What features does the 9985 have that can justify paying twice the cost of a new 9960? Looks like just a better UI Display and more stitches?
1418712
I cannot remember....I am sure you can go online with Singer and see...or YouTube. I bought the more expensive model because it did have, I think, more stitch designs, it also cuts thread and I felt for a little extra money, I would go with the best, as it might be my last machine. I test drove the Bernina, Viking, Baby Lock.....I hate my Janome, which is why I was trying to find a better machine overall....I felt the Bernina is a rip-off...women ooh and ah over it to beat the band, but honestly....for the thousands of dollars and the fact that feet are $50.00 each and more...it is an advertising schmooze. Getting women to believe the Bernina is the best is just that...a schmooze! Viking and Singer are now made at the same manufacturing plant....Brother and Baby Lock are made by the same company, also. I have a stand alone embroidery machine by Janome...and I have a Babylock Serger (it's awesome)....and of all the machines I own..,.if I have a project....I go immediately to my Singer Quantum Stylist....it has the strength and the power and all the stitch designs I will ever need...it is much easier to program than the Brother...easier to thread than the Brother...is quieter than the Brother and when it cuts the thread it is MUCH quieter than the Brother and I cannot imagine a project other than sewing awning canvas that it can't do. If you are going to sew awning canvas, then get a mechanical machine...don't be fooled by the word COMMERCIAL....get a TRUE hardcore mechanical machine that doesn't do anything but sew straight stitches
1442952
There are only two differences (besides price). The 85 has 30,000:1 contrast ratio vs. the 80's 20,000:1. Side by side the average buyer would not notice the difference, and viewed separately definitely not missed. Second, the 85 has an SVGA PC input, which in my opinion is a joke because it doesn't utilize the full 1080p anyway (only 720p at best). You would need a laptop or PC with a video card capable of either HDMI out to HDMI in on the TV, or DVI out using a DVI-HDMI cable for HDMI into the TV to get the full 1080p from a laptop or PC - assuming you even care about using the TV in that capacity in the first place. My advice is save your $$, buy the 80, and put the savings into a new or upgraded HT setup or BD player if you haven't bought one yet. A $218 difference (27% increase in price) for very little benefit is nothing to take lightly.
1979932
I only own the 2540, but just scanning the specs, it seems as if the 2542 is faster. I can't see any other notable difference: both offer wireless connectivity and the ability to do basic printing jobs as well as scanning and copying. They use the same inks, and the printing & scanning resolution seems similar. You may want to ask HP what the differences between them are (vs whether they are basically the same device). The paper feed on the 2542 may be different? But I can't tell without having one here, and suspect that many others out there own either one or the other but not both, and so may have a tough time addressing this question. I only own the 2540, but just scanning the specs, it seems as if the 2542 is faster. I can't see any other notable difference: both offer wireless connectivity and the ability to do basic printing jobs as well as scanning and copying. They use the same inks, and the printing & scanning resolution seems similar. You may want to ask HP what the differences between them are (vs whether they are basically the same device). The paper feed on the 2542 may be different? But I can't tell without having one here, and suspect that many others out there own either one or the other but not both, and so... » Read More I only own the 2540, but just scanning the specs, it seems as if the 2542 is faster. I can't see any other notable difference: both offer wireless connectivity and the ability to do basic printing jobs as well as scanning and copying. They use the same inks, and the printing & scanning resolution seems similar. You may want to ask HP what the differences between them are (vs whether they are basically the same device). The paper feed on the 2542 may be different? But I can't tell without having one here, and suspect that many others out there own either one or the other but not both, and so may have a tough time addressing this question. « Show Less
280436
I own both, and as others have said, the differences are mainly aesthetic. There are a few functional changes though. Aluminum skin, flush mount two cell battery, revised touchpad with single rocker style button, downgraded speakers (barely), and rearranged ports (IMO for the better).Battery life and screen brightness are definitely better on the 1000H, but I think the (slightly) smaller footprint, lighter weight, thinner profile, better mouse and non-print magnet lid more than cover the advantages of the 1000H. The battery life is more than adequate (3 to 3.5 hours).
