Thanks for your response. Yes, I was going to have a color coating on the exterior, and I don't foresee needing to remove them except for cleaning, (although we do go out one bedroom window that is on a sloped roof area to put up Christmas lights and to clean a gutter). Because they would be exposed all year, I thought that cleaning them yearly might be a good idea, and that I would want to be able to take them out and reinstall them without a problem. Is the color on the exterior color coating somewhat susceptible to wearing off with time due to the elements?

There is quite a bit of misinformation that you have been given Mr Jones, I'd definitely take some extra time to sort through it all and make sure that you have accurate facts. I'll go through some, all of which are easily verifiable: Manufacturer and material : All three are very reputable, with Andersen and Marvin having a longer history. That said, Okna has indeed been in business since the early 90's and is a top 100 manufacturer as well. The 3 materials have similar histories as well, as none have been used commonly in a residential window application for more than 20 yrs. All three have their merits, although all three do represent a small "niche" . Vinyl and wood are FAR more common. There is no clear winner here IMO. All are suitable with no decisive pros or cons, particularly considering that each individual product is designed and engineered to exploit the respective materials' inherent strengths, and mitigate its weaknesses. If there is one that I'd put slightly behind the others it would be the Renewal, as adding wood flour/sawdust to vinyl really doesn't add much. Appearance: This depends of course on what areas are examined, however the Marvin all ultrex integrity is by far the slimmest. The Renewal and Starmark are both somewhat bulky by comparison, although neither is very bulky compared to some other products. Despite the slim lines, the all ultrex Integrity is actually the least attractive based on the feedback that I hear. The wood/ultrex on the other hand is bulkier. This category is in the eye of the beholder. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Interior appearance: well stated. Some folks would prefer the rich, real wood interior (Integrity) with only a 10 year warranty, others would prefer the synthetic stainable with lifetime warranty and no maintenance (Starmark). Winner again depends on the individual and their needs/wants. Hardware: The Renewal and Starmark both have more attractive hardware options than the Integrity IMO. Both are all metal, both have multiple finishes available. Performance: Here's a big one. To accurately compare, it is necessary to look at apples to apples glass packages. At .25 for a standard double pane package, and .19 for triple pane argon, the Starmark runs away with the win here. With equivalent glass (surface 2 low e, argon fill), the the Renewal and Integrity are .29 or higher. You can switch to any other glass package across the board, and apples to apples the Starmark will be multiple points better. This can be verified via CPD number (certified products directory) at nfrc.org Air Infiltration: Another big one. The reps that you have spoken to are either flat out lying, or being highly manipulative. The only window of the 3 that sees that .05 AI number is the Starmark. The other two are in the teens at best, if not .2+. I would request a structural test data sheet for reference. If renewal or Marvin will provide it, make sure to compare the size of the window and configuration. It is highly likely that your rep(s) are using casement or picture window ratings to compare to the starmark double hung. The starmark is .01 as a casement. Patio doors: Since this was mentioned, the differences as stated for windows continue for patio doors. If the real wood interior is preferred at the expense of performance, then the Marvin or renewal options are better. The Starmark will be a much better performer, but without the real wood interior. Installation and durability: On durability, this is another area that would trend toward Starmark based on containing no organic parts that can rot, and also on the lifetime warranty. Renewal and Integrity are each 10 years (20 on glass). Installation itself will vary by dealer, and should be given proper weight. One cannot speculate on the quality of installation based only on material however. The only thing that could possibly be considered on that line of thinking would be availability to contractors I suppose. Integrity can be purchased by anyone, whereas Renewal and Starmark are exclusive products where dealers are regulated by the manufacturer. One important thing to note, is that comapanies that install Renewal windows are NOT owned by Andersen. They are a dealer that exclusively carries that line and meets Andersen requirements, however they are not actually part of Andersen. Price: This again will vary by dealer and area. Renewal has a reputation as having the highest price, using high pressure sales, and also of posting thinly veiled, inaccurate info where THEY talk poorly about competitors (not to say that is the case here, of course). That said, I'm sure that there are some great Renewal operations across the country, just as there great Starmark and Intergity dealers. Ultimately, these are three windows that are solid to excellent, and each have their own pros and cons. You are unlikely to go wrong with any of the three, it really depends on which options most closely aligns with your goals for the project. It sounds like that is the Renewal at this point, I'd only recommend getting the accurate performance information, and then perhaps that would (or not) impact your decision.

@todd , I certainly do have current test results for every product that I sell, and several that I don't. To answer your question, Okna's NFRC labels show <.1 which is the lowest rating that NFRC will display, but not as low as the certified test result of any of their products. The literature/website likely has an outdated version of the sticker for demonstration purposes. If you are frustrated because Andersen or any other manufacturer is more clandestine about their structural ratings, take that up with them. Perhaps "they don't care" about air ratings as you've stated. That's something that consumers may want to consider and draw their own conclusions as to why. I have my opinion on that. I stated that there are windows that have sliders that are more air tight than dh's. They are far fewer in number than the reverse however. That is inarguable. Okna in particular has a nice chart on on their brochures that shows dh, sl, and ca. I can;t speak for other manufacturers, but rating is published in their sales literature. In my opinion, when someone posts initially, there is no reason to offer a bibliography with it. If someone questions that information as accurate, then certainly sources and data are valuable tools. If I am going to challenge someone else's assertions, it would be incumbent on me to back that up, and they would then respond in kind. With that said, I have no idea where you are going with any of this Todd, there is no reason to breakdown the structure of a proper and effective debate. Back to your original comments, I find air infiltration ratings to be a very effective tool for consumers. I believe that it is an important factor, and also that it is typically an indicator of quality. Most of the better windows recommended here have good air infiltration ratings due to a good design, quality, and tight manufacturing tolerances. It is only one number however in a group of both thermal and structural ratings that should be considered, and those should be considered and given proper weight as well.

@Kathleen, if you could post a picture of the home and note the locations it would be helpful. I agree with the sentiment that uniformity is best (both product and install type), however replacing all of the windows in your home just to match one that you no longer prefer doesn't make a ton of sense either... There are ways to minimize differences in appearance from the exterior, but it also depends if these are right next to each other (or across the wall), size differences, etc. @Ron, you had the full frame of your old window removed and replaced with a new window of the same size, but without a nail fin and the subsequent flashing/sealing practices that are normally associated with a new construction/full frame installation. This is not preferred by most, however its also not without precedent and is generally accepted. I believe that Pella in particular refers to it as their "express" installation. Basically they took a window designed for replacement (3 1/4" frame depth and no nail fin) and installed to replace the full frame. There is a lot of gray area between the basic terms "pocket" and "full frame", and this falls within that. Closer to a full frame by definition, but again, without some of the added layers that are most often implied with that verbiage.