I've skipped along, but truly I'm gonna win this, hands down: What I hate is that I have NO KITCHEN (at least by modern standards). I mean that. I have no kitchen counters, no kitchen cabinets, a fridge in the adjacent pantry, and a damned woodstove plunk in the middle of the kitchen. No, I'm not cooking on a wood-fired stove - moved that puppy out to the barn the day we moved in - I cook on a gas-fired 48" double-oven 6-burner range, thank God! Lavendar-Lass, avert your eyes, please ..... I have an authentic pre 20th c kitchen where they used work tables, and unfitted furniture and open shelves to store stuff. My sink is a beat-up version of one of those metal sink cabs, with no counter beside it - just the single basin standing along the wall. The work table and chairs arrangement is soooo annoying and time wasting. Everything on the shelves that wasn't just washed, needs to be rewashed before use. And I have that #@$#%^&*!#@$%& WOODSTOVE in my kitchen that everybody stands around getting in my way all winter long. In short I have all those elements that folks seem to crave these days in a farmhouse/country kitchen. Except that it is all I have. These aren't style elements, these are the real deal and they are unbelieveably hard and inefficient to work with. So, since I can't move the woodstove position (and can't get rid of it since it is our only source of heat) nor do I want to be cooking in the room where everyone else always is, I'm picking up my kitchen and moving it elsewhere in the house. So there! I have agonized over this for years because it will be a radical reassignment of room uses in a very old, and otherwise intact mid-19th c house. But I've lived here more than 20 years and hope to live here another 20, and I'm going to have it my way, or else. L

I replace liners in pools with steel walls that are 20plus yrs old with no problems all summer long. The bottoms are mostly done with a sand cement mix. The rusting over the lights is the pool nitch itself not the outside. Most builders are useing plastic nitches now so this is not a issue. Price a replaster of a gunite or a new liner that may help you decide also.. Concrete walls seems like a lot of overkill to me..

