"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47fe8f17@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-10 22:47:18 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47fe4d29@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-10 08:38:31 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:47fda878@qaanaaq...

This is why the lifetime cost and profile of use should be considered
and not just the price on the ticket.

As should the cost of chucking it away when a better tool is made for
the job.
I can see that a 40 year old BOSCH saw is going to be as easy to use as
a new one, maybe.
Just because a tool can last 40 years doesn't mean it should, times
change, safety systems change, materials change buying one built to
last may mean throwing a tool away that could last another 20 years if
you didn't want some better features.

This is a valid point and should also be taken into account. However,
in extremis it is not a reason to view tools as disposable items.



Why not? Its the reason I view cars as being disposable.

Ultimately they are, like all things. The question is how soon.

I could buy a Lada or a BMW to go from A to B. Both achieve that
objective, but they don't do it with the same degree of speed, comfort and
longevity.


The lada does the speed limit the same as the bmw
The lada lasts longer than the bmw.
Comfort depends on personal taste as much as anything.. I *hate* leather
seats for instance and would avoid buying a car with them.