Well, since you are determined to replace... You can probably use either type of window, though to be honest, it's always harder than window companies describe. I just put in a couple of Marvin Infinity windows (fiberglass insert replacements) in our 50 yr old house, and I must say, they look a h*ll of a lot better than the original wooden junk with aluminum triple-track storms. And they work. The standard advice for which type to use is to look at the frame condition. If they are rotted, or out of square, they should come out, and new construction windows go in. A pressure treated frame can be built inside the opening if it is a masonry house. If they're not, you can use inserts, which are available in wood and fiberglass, too. The outsides were originally wood, and then sometime later someone added aluminum casing to them. This is what you'll probably have to do also. You can hire someone to do this for you, or the window company can do it, or you can get the tools & materials to do it yourself. The caulking is fairly standard stuff that is usually paintable. I don't know if in the end this will be much quicker then restoring the old ones, but you'd probably like everything to match. Either way, you're looking at a good bit of $$$. I'd probably hire this job out to a company that makes the window style you like. Or do a couple a year, like I am!

Hi E.R., We got some solar screening fro Giam Real Goods years ago and is probably similar to what they have at Lowes these days. Real heavy, tight webbing that you can sort of see out at a distance, but the closer you get to it, the harder to see out. I think you are on track with the film that is typically squeegied on. There is an outfit here that does it. When they first started, the mirrored finish was all they offered, but I noticed that now they have some that is basically no darker than todays windows that are coated with low-e. Appearently it's very effective in controlling heat gain, but you can still easily enjoy the views. The mirrored film darkened the view quite a bit so you might look into diy kits that have the newer film types. I watched the install on a remodel I was doing and it's pretty straight forward. I likened it to wall papering where they cut the sheets a tad big, moistened the panes, slid it on and squeegied the air bubbles out. After drying, they trimmed the overlap to the inside of the panes. I haven't had the opportunity to try it diy, but it seems like a simple process. Cool to replicate the screen frames with wood. Im sure you are familiar with the Kreg pocket hole system. It's reliable and is easier than making lap joints, mortise and tenons, or even dowel pins when making up the frames. If you dont have one you might consider it for your frame projects and comes in handy for future projects such as cabinet frames. When in N.W. Floria, (Gulf Breeze), We used copper screening for vents that were behind ornamental grates on a period home. The house also had copper flashing that I didn't get to see but Im sure patinad nicely. You might consider copper screening for your frames. Have a good one. Here is a link that might be useful: Kreg pocket hole

@ BlakelyProperties, making a blanket statement like that is dangerously close to the blanket statement that they DO. Every home is different and the amount of savings seen will vary depending on the original windows, the product and installation used for replacement, along with other factors of the home. I will agree with what I believe is the intent of your post however, in that consumers are wise to think twice about the claims made by some unscrupulous window salesmen. Manufactures and dealers alike have been cracked-down on in recent years for their highly exaggerated energy savings "guarantees", and other such misleading advertising.

I really like old windows. I believe that in the correct circumstance they are so much a part of charm of an older home that it is worth the effort to try to save them. I understand the desire of many people to try to do everything possible to save the original windows in a classic home, but I also understand the appeal of replacing them for the improvement in energy consumption, comfort, and the potential ease of maintenance. There are a lot of misconceptions about old windows versus new windows and many opinions most of them based on feelings and not facts that come up in discussions like this one. I am going to offer a few simple facts that relate to restoration versus replacement. Fact  if you were to opt for top-quality vinyl windows, you could get them made in any style that you wanted  styles that would fit your home and that would be virtually indistinguishable from the original windows in your home  and, these windows could last every bit as long as your home. But, note that I said "top-quality". A typical low end replacement vinyl window doesnÂt come close to meeting the same sort of standards as does a top-quality product  from the vinyl used, to the glass used, to the hardware used  it could be like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari (and what happened to Yugo?). The guy in the Sunday paper who promises to replace every window in your home at "$129.95" with his "super-dooper-highest-quality" window likely has neither the highest quality window nor does he have your long term peace-of-mind at heart. He needs to get in and to get out  and what happens in five or 10 years? ThatÂs your problem. Okay  from this point forward I will be commenting on good replacement windows  and not just vinyl or aluminum  but generic replacement using a quality product  whatever the material  but not necessarily the very best and certainly not the very worst. Again, GENERAL overview... Fact  new windows are substantially more energy efficient than old windows, despite the claims to the contrary of a good part of the window restoration world. True, and the numbers are out there if some one wants to disagree. Fact  folks in the window restoration world like to claim that old windows have lasted 50, 75, 100 years and that new windows will always fail in short order - 5, 10, 15, 20, whatever. (Again, I AM NOT slamming anyone who has posted in this thread  this is a common claim in the restoration world), yet this claim is usually based on emotion or on opinion and not on quantifiable fact  and in fact, it is generally wrong  but, ultimately quality products will outlast non-quality products no matter when produced and there are tens-of-millions of windows that were made in the last few centuries that didnÂt make it to today for a variety of reasons. The ones that made it thru are often the best that were produced and they likely had a good bit of maintenance at some point. These are good things and that also makes the consideration of keeping them around even longer worth seriously considering. Fact  new dual or triple pane windows with LowE and argon will make your home more comfortable in both summer and winter. There are plenty of studies to prove it. Fact  restoring old windows is good for the environment and helps with energy performance. This is certainly true, but it isnÂt the whole story. Despite comments from folks who love their old windows  and while there are many very good reasons for that feeling, those reasons are primarily aesthetic, not efficiency  replacing windows will almost always save energy over restoration. But, again to reemphasize, restoration and the addition of a good storm window can still be a huge improvement over windows that are stuck, painted-over, drafty, and without storms. Fact  many old houses have their original windows and some of these windows (if they have had adequate maintenance for their lifetime) are in very good shape. But, some are also in very poor shape. Most are somewhere in between. But, they have made it this far - that is a given. If they are worth restoring, then by all means that should be considered a very definite option. Fact  most (but not all) older windows are made with old growth lumber which is inherently better than almost any lumber available today. Absolutely true and rather sad in some ways, but again, this is what our ancestors left us with  kind of wondering what we will be leaving our descendents?. Fact  older single pane windows with sash cords are inherently huge energy wasters. because that open spot where the weights hide is an energy black-hole. There are alternatives to the sash-weight pocket that will greatly improve this energy dump. Fact  older windows have lasted as long as they have because they are of simple, uncomplicated construction that had the advantage of using a material (old growth lumber) that is no longer available. The pyramids will easily outlast a modern skyscraper  that doesn't make a pyramid superior, it is simply different. Fact  many people like the look of wavy glass which was the norm in windows made long ago yet the waves and bubbles in glass was technically a flaw in the manufacturing process. Glass producers did their best to avoid such "embellishments", but it was the best that could be produced for mass production at the time. Actually, for higher-end (spelled $$$$) folks they could produce glass without the waviness, but it was expensive and few folks wanted to, or could, spend the money for them. This of course doesnÂt mean that such ornamentation doesn't add charm and character to the window and subsequently the home, however. Lots of flawed items have a certain charm and character of their own. And btw, I very much like "flawed" wavy glass  and is readily available today, made in the exact same process that was used 100 years ago. Only today it is considered decorative and is therefore expensive. Ultimately, to change windows is a personal decisionÂ.but there are very valid reasons for both sides of the discussion.