On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:36:01 -0000, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:



What? It's a moving target.

Obviously, which is why I went on to point out that there was no point
in including specifics on models.


You would just say, buy Makita and more Makita.

That wasn't the point at all. It is noticable and obvious that
certain manufacturers tend to have good track records on certain tool
types. I gave examples of that. It is therefore reasonable, when
putting together a purchasing short list to factor that in.

I specifically pointed out that sometimes manufacturers have a dud
design, even in a product type in which they normally excell. It
doesn't often happen, but when it does, the product is either fixed or
killed quickly.


As Mike says, the poor ******* who is broke after buying his first hose,
should buy a Makita to do the job around the house?

Depending on the *complete* circumstances.

Once again, you are coming back to the oversimplistic view that
purchase price is the only factor to consider.

I will accept that if somebody has just bought their first house that
money may be tight.

However, if one looks at a bigger picture, it can be very easy to
justify investment on a good quality tool.

For example, it may well be that because he has bought said house that
he works a lot of hours to produce extra income to fund its purchase,
leaving less free time. It may also be that work is required to be
done to the house. Taking these together, maximising productivity by
choosing a product that is unlikely to have problems, which is well
controlled and comfortable to use can be a good way to achieve what is
required. In that scenario, spending more money for a something that
fits these crtieria can be a sound and sensible investment, even if it
doesn't equate to paying the lowest price.


You are just plainly unobjective when it come to this point.

Actually I'm highly objective and tend to look at a wide range of
issues.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl