iheartmaytag
Well-known member
Hans
The good ole days were better, shopping wise.
We can go back. First we need a Delorean. . .
The good ole days were better, shopping wise.
We can go back. First we need a Delorean. . .
I think this is how a lot of people appliance shop"
- Thread starter iheartmaytag
- Start date
Help Support :
norgeway
Well-known member
NAAAA
A Desoto!!! The group im referring to is known as Americas Rockabillys...look it up, its really fun!
A Desoto!!! The group im referring to is known as Americas Rockabillys...look it up, its really fun!
mixguy
Well-known member
Hotpoint Refrigerator & Tappan Doughboy
The Tappan is from 1949 and the Hotpoint is from 1954. Both still going strong
The Tappan is from 1949 and the Hotpoint is from 1954. Both still going strong
passatdoc
Well-known member
A young, newly wed employee in our office, who currently is in an apartment but who has begun to shop for a condo with her new husband, asked the middle aged among us at work "what brand of appliances do you own, what should we be looking for". I explained I buy by feature and color, but don't care if badges or name brands differ, and that in my mind the only reason to buy all appliances with the same brand is if the company is offering major discounts or rebates to customers who purchase a bundled group of appliances, and then only if the feature set and quality you want is present.
I told her in my case the DW is Bosch (14 years old, no repairs or service issues EVER), gas range is Frigidaire (one of only four non-commercial brands offering gas convection when purchased 2001; now many more choices), the over the range microwave hood is Amana (purchased because it was smaller vertically than the competitors by 2 inches, offering a few inches of extra space between it and the range cooktop), and the counter depth fridge is Frigidaire Gallery (the Kitchen Aid competition would not fit under the cabinets above the fridge; Frigidaire fit without mods) which is 11 years old, only service issue was an icemaker solenoid that failed and which I replaced myself (thank you Allan/Whirlcool for link to repairclinic.com). The laundry set, which is in the garage where "matching" is not essential, is Electrolux.
So I have a mish-mash of brands but I like the feature sets of all of them and have had only one lemon (a GE over the range microwave bought with the range and DW as a bundle---merchant gave a discount because I bought three major appliances at once, even though different brands--lost its control panel and the repair was the same as the Amana so I took the new Amana). I researched my purchases (CR, asking for input here) and bought what I wanted, but never as a set (the counter depth fridge was purchased alone, several years after the range DW and MW) and the only thing I ever regretted was the GE over the range microwave, which burned out (control panel, not the tube) after less than eight years of light use. The GE was also bulky and I was much happier with the Amana's smaller profile and no frills control panel. I never used most of the GE's fancy features.
I told her in my case the DW is Bosch (14 years old, no repairs or service issues EVER), gas range is Frigidaire (one of only four non-commercial brands offering gas convection when purchased 2001; now many more choices), the over the range microwave hood is Amana (purchased because it was smaller vertically than the competitors by 2 inches, offering a few inches of extra space between it and the range cooktop), and the counter depth fridge is Frigidaire Gallery (the Kitchen Aid competition would not fit under the cabinets above the fridge; Frigidaire fit without mods) which is 11 years old, only service issue was an icemaker solenoid that failed and which I replaced myself (thank you Allan/Whirlcool for link to repairclinic.com). The laundry set, which is in the garage where "matching" is not essential, is Electrolux.
So I have a mish-mash of brands but I like the feature sets of all of them and have had only one lemon (a GE over the range microwave bought with the range and DW as a bundle---merchant gave a discount because I bought three major appliances at once, even though different brands--lost its control panel and the repair was the same as the Amana so I took the new Amana). I researched my purchases (CR, asking for input here) and bought what I wanted, but never as a set (the counter depth fridge was purchased alone, several years after the range DW and MW) and the only thing I ever regretted was the GE over the range microwave, which burned out (control panel, not the tube) after less than eight years of light use. The GE was also bulky and I was much happier with the Amana's smaller profile and no frills control panel. I never used most of the GE's fancy features.
warmsecondrinse
Well-known member
One thing aspect of the 1950's that does appeal to me is the fact that many items were designed to be user serviceable. Now, not so much.
As far as computers go, as I see it a major problem was/is that those giving the training (regardless of who they are or where they're from) make the following 'mistakes', perhaps because they're misinformed as to their audience:
1. They assume too high a level of background knowledge. Those who might have some background knowledge frequently use older terminology with the the trainers are not familiar.
2. They assume that their audience had access to the HW/SW (hardware/software) before the training and will have access to it afterward. This was generally not the case.
3. They assume an almost comically high level of discretionary time to 'play' with the new HW/SW at home.
4. They refuse to address questions along the lines of "How does this make my job easier? How does this make me more productive?"
To be fair, the trainers are generally young, single people who have only themselves to worry about and therefore can re-arrange their schedules to spend time with new HW/SW when they receive their own training.
Where I worked, the trainees' usually had some combination of the following as feedback:
1. The training moved much too fast and way too much unexplained jargon was used. When pressed for explanations of the jargon, explaining was usually done with yet more jargon.
2. The on-the-job time to apply whatever they might have learned wasn't vaguely close to enough.
3. The rhetorical question of "Who's coming to my home to take over my home responsibilities so I can play with this new HW/SW?"
Administration usually concluded that the trainees were 'unwilling' to change and 'didn't want' to spend the time/energy necessary to learn. This attitude generally killed whatever buy-in the trainees might have had originally.
In short, the training was generally inappropriate and the administration generally refused to acknowledge the existence of any systemic, logistic, physical obstacles to trainee buy-in or adaptation. The only factors regarded as 'real' were the trainees' effort and attitude.
Jim
As far as computers go, as I see it a major problem was/is that those giving the training (regardless of who they are or where they're from) make the following 'mistakes', perhaps because they're misinformed as to their audience:
1. They assume too high a level of background knowledge. Those who might have some background knowledge frequently use older terminology with the the trainers are not familiar.
2. They assume that their audience had access to the HW/SW (hardware/software) before the training and will have access to it afterward. This was generally not the case.
3. They assume an almost comically high level of discretionary time to 'play' with the new HW/SW at home.
4. They refuse to address questions along the lines of "How does this make my job easier? How does this make me more productive?"
To be fair, the trainers are generally young, single people who have only themselves to worry about and therefore can re-arrange their schedules to spend time with new HW/SW when they receive their own training.
Where I worked, the trainees' usually had some combination of the following as feedback:
1. The training moved much too fast and way too much unexplained jargon was used. When pressed for explanations of the jargon, explaining was usually done with yet more jargon.
2. The on-the-job time to apply whatever they might have learned wasn't vaguely close to enough.
3. The rhetorical question of "Who's coming to my home to take over my home responsibilities so I can play with this new HW/SW?"
Administration usually concluded that the trainees were 'unwilling' to change and 'didn't want' to spend the time/energy necessary to learn. This attitude generally killed whatever buy-in the trainees might have had originally.
In short, the training was generally inappropriate and the administration generally refused to acknowledge the existence of any systemic, logistic, physical obstacles to trainee buy-in or adaptation. The only factors regarded as 'real' were the trainees' effort and attitude.
Jim
