Guess we should have gotten a new vacuum sooner

[QueBert]

This should be the bottom line here

$300 is pocket change to some, and a lot to others. You can argue that Dysons aren't worth their price, but they do clean better. Is it worth spending twice as much as a Hover? Depends on who you are, but the cleaning power is superior, and if you want the best cleaning you get the best vacuum. My Electrolux cost $400, and that was about $150 off what it cost everywhere else. But It blows the Hover it replaced out the water, it cleans WAY better and is a lot quieter. It's no louder than some computer fans I've heard. And the Hover wasn't that cheap, my roommate paid $185 for it.

 

[zoiks]

Nothing, and I mean nothing vacuums like a dyson. It is simply the best vacuum, ever. Welcome to vacuum bliss.

Dyson is like comcast. Both of those suck.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

!!!!!!!

I skimmed the thread, and can't believe no one seems to know why the Dyson really does get 'full' after vacuuming with a normal vacuum..


It's because they have extremely aggressive beater bars. Look very closely, most of that dirt is actually carpet fibers

I had an apartment and mine was starting to tear up the carpet after 3 years. Luckily I claimed normal wear and tear and didn't have to pay for it, but I gave it away when I bought a house. I bought a eureka boss (I believe, it's the consumer reports vacuum) and love it. It seems like it might be heavier, but the suction is FAR better. The Eureka has seen a ton of use and still performs fine. The cord holding design is annoying, as is the kickback pedal. Overall I believe the Dyson was designed better as far as usability, but that aggressive beater bar bothered me - I didn't want to replace my carpet every 5-6 years..

 

[Pepsei]

For the love of God, why would anyone spend $300+ for a fucking vacuum cleaner? I'm sure it vacuums well, but for over $300? FUCK THAT.

er... i used to think like you and wasted money on TWO $150 vacuum cleaners in the past. then I got a dyson (refurbed $199). best money ever spent.... i can't believe it sucked up enough furs to make 4 golden retrievers.

 

[spidey07]

!!!!!!!

I skimmed the thread, and can't believe no one seems to know why the Dyson really does get 'full' after vacuuming with a normal vacuum..


It's because they have extremely aggressive beater bars. Look very closely, most of that dirt is actually carpet fibers

I had an apartment and mine was starting to tear up the carpet after 3 years. Luckily I claimed normal wear and tear and didn't have to pay for it, but I gave it away when I bought a house. I bought a eureka boss (I believe, it's the consumer reports vacuum) and love it. It seems like it might be heavier, but the suction is FAR better. The Eureka has seen a ton of use and still performs fine. The cord holding design is annoying, as is the kickback pedal. Overall I believe the Dyson was designed better as far as usability, but that aggressive beater bar bothered me - I didn't want to replace my carpet every 5-6 years..

That's because the carpet in your apartment was cheap. Cheap carpet normally only lasts 5 years or so.

 

[MotF Bane]

er... i used to think like you and wasted money on TWO $150 vacuum cleaners in the past. then I got a dyson (refurbed $199). best money ever spent.... i can't believe it sucked up enough furs to make 4 golden retrievers.

goldens seem to make it their primary goal to shed.

 

[Aharami]

Nothing, and I mean nothing vacuums like a dyson. It is simply the best vacuum, ever. Welcome to vacuum bliss.

I'll have to agree, but the value for a new dyson is pretty lacking. to test this out, i vacuumed half the room with my DC17, and the other half with the hoover whisper I got for my mom. Then I emptied both canisters and switched halves - went over with the dyson on the previously hoovered half and vise versa. The Dyson pulled up a slightly more dust the 2nd time around which means the hoover left more dust the first time around, but the hoover also pulled up some dirt in it's 2nd pass which means the dyson didnt pick up all the dirt. The dyson did a better job overall, but it is also 4x as much money as the hoover. I dont think the dyson did 4x as better a job as the hoover. I'd be pretty pissed if I'd paid full price for my dyson. But luckily mine was a refurb and only cost me $200.

 

[0roo0roo]

!!!!!!!

I skimmed the thread, and can't believe no one seems to know why the Dyson really does get 'full' after vacuuming with a normal vacuum..


It's because they have extremely aggressive beater bars. Look very closely, most of that dirt is actually carpet fibers

I had an apartment and mine was starting to tear up the carpet after 3 years. Luckily I claimed normal wear and tear and didn't have to pay for it, but I gave it away when I bought a house. I bought a eureka boss (I believe, it's the consumer reports vacuum) and love it. It seems like it might be heavier, but the suction is FAR better. The Eureka has seen a ton of use and still performs fine. The cord holding design is annoying, as is the kickback pedal. Overall I believe the Dyson was designed better as far as usability, but that aggressive beater bar bothered me - I didn't want to replace my carpet every 5-6 years..

or the dust isn't compressed like that in a bag, dust bunnies take up tons of space and look big😛 a full vacuum bag on the other hand is quite heavy from all the squashed dust.

 

[nerp]

For the love of God, why would anyone spend $300+ for a fucking vacuum cleaner? I'm sure it vacuums well, but for over $300? FUCK THAT.

Some people buy quality appliances that last 10 years, 15 years, etc, instead of cheapo walmart specials that need to be replaced every year. Duh.

 

[0roo0roo]

Some people buy quality appliances that last 10 years, 15 years, etc, instead of cheapo walmart specials that need to be replaced every year. Duh.

which would be nice ..but in this case its more about design fooling people into thinking they are getting more than what they are getting😛