On 2007-06-01 14:21:52 +0100, "
said:

On Jun 1, 1:01 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-06-01 12:10:11 +0100, "
said:

But you're a tradesman and depend upon your tools. It's different for
occasional DIY use. The OP didn't specify what they want it for.

There is not a correlation between the notion of "occasional DIY use"
and whether or not the tool is good enough for the job.

Either it is, or it isn't.

It is.

Which is fortunate.



It might be safe, accurate, usable, repeatable and adequately powered,
but only rated to run for 10 minutes each fortnight. That would be
reasonable DIY use, but is not likely to be found in one tool.

10 mins/fortnight sounds like occasional use to me.

Yes it is, but is a separate issue to quality.




More likely is that it will fall short on most or all of these issues
or be adequate for the purpose.

It was adequate for the purpose, all purposes during the 5 years I've
had it.

Then that's fine.



It doesn't make sense to say that because a tool is only for occasional
DIY use that it's therefore OK to buy the lowest priced inadequate one.

I never said anything about it being the lowest price or inadequate.
It quite clearly is adequate. Just ask SWMBO about the good job I did
on the doors;-)


If the issue is purchase price, then there also has to be an acceptance
of a loss of quality in the outcome.

Not absolutely. Quality and purchase price do not go hand in hand.
Money CAN by better quality, it can also pay for the "brand".

Both are true. As in all things, caveat emptor. However, if one pays
for a quality product, there is little room for argument on the part of
the supplier for providing anything less than excellent. At teh low
end of the market it becomes a debate between expectation and price
paid.