Would you rather have budget hosting or higher quality?

Just wondering really, what's better, budget shared, lots of space and bandwidth for almost nothing, with a decent reliability and average support, but a TOS which limits the hosting.

Or, expensive shared hosting, but with excellent support and reliability, and you can use the space for whatever you want.

Or, somewhere in between, average support, good uptime, good amounts of space/bandwidth, but not as much as the super-budget as above, but you can use all that space without as many TOS limits?

What do you think? I'm inclined to vote for the last, in-between option.

 

I think the more expensive higher quality hosting is better. It cost more but it is better.

 

well with webhosts you can get cheap hosting that is totally rubbish


and ther fore good servers with good ping u can get cheap hosts and the hosting is perfect allways test the speeds and stuff before u buy

 

True, but when the host is massively overselling, you might get good speeds, because the TOS limits you from hosting anything very resource intensive, any file hosting, proxies, etc. Would you rather pay more for less resources, but be allowed to host anything you want (assuming it's legal).

 

Yes but over selling can hurt the server.