 1.1. 7. Name Rating What's in a name? The difference between users and no users, if you're a webhost! This is my own addition to the feature rating. I really hate it when webhosts name their site something like "007webhost" or "000iWeb". In my opinion, these names are cheap and unattractive. (I was going to say "retarded", but I think that's a bit...uncultured for a post like this.) This system works much in the way the ad rating works. 5 / (<"naturality" rating> + 5) * <length rating> UPDATE: The length rating actually contributed to the score. I've undone this. 7.1 "Naturality" A higher rating is actually less natural. If the name contains "host" in it, add 4 to the naturality rating. If the name contains "web" in it, add 2 to the rating. If the name contains "free" in it, add 5 to the rating. If the name contains "mb" or "gb" preceded by a number, add 3 to the rating. If the name contains a number at the beginning that is 3 digits or longer, add 2 to the rating. If the name of the host itself (not the domain) contains the letter "i" in lowercase anywhere in its name that is not part of any word, add 2 to the rating. Of course, Xisto doesn't have any of these things, so its rating is 100% again! 7.2 Length 0.8 ^ (<length of domain name> - 10) If the domain name is 10 characters or shorter, then assume it to be 10. Trap 17's rating here is 100% again! Yay! But then again, so is 110mb, which was the best host I've had so far until they disabled MySQL databases. The overall rating here is 100%. 8. Scripting The base score is 1. If PHP scripting is not enabled, multiply the score by 0.9. If Safe Mode is ON, multiply the score by 0.85. If any other type of scripting is enabled, multiply the score by 1.01 for each type. UPDATE: Okay, I think safe mode off is a very important feature, and should derate the host if it is on, rather than giving points if it is off. 9. Databases The base score is 1. If MySQL databases are not enabled, multiply the score by 0.9. If any other type of database (e.g. Microsoft Access) is enabled, or if more than 10 MySQL databases are allowed, multiply the score by 1.01 for each type. 10. Miscellaneous features For every miscellanous feature such as CPanel, .htaccess, and whatnot, multiply the score by 1.01. 11. Penalties If anything bad is "noteworthy", multiply the total score by 0.6. (This is in sync with Free-Webhosts.)A "noteworthy" malus is something that is "majorly" unusual. If the host is cobranded (i.e. it belongs to another company; such as iFastNet with ByetHost), multiply the total score by 0.9. If the host requires forum posting for any specific feature, multiply the total score by 0.9. If the host requires forum posting for webhosting, multiply the total score by 0.9. The final score here is everything multiplied together. (If there are an even number of negative category scores, multiply this final score by -1.) Xisto's total rating here is 2.2051298602281734554654828680459. This scoring system truncates anything above 1 to 1.25, and then multiplies the whole thing by 80. So Xisto's score is 100! I realize that this post is huge, but I don't like double posting and there's no real need of an attachment. I hope this page doesn't look too much like one of the rule pages the moderators make. If it is like that, I apologize. (EDIT: Added in placement scores for forced ads.)

Then again, if you divide all the terms by 11, you get something from Pascal's Triangle:11, 44, 110, 220, 385, ...becomes1, 4, 10, 20, 35, ...which would break down into the first, second, and third differences as demonlord described, only divided by 11.Only, isn't the third difference 11 instead of 10?

I might lie about my name (D.E., compared to whatever the heck my real name is) and my exact date of birth (I'm 14, and my birthday is March 12, compared to 13/08 on the lunar calendar), but other than that, I can tell the truth about almost anything. I just have a problem with lying, even on the Internet.

Considering that the difference is 25% (5400 RPM compared to 7200), I'd say that indrazam is right. It IS a pretty big difference.

I considered FreeHostia when I was surfing around for my first host (a few years before I came across Xisto). The only reason I rejected it was because its info input is really complicated and they require all this information like a home address, phone number, etc. (and remember, this is for FREE hosting.) I don't feel like divulging that information because, well... because of my privacy. I'd much rather keep it on my email address where no one cares to look for such info.

I use Vista, but I have Kubuntu 7.10 installed, in case I need to download something from Rapidshare and Windows renames it to an "EFW" file.And yes, I have used, at least once, all non-server Windows versions 3 and higher, except for maybe CE and 7.For some odd reason, Windows is actually faster. The main reason I don't use Linux as often anymore is because a lot of programs I have only run on Windows and I can't bother to set up Wine properly.

I'm (some guy), a person whose last webhost started putting ads on my webpage. I can afford paid hosting without ads, but I don't have a credit card, so I can't pay. Then, I found an ad for Xisto on free-webhosts.com, the place I usually look for when I'm stuck on a webhost that either puts ads or disables PHP. (It's the first time I've actually paid attention to an ad and clicked on it.) I'd heard of Xisto before, on Xisto's website, and I thought, why not? I'll go have a look. I saw that Free-Webhosts gave a features rating of 68, but that was only because of the forum posting. I can be really active on a forum if I want to, so I neglected this. I did a quick calculation, and the features rating came out to be 113.So here I am, ready to start hosting my website as soon as I get the 30 points. (Also, how exactly does the point system work? I'd like to see the forum post.)And, as long as I'm waiting, I might as well convert all my webpages to PHP.