Why Are There So Many Bad Tools?

Page 3 of 7  
On 26 Nov 2004 09:54:38 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

I clearly remember the very first time I saw one, standing brand-new in a parking lot, a lime(?) green color with big whitewalls. Gorgeous car I woulda bought on the spot, `xcept I was only 8 :-) My first was a `74 Dart, for $3.4K. It was kinda opposite to yours, because by then $3K was bargain-basement merchandise: the only options on mine were an auto tranny (but no power steering), radio, front wheel disk brakes, and seat belts for the back seat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GregP writes:

Yeah, well my Chevy was the bargain, 'case I really, really, really wanted the Mercedes Gull Wing, but, IIRC, it cost something like $5600 or $5800. Big bucks for that era.
Charlie Self "Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

You too? Real pisser is that I had a good chance at one, but I was still in high school and didn't have any money to speak of--it was a definite fixer-upper but it was running and the guy wanted 2800 bucks for it. My dad couldn't quite grasp the concept of "car worth 30 grand".

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Also much, much lower emissions and probably somewhat better fuel economy.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

That actually happened years ago. The DEC Alpha was a 64-bit processor and had a 64-bit OS, Windows NT. Right now you can buy 64-bit machines off the shelf at Best Buy and install 64-bit Linux on them (or you could download the Windows Beta, but it's time-bombed for a year and still has a lot of 32 bit code).

Not likely--that's really more of a programming issue and unless you have a truly vast quantity of them (like Library of Congress vast) 32 vs 64 bit isn't going to make much difference.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Here's what RAND thought a home computer would be in 2004. http://tinypic.com/view.html?pic=ociuc
-- Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Jerde wrote:

Loved that photo. Got it from a daughter earlier this week and sent it out to friends and family. A former colleague pointed out that snopes.com considered it bogus; a photo of a submarine mockup at the Smithsonian with a typewriter and a geezer superimposed. Neat photo though. See http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp .
Another colleague from Goddard indicated that his distribution of that photo included some Library of Congress folks who got very interested in its pedigree. Tugging at my collar, I had to explain and apologize. Yaaahoo, did it again!
    mahalo,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

;-) I saw it on the innernet, it has to be true! Thanks for the link to snopes.
-- Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My first response to Silvan went off too soon when I hit the wrong button.
Computers and tools both are more widely available in a profusion of types and styles never before seen on the mass market. It's a good idea to remember that when you can't buy a really good Stanley plane any more, you can now buy Veritas and Lie Nielsen and Steve Knight planes. And when a lot of crap table saws are on the market, a lot of imported table saws are effectively reaching for the stars by providing lower cost cabinet saws of good, if not always excellent, quality to a wider range of buyers than ever before.
There are certainly plenty of crappy tools on the market, but they are generally easy to avoid. Buy from reputable dealers/distributors with good return policies and don't expect to get something for nothing. If a type of tool that has until recently cost $200 is now selling for $39.95, only a fool would expect it to be the same quality as the $200 tool unless there's a major change in the technology.
In other words, don't be a fool.
Charlie Self "Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There is a reason for so many bad tools. Supply and demand. People want to pay a very low price, so the supplier meets that price by cutting quality. There are still a lot of good quality tools around, but I don't think the demand is there as much. Also we are a throw away society, so people would rather buy something cheep, use it up then buy another. We used to buy good quality, and "if" it broke, we would repair it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Nov 2004 13:31:38 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (ToolMiser) wrote:

I agree. At the time you usually do not believe the tool is bad, but will do specific job well. For some tools I buy the best I can find and these tools are the ones I heavily rely on. Last month I spent $185 on Starrett measuring tools--that's a lot of money compared to buying the equivalent Stanley tools at about $24. Maybe I'll be more likely to take care of expensive tools than throw-away tools. But if you think about it, have there been times in the middle of a project and an important tool broke? Recalling those times makes me buy the best I can find, and if I can't afford it I'll wait or not buy it at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Nov 2004 13:31:38 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (ToolMiser) wrote:

I think you've pin pointed it... Also, put that together with the "Instant Gratification" generation, and you have the demand for inexpensive and cheap tools. (I do think there is a difference)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think people buy cheaper, lower quality tools when they need them, more expensive, longer-lasting tools when they want them.
With a job in progress, completion is the major concern. When the job's still a plan, we plan our purchases.
(ToolMiser) wrote:> >There are still a lot of good quality tools around, but I don't think the

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another issue is that increases in technology have narrowed the gap between "high quality tools" and "low quality tools". Now days, any old HomeDepo or Sears special will get the job done. I personally own some higher priced, quality tools, and also opted for the cheaper tools for other needs. mac davis wrote:

want to

quality.
think the

people would

buy good

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (ToolMiser) wrote in message

I've been watching this thread with bemused interest. In my own industry (film & TV production) we are witnessing an evolution of technology (so-called "high definition") that is bringing about an overall lessening of quality. But the marketing departments, under pressure from the owners (stockholders), have mounted a campaign to convince consumers that they are getting something better than they've ever had. As a result, we (those of us use the technology to produce product as well as all of us who consume the end product) are being saddled with an immature technology that offers a fraction of its potential, does not equal what it is replacing, and will never be allowed to develop fully because of the expectation of return on investment. If the producer/marketers can bamboozle a generation of audiences, nobody will remember what was lost and will happily accept the crap that is served to them.
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ian Dodd states:

But it doesn't matter, does it, given the quality of the shows that are aired?
My TV set would cost no more than $180 to buy today, if that. I need to get a new antenna, but don't care enough to climb on the roof, so we can't watch on rainy or windy days. Probably not on snowy days either.
Charlie Self "Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good." H. L. Mencken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

This is one of the things that ticks me off about the movie industry claims that without digital rights management and draconian laws supporting it, "creativity" will be "stifled". If their idea of "creativity" is remaking Bogart movies without Bogart and "CSI" in every city in the Union then it deserves to be stifled. (Don't ge me wrong--CSI is one of the few decent things they've done in recent years, but CSI every night in a different city isn't creativity, it's desperation).

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25 Nov 2004 10:56:03 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) calmly ranted:

Hey, premature newsgroupulation happens when you get older, Charlie.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Life is full of little surprises. * Comprehensive Website Development --Pandora * http://www.diversify.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do the math and you can jusify the faster machine. Your computer may take 1.5 seconds to open a program. The new hot models can open that program in 1.1 seconds, saving you 0.4 seconds every time. Three times a day you save 1.2 seconds, times about 350 days in a typical years. For only a few hundred dollars more, you can save an extra seven seconds a year. That is time you can spend with your family instead of waiting for a computer. It is not about the money, we're talking major quality of life issues here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:)
wrote in message

NEED
in
save
is
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.