Why I do not recommend traditional web hosting
Published
Shared hosting feels familiar and safe, but for a small business it usually means slower pages and more upkeep than a modern alternative.
When a company orders a website, hosting is the part nobody thinks about. It comes bundled with the quote, costs ten euros a month and is forgotten — until the site is slow or something breaks.
What is wrong with shared hosting
- Your site runs on one server in one location. Every request from a distant visitor travels there and back.
- That server is shared with dozens of other sites. A neighbour traffic spike slows your pages down.
- Software needs patching. On WordPress there is plenty to patch — and skipping it is a security risk.
- You pay a flat monthly fee whether ten or ten thousand people visit.
What I use instead
I build on a platform that serves pages from a global network close to the visitor, with no single server to crash or go unpatched. In practice that means faster pages and lower cost: hosting a typical business site runs a few euros a month.
When shared hosting is still the right call
If your site needs something that requires an always-on server — heavy background jobs or a legacy system that cannot be moved — a traditional server still makes sense. I will say so plainly if that is your case.