Webhost needed for Classic ASP based sites
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
I thought about Azure, but did not want to deal with spinning up a full server for a temp solution.
Does their web hosting require spinning up VMs? I thought that it didn't.
No, it does not, but i was replying to the recommendation as an option.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
I thought about Azure, but did not want to deal with spinning up a full server for a temp solution.
Does their web hosting require spinning up VMs? I thought that it didn't.
No, it does not, but i was replying to the recommendation as an option.
I see, sorry.
-
.NET 1.0 it looks like so all the way back
-
@GregoryHall ASP.NET is not ASP in any way. That's a completely separate technology that replaced ASP (see the rant Jared complained about in this thread - one of the risks of ASP is that many people use it as incorrect slang for ASP.NET.)
-
I'd recommend going with Host gator for Classic ASP. You can use either MySQL or MSSQL db's as well. http://www.hostgator.com/windows-hosting
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I'd recommend going with Host gator for Classic ASP. You can use either MySQL or MSSQL db's as well. http://www.hostgator.com/windows-hosting
Good to know. Having Classic ASP with MS SQL must set them apart a bit.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Which of these would you all recommend for a classic ASP based website?
None, I would update my code.
Really, the only ones I know who did classic old school ASP are NetFirms and Enterhost. NetFirms pissed me off by not fixing shit in less than a month, Enterhost was pretty good but I think they got away from shared web hosting.
-
Had a good meeting with the potential client. We are going to bring them a quote to migrate three of their 15+ websites to modern hosting.
Their stuff is really really old. The content though at least gets fairly decent updates. So moving things up to new standards and using some responsive web design is going to seem like night and day to them.
Our developer likes Foundation and ASP.net, so I expect it to be done that way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@GregoryHall ASP.NET is not ASP in any way. That's a completely separate technology that replaced ASP (see the rant Jared complained about in this thread - one of the risks of ASP is that many people use it as incorrect slang for ASP.NET.)
I agree that anything written in Classic ASP needs to be replaced. There is really is no justification for not keeping things more up to date than 15 years ago design standards.
Thanks for the rest of you bringing suggestions. We will be reviewing their 3 chosen sites over the next couple days.
-
For those wonder why keeping up to date matters.... not only are there issues like security concerns (not patches since the 90s!!) and the concerns that all support for it will drop. But there are software concerns like investing in technical debt or finding that hosting options like what we see here, erode over time. Even those MS still provides the code to allow you to run ASP, you slowly lose freedom over time as fewer and fewer people and businesses find it economically valuable to keep supporting the platform.
-
I doubt that there is anyone on ML who thinks that keeping up to date doesn't matter. But it's about doing your own cost-benefit analysis. It's too simplistic to say you should never run legacy applications. Managing IT budgets is often about compromise.
And this isn't a good example anyway as Microsoft still support it, there aren't major security concerns and pretty much all Windows hosting providers offer it. You might not like it, but those are the facts.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
And this isn't a good example anyway as Microsoft still support it, there aren't major security concerns and pretty much all Windows hosting providers offer it. You might not like it, but those are the facts.
It's not as black and white as that. To be clear, Microsoft does support ASP, but it is a trick of terminology. It officially supports the "use of" ASP, not the ASP platform itself. They are careful about this wording. It means that they support it in a limited fashion, which is less than I think most businesses paying for Windows support would be happy to realize. It pretty much means that Microsoft provides the DLLs for it to work, but doesn't support them if there are problems.
And yes, it is "currently" supported, but it is not supported on current OSes. Windows Server 2012 has stated support. Windows Server 2012 R2 and later do not. Microsoft might decide to officially support it on the current OS in the future, but at this time they are not.
So yes, by strict definition, ASP is supported. But it is not supported in the way that most people mean the term. It's a grey area where "using ASP" is supported, but ASP itself is not.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
But it's about doing your own cost-benefit analysis. It's too simplistic to say you should never run legacy applications.
Of course, there are always times that legacy applications need to be run. But there are limits too. ASP as a platform has been legacy for a decade and a half. That's a long time. It has a pending end date for when it may not be available any longer in any capacity. It presents platform level risk which may prove to not matter, but may prove to be extremely limiting in the future - that's the nature of risk, we don't know what will happen with hardware and software down the road. But it is technical debt building up in a platform that is nearly all of the way through its "trailing off support" timeframe.
It's fine to have legacy apps. But it is also important to identify when a legacy app is becoming too legacy. In the OP's case, ASP created support and hosting risk in addition to normal concerns. Those were probably types of risk that were not considered in the past. Any business running ASP is constrained if they decide that they want to go hosted, for example. They might not ever decide to do that, but there is technical debt potentially making that decision for them, as well.
Any ongoing support of an ASP legacy app means that investment is being put into the old system. Maybe that is trivial, maybe it is major. Technical debt is a hidden cost. Money goes into keeping the old system running instead of being implemented in a new system. The effort to support the old could offset the effort to replace it.
