08-26-2004, 01:07 AM
hmmm, I can't see a $79 option, but the computers for the $69 windows servers are 2GHz celerons with 256Mb of ram. Those could either be reconditioned computers bought second hand, or they could be the fancy-package servers from 2 years ago.
Oh, and for an operation like that, that's probably ALL that they are. A monitor/keyboard/mouse can be shared between dozens of computers in a big rack.
Either those computers didn't cost them much recently, or they've already recovered the cost of the computers from previous clients.
It may be a dedicated computer, but it sure as swansea isn't dedicated bandwidth. Apparently they have their own backbone... so, who do they have to pay to run that? oh, that's right, no-one. That's where the money is saved. Whereas other hosts have to pay for their transfer through-the-nose at per gigabyte prices, 1&1 can use as much as they want for what is almost a nil rate for data transfer as not - electrical impulses are not big current draws (in comparison to how much they'd have to use to use a single unit) and the laser's used in fibre-optics are minimal in power usage.
That's where they save their money.
-The computers are small and truly barebones, also reducing power consumption (no optical drives to spin). Notice all celeron/pentium, perhaps they have some sort of deal with Intel.
-Economies of scale
-They don't have to pay for most of their data transfer, but if you use over your limit, they'll still charge you.
At least that's my theory, to be taken with a huge shovel of salt.
Or it could just be that they don't make money on $69 packages, and just use them as loss-leaders to get people to make bigger websites which require their "premium plans", which cost more to the consumer, but possibly not much more to them, and that's where they make their cash.
-Bob
Oh, and for an operation like that, that's probably ALL that they are. A monitor/keyboard/mouse can be shared between dozens of computers in a big rack.
Either those computers didn't cost them much recently, or they've already recovered the cost of the computers from previous clients.
It may be a dedicated computer, but it sure as swansea isn't dedicated bandwidth. Apparently they have their own backbone... so, who do they have to pay to run that? oh, that's right, no-one. That's where the money is saved. Whereas other hosts have to pay for their transfer through-the-nose at per gigabyte prices, 1&1 can use as much as they want for what is almost a nil rate for data transfer as not - electrical impulses are not big current draws (in comparison to how much they'd have to use to use a single unit) and the laser's used in fibre-optics are minimal in power usage.
That's where they save their money.
-The computers are small and truly barebones, also reducing power consumption (no optical drives to spin). Notice all celeron/pentium, perhaps they have some sort of deal with Intel.
-Economies of scale
-They don't have to pay for most of their data transfer, but if you use over your limit, they'll still charge you.
At least that's my theory, to be taken with a huge shovel of salt.
Or it could just be that they don't make money on $69 packages, and just use them as loss-leaders to get people to make bigger websites which require their "premium plans", which cost more to the consumer, but possibly not much more to them, and that's where they make their cash.
-Bob