I was going to write much the same type of reply that skydawggy already did, but his reply made that unnecessary. I went to replacement window link and I was amazed at how much misinformation was posted there, which is a shame, because I happen to agree that in the right circumstances restoration is the way to go. But, there is so much about the information on that link that is either way outdated or was simply never true at all. One example from the preservation article is comments on laminated glass ---- " ¼ ", laminated glass has better UV protection than all the low-e coatings. It also approaches similar thermal capabilities as insulated glass, is more soundproof, is safer and cost less than insulated glass". Safer? Yep, it is. More soundproof? Again, that is a yes versus either single pane or standrad dual pane windows. If someone is specifically interested in sound blocking ability, then that is another issue entirely. Less expensive than an IG? Not typically, but there are exceptions. More energy efficient? Nope. A laminated glass lite has pretty much identical thermal or energy characteristics as a monolithic lite of the same thickness. There is no energy advantage to using laminated glass in place of monolithic glass. Better at blocking UV? Yep. But while laminated glass does block over 99% of UV light from coming thru a window - which is more than any LowE coating will block and which I assume is specifically referencing fading protection - fading is also related to visible light as well as UV and while laminated glass will provide extensive UV protection, the correct LowE coating may be even better at fading protection. And, my take on restoration versus replacement, if anyone is interested............... First, when the "restoring versus replacing" argument comes around to the energy performance differences (if any) between the restoration window and the replacement window, they will eventually be lost in the rhetoric of the aesthetic reasons for restoring versus replacement. And these are often very valid reasons by themselves. Second, because no matter what the numbers show about individual unit performance, ultimately the individual window is still part of the overall structure of the home and its performance as part of that overall structure is what is important - not necessarily how well does it perform in the lab environment. As I mentioned previously, I happen to really like old windows when they are a significant part of the architecture of a home. I believe that they are so much a part of the charm of an older home that it is worth every possible effort to try to save them. I certainly understand the appeal of replacing older windows for the potential improvements that replacements will bring in energy consumption, comfort, and the potential ease of maintenance; but I also understand the desire of many people to try to do everything possible to save the original windows in a classic home. There are a lot of misconceptions about old windows versus new windows and many opinions often based on opinions and feelings and not on facts that come up in discussions like this one. I would offer a few for consideration: FACT if a homeowner was to opt for top-quality replacement windows, he or she could get them made in any style that they wanted in wood, fiberglass, aluminum, steel, and yep, even that old villain vinyl. There are available styles that would fit their home and that would be virtually indistinguishable from the original windows in the home and, these windows could last every bit as long as the home. But note that I said "top-quality" spelled $$$$$$$$. FACT a low end replacement window doesnt come close to meeting the same sort of standards as does a top-quality product from the materials used, to the glass used, to the hardware used it could be like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari (and whatever happened to Yugo BTW?) and from a performance standpoint a good restoration will almost always be a much better investment of time, trouble, and money than changing to a junk replacement. The guy in the Sunday paper who promises to replace every window in a home at "$99.95" with his "sooper-dooper-highest-quality" vinyl or aluminum window likely has neither the highest quality window nor does he have the homeowners long term interest at heart. He needs to get in and to get out and what happens in five or 10 years? Thats no longer his problem. A very common comment from folks who favor restoration over replacement is that restoring a single-pane window and storm window combination will result in energy performance numbers that are comparable to any new window on the market regardless of any glass coatings or gas used with the new window. Fact the newest dual or triple pane windows made with LowE2 or LowE3 coated glass and argon or krypton fill are substantially more energy efficient than old windows single or double pane. A triple pane window with LowE2 coating on surfaces 2 and 5 combined with krypton gas infill and a low conductance spacer system can achieve energy performance numbers as much as 10 times better than an original single pane window and as much as six times better than a single pane with storm (or a low-end dual pane window as well). R-values aside, since they measure only conductive thermal transfer, and any discussion of windows has to include radiant performance (60% plus of total window performance), the primary advantage of multi-pane windows over dual panes is the ability of a multi-pane window to include LowE coatings. The coatings improve both conductive and radiant performance of the window over clear glass. If one wants to discuss R-values in window systems, then the current "highest" measured R-value glass currently on the market has an R-20. A good triple pane window with LowE2 coatings on glass surfaces 2 and 5 can achieve an R-10. A dual pane with a single LowE on surface 2 can theoretically achieve an R-5. But, again, that is ONLY a measure of conductive performance and it is far from the full story. Comment old windows may have lasted 50, 75, 100, or more years and new windows will always fail in short order only lasting 5 or 10 years. Fact quality products will outlast non-quality products no matter when produced. For all of the older windows that are on homes today and that deserve the chance to be around even longer, there are tens-of-millions of windows that were made in the last few centuries that didnt make it into todays world for a wide variety of reasons including simple window failure often as a result of poor or non-existent maintenance. The ones that have made it thru are often the best that were produced and they likely had a good bit of maintenance at some point. These are all very good things that make the idea of keeping them around even longer worth serious consideration. Ultimately, older windows have lasted as long as they have because they are of simple, uncomplicated construction that has had the distinct advantage of using a material (old growth lumber) that is no longer widely available. The pyramids will easily outlast a modern skyscraper that doesn't make a pyramid inherently superior than the skyscraper - it is simply different. Old growth lumber can be worth preserving if only for itself. And as an aside, when I am talking about "older" windows, I am not necessarily talking about much of the junk that popped up during the post WWII building boom. I am considering classic houses with architecturally classic windows. Obviously there is quality and there is junk from any era. Just because something is old, there is no reason to consider it "better". The better, newer, dual and triple pane window systems now on the market and installed all over Europe and North America should easily reach 50 years life expectancy - many will go well beyond that time. There are vinyl windows in Europe that were installed over 50 years ago that are performing flawlessly today. Comment restoring old windows is good for the environment and helps with energy performance. Fact while this is certainly true, it isnt the entire story. Despite comments from folks who love their old windows and there are a variety of very good reasons for that feeling those reasons are primarily aesthetic, not primarily efficiency. Replacing older windows with available higher-end energy-saving products will directly save energy over restoration. But, 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 and it will keep those windows out of the landfill. 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. And some are also in very poor shape, most are somewhere in between. But, they have all made it this far and if they are worth restoring, then by all means that should be considered as a very definite option. Again, most (but not all) older windows are made with old growth lumber which is inherently better than almost any lumber available today - which while being absolutely true and rather sad in some ways - in the end this is what our ancestors left us with. Makes me wonder sometimes what we will be leaving our descendents?. Fact older double hung windows with sash cords are inherently energy wasters because that open spot where the weights hide is an energy black-hole. There are alternatives to the sash-weight pocket that can improve this energy dump, but while replacing the sash cords and weights will improve energy performance, not everyone would consider that to be a viable option. And there are other options involved with keeping sash cords that will help as well. 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 are technically a flaw in the manufacturing process. Glass producers did their best to avoid such embellishments, but it was the best that could be mass produced at the time using the sheet glass process. Actually, for higher-end (spelled $$$$) folks they could produce glass with much less waviness, even back at the turn-of-the-century, but it was expensive and few folks wanted to, or could afford to, spend the money for it, which of course doesnt mean that such ornamentation doesn't add the charm and character of the window and subsequently the home. Lots of "flawed" items have a certain charm and character of their own. And btw, I very much like "flawed" wavy glass and it is available today, made in the exact same process that was used 100 years ago, only today it is considered decorative and is therefore expensive. Finally at the end.

You are going to have to remove the adhesive residue at some point...heat will only soften the adhesive bond enough to allow you to peel off the shelf liner. You have two choices: 1.Scrape and sand the residue off. 2.Use a solvent to soften the adhesive residue further and wipe off. Someone may come in here with some advice on what solvent will dissolve pressure-sensitive adhesive from that era. You can discover that on your own by trial and error by subjecting the residue on the back of the vinyl to various solvents until you find one that will work. Most solvents will drive residues further into the wood, however. As for what I'd do...I'd physically remove the stuff with sharp scrapers and then sandings with the appropriate schedule of sanding grits. The scrapers have to be razor sharp and your technique is to slice the residue off the wood while being careful not to gouge or nick the wood surface too deeply. A careful application of heat while scraping can hasten removal, as the softened adhesive is easier to work. I use hooked paint scrapers, but sharp cabinet scrapers would work well also, I'd guess. Alot of work for sure.