Before we started renovating our 1970s home we had an energy audit done. Costs you a bit but it is well worth it. Gives you a good idea which kind of renovations give you the most bang for the buck in terms of energy savings, in particular in a cold climate. Windows are actually quite far down on the list because they are so expensive. Insulating the basement is cheap but very effective. We also had ice inside the house, mostly on the pot lights in the ceiling. That stopped after we changed the old fire places that sucked more warmth out of the rooms than putting any heat in. And redoing the roof adding insulation there (we don't have any attic). We also contemplated redoing the siding and adding insulation there but that would have been very expensive with only marginal payback in terms of energy efficiency according to the audit. You have a very different house than ours so I can't give you any recommendations other than using the information of a solid energy audit.

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.

White

Agree on shutters, no shutters. If they can't be architecturally correct or at least appear to close and angle properly, no shutters. We do virtual exterior designs and recently did a more classic take on that same style house. We added trim boards and beefed up molding on windows. I know you are leaning modern farmhouse, but thought I would share for fun because house is SO SIMILAR. We also added some brick to bottom of columns and a great stained, wood door. This classic look will never go out of style :). We gave the client two color options.