This is a guest blog post by Ryan Carey, of My 3 Quotes.
How important is a well-known name brand for you? That is a big question and the answer greatly affects our buying decisions. For example, when several in-home window presentations by high-pressure salespeople are giving you a headache, do you get generic ibuprofen or do you pay a little extra for Advil? The generic brand shows the same percentage of ingredients, but this is a huge headache so maybe its best to be on the safe side?
Over the years, the most common question I get is, "So how does this window compare against Andersen, Marvin, or Pella?" I could show the comparable ingredients or the same U-factors, but some folks are just more comfortable with that well-known name brand. They know the manufacturer has been around for a long time and therefore has made many customers happy. They are also concerned about the company being around in the future for warranty issues.
If you read Window Replacement: Part 1, you know how important I believe that U-factors are in new windows. In Part 2, I went through the pros and cons of different window materials and install methods. For Part 3, we will focus on the Big 3: Marvin, Andersen, and Pella. I will even add a 3.5 for Weather Shield. You won't normally hear unbiased opinions on these windows, because typically the person doing the writing has a particular window they are trying to sell.

To begin on the straight talk, I just want to say every one of these companies' windows were pretty awful in the 70's, 80's, and even into the 90's before Low E, Argon filled glass came along. This had not as much to do with them, as it did with the struggle of finding a wood interior window that worked with the new technology of double pane glass and aluminum spacers. EVERY company had issues with that. Hardwood was no longer being used for windows; it was mostly soft, quick-growth pine. The two panes of clear glass were separated by an aluminum spacer on the perimeter, which transferred in the cold from the outside because the aluminum is very conductive. That area would develop condensation, freeze, thaw, and destroy the wood where it meets the glass. Sometimes the water got into the frame and completely rotted it out.
I kept running into the same thing with homeowners. If their windows from that era were Marvin, they hated Marvin and would never use them again. If they had Andersen, they hated Andersen and would never use them again. If they had Pella or Weather Shield, well, you can guess. This is why you will find a lot of negative reviews about every kind of window out there. Unless the homeowner had very good humidity control, the customer was in for trouble with wood windows from that era in our state. Many negative reviews also were the result of bad installs.
Times have changed; spacers have changed to less conductive stainless steel, U-shaped tin steel, and foam polymers (my personal favorite-virtually no conduction of cold). Low-E and Argon glass has also hindered temperature transfer and greatly cut down UV rays that help damage the wood. While the performances have greatly improved and the wood will last longer, I still refuse to put a real wood window with any type of metal spacer in my house. Even if it is just a little maintenance from time to time with some steel wool and varnish, it is more than I want to do. Many people love real wood and feel different than me on that topic.
Times have also changed with the window market. Back in the day, these big window brands were mainly new construction, and none of them used to custom size for remodel openings. Times were so good they would actually tell customers, "YOU alter YOUR openings to fit OUR windows." Needless to say, they have all jumped headlong into the custom-sized replacement window market at this point.