For most products, when you think about a large number of similar units, you can start thinking about specific numbers of years for certain maintenance and repair costs, and life expectancy. Individual appliances will exhibit variable lifespans and repairs. The local environment of each fridge varies a lot, so statistical numbers are not good indicators. (e.g. fridge boxed in, or with a lot of air circulation) For cars, the dates of repairs correspond fairly well to the dates they publish. For other things that live in a non vibrating environment the dates one might publish do not correspond well. Therefore GoofyYno there is probably no reliable information for you to glean from internet helpers about whether your fridge will last longer. Do whatever will solve the problem.

Wow, what a bunch of mis-information in a single comment. I normally would leave it at this, but I don't want people to search the archives and get confused. A plasma TV's temperature is not an indication of lower energy efficiency. Temperature isn't an indicator of energy efficiency, but heat output very much. Any energy consumed by the device has to be released somehow, either as mechanical energy (not applicable for a device that doesn't have a motor), as light energy (a smaller percentage, even for a TV), or as heat (the bulk of the energy). As this is hard to quantify, I looked at watts/h instead. That's the definition of energy efficiency. And with the exception of really small screen sizes, plasma TVs are consistently a lot more wasteful than any modern technology. [ Lots of hand-wavy vague discussions how TVs are complicated. ] If anything, the reverse is probably true. Older TVs had tons and tons of discreet parts, whereas modern TVs are highly integrated and frequently only have a very small number of highly integrated components. This has been a general trend and explains why TVs can be built so much cheaper today. Just to put this into perspective, if you look at the size of a settop box from only about 15-20 years ago, it was the size of a small shoe box, and it probably cost on the order of $100. Today, the equivalent device is the size of a USB stick and costs on the order of $20 -- and it probably does a lot more, too. You'd observe the same thing, if you opened up a modern TV. Very little electronics that are left in there. I have a hard time finding a tear-down of a modern TV, as it simply is so boring that nobody wants to document it. But here is one for a 4 year old model: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Changhong+UD42YC5500UA+4K+42-Inch+LED+LCD+TV+Teardown/64167 Notice how little there is to making a TV. [ Statements equating weight with quality. ] The bulk of the weight of a plasma TV came from the insanely heavy front glass panel that is needed to build all the plasma cells. That simply isn't necessary with LCD or OLED technology and explains both the smaller depth and the much reduced weight. And while weight isn't really an indicator of quality, being lightweight is a real advantage for many consumers. A modern TV can easily be hung on the wall, but a plasma TV is almost impossible to mount that way. That also partially explains why larger format plasma TVs never took off in the market. Nobody would be able to carry a 90" plasma TV without hiring professional movers. [ Then OLED and QLED came along and completely solved that problem by using multiple different layers of TV panels within a single TV panel. ] What a bunch of crock! There is no such thing as multiple layers of panels. A plasma TV had an array of pixels that had alternating colors of phospors in front of each adjacent plasma cell. A LCD (that includes QLED) panel has a white backlight and alternating color filters in front of each adjacent LCD pixel