1537208
I think CNET might review these soon. In the mean time, you could check their reviews of the 606 and the 1018 as a starting point, as well as Amazon reviews of those products. You can also download manuals for the 607 and 1019 (probably) to compare features and specs.
343249
Thanks! I appreciate the information. I'll probably buy the U100 (aren't lower numbers usually cheaper?), or maybe the Acer equivalent or even the Asus, though that seems to be a bit heavier. (I'd welcome opinions on the relative merits of these computers.)
2059583
I've used both. I think the newer model is worth the extra money. The screen resolution seems better to me, and the newer model is more adjustable. Also, the auto-rotating screen is a nice feature.
2071356
The 3960X is better..but between the 3970x nd the 4960X...The 3970X is better
536987
I am also interested in one HP W2207 22¨...That I think its new and better. However I will appreciatte if someone could compared these two monitors...Please!!
1290836
Since the v4100 was replaced by the v5100 you can get a great deal if you can find one. My local ABC Warehouse still had one and I just picked up a KDL-46V4100 this week for $800. So far, it's great. One thing is, the screen is more reflective than my Toshiba, so be ready for some glare depending on the room it's in.
384886
I would get the latest version that you can get. It probably not wort the hassle for the few dollars difference between the &#699;Old Version" and newer versions. Any way, it&#699;s an excellent product and has saved my sanity several times and actually saved me money on repairs, without any hassles.
1753952
Good website. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge. I will probably go with the first one an get the software if needed. good advice. The new one looks pretty, gut I don't spend money if there isn't enough upgrade to justify the added espense.
1410957
Thats almost laughable to consider a 92" tv priced at 4k as too expensive. If you cant afford it the 73" models can be found around 1k now though... I currently am using a 73838, but will be soon upgrading to this 92" and the price for a screen this size is unbeatable. If you really need 92" just wait a couple years and they will drop in price, but in the mean time you will be missing out and IMHO the extra grand or two you will spend now is well worth not having to wait.
1655514
The -95 has an LCD display, the -85 does not. The -85 has indicator lights instead. Otherwise they're the same. It's your choice whether the LCD display is worth the extra money.The 89XX series advertises better cutters and foil than the previous 85XX series. The body configurations are the same, though, so you can upgrade an 85XX (Activator) body with an 89XX (360 Complete) cutter & foil set. I've done this myself, and saved the cost of buying a whole new shaver just to get the new cutter & foil.
448858
Quentin's right on there - the color difference is noticeable and does look better.Also, with the 120hz processor, it accepts 1080p over the component-in input, which means you'll get a much better picture from non-HDMI devices such as the XBox 360.Also, at the shops I've seen lots of banding issues (read up on this - common problem) with the 62U, but didn't see that at all with the 92Us.Locally the price differential is only $400 ($3400 at local stores, vs $3000 for the 62U). The $1k difference is probably due to price breaks on the to-be-discontinued 62U line. Quentin's right on there - the color difference is noticeable and does look better.Also, with the 120hz processor, it accepts 1080p over the component-in input, which means you'll get a much better picture from non-HDMI devices such as the XBox 360.Also, at the shops I've seen lots of banding issues (read up on this - common problem) with the 62U, but didn't see that at all with the 92Us.Locally the price differential is only $400 ($3400 at local stores, vs $3000 for the 62U). The $1k difference is probably due to price breaks on the to-be-discontinued... » Read More Quentin's right on there - the color difference is noticeable and does look better.Also, with the 120hz processor, it accepts 1080p over the component-in input, which means you'll get a much better picture from non-HDMI devices such as the XBox 360.Also, at the shops I've seen lots of banding issues (read up on this - common problem) with the 62U, but didn't see that at all with the 92Us.Locally the price differential is only $400 ($3400 at local stores, vs $3000 for the 62U). The $1k difference is probably due to price breaks on the to-be-discontinued 62U line. « Show Less
1105897
If I were buying, I'd go for the EM10 for $100 more. While the 5 is great, the 10's improvements are worth the money.
759390
No I not. The 920 is slightly larger and the back is curved unlike the 900, which is flat.