I think you will find that folks on here probably have experience with all of them. My favorite of that bunch is the Integrity. Are you doing full tear outs on all of them?

Right now you seem focused on the interior paint of the products and you shouldn't be. Factory offerings such as stains and paints are a convenience to the end user to save them that extra step of either doing it themselves or hiring someone. I have yet to see a factory pre finish match what can be done in the field. Some are better than others but if you compare the costs of the factory versus the field applied, there is a tremendous difference. I recommend the factory as nothing more than a stopgap. If you read the warranty of a wood window, it says that you should paint it as soon as possible to prevent a number of different things from happening.

Choose the best window for your needs, get the factory finish and re-paint if you aren't satisfied. That is what I would do.

Consumer reports did testing of windows recently and the 400TW came out higher rated

Nine Acre,

CR has been discussed on here quite a bit as well as questioned in terms of its efficacy as an evaluation tool.

Windows on Washington and East Bay 10

Thank you for your input. I know I am focused on the interior but I am also concerned about the quality of the window. I know that painting wouldn't be the end of the world it is that it would just be one more thing to either have to do ourselves or pay the contractor. We are also not able to go top of the line either as money is a consideration. East Bay I don't know if I agree with you about the factory finish for all windows. The Andersen 400 and A series look very good painted white from the manufacturer. The Marvins would have to be painted.

What I am also looking for is peoples experience with the different lines and their quality.

TeachinRocks

Window on Washington -
I forgot to answer your question about tear out. Yes - Tear out. All new frames as well.

I've had the TW400 for 20 years with no problems. The biggest factor effecting the windows is how well the installation is done by the contractor. They're all good windows.

In terms of the CR testing, it's the only objective testing I'm aware of. All else tends to be anecdotal opinions.

Nine Acre,

What objective testing are you referring to? I see not specific data points from CR. Red circles or half red circles is hardly given the consumer the finite data on a test specimen.

I would agree with you that much of what you hear from many window people is anecdotal, but the "all else" is quite a broad and far reaching label. Wouldn't a personal statement like "I've had the TW400 for 20 years with no problems" kind of fall under the "anecdotal" tag?

Here are more than a few folks that are not happy with their 400 series: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/andersen_windows.html

I am not bashing Andersen. I think they make a fine product. I just challenge the assertion that CR is the only objective testing out there.

The structural test results on the TW 400 for air leakage are only listed as pass/fail on their site (i.e. sub-0.30) and a window that leaks at a rate of 0.29 could pass but would still be considered quite drafty in the real world.

I would like to see more wood windows on this list before I tell a person that this list is the gospel.

The thoughts and opinions of any of the pros that post on this forum could be labeled "anecdotal", however, I think that a pro who has dealt with windows for most of their career is hardly comparable to a homeowner who has a given window in their home. We don't do a bunch of wood so I tend to defer to the pros on here that do deal in wood a bunch. I know in the case of Millworkman, he has zero agenda and has probably had more wood windows pass through his office than the next 10 guys combined. When it comes to wood, I trust his opinion implicitly.

+1 regarding the CR testing. It is really the definition of anecdotal in itself, and hardly comprehensive in regard to the products that it reviews. The only real objective data is the independently tested thermal and structural ratings that every window is assigned. Beyond that, everything will have some subjectivity. The opinions of both pros (more informed, but perhaps more biased) and consumers (generally less informed due to lack of experience with a wide range of products) should all be given some level of consideration.

neoneweb2 you didn't feel like they looked primed but not painted?

I prefer glossy smooth factory painted finishes (like my fiberglass door) and I would agree the marvins dont have that look but I had a different perspective. looking at other homes i could see that the higher end homes had a wood interior on their windows, and the lower end had vinyl interior. the vinyl was smooth and glossy which appealed in the showroom but it looked cheaper after installation when the surrounding wood trim and furnishings would show off the plastic-y ness of it. windows are a huge investment and I would suggest looking at the different interiors after install as well since it made a big difference to me. included a pic that shows the window, trim, and wall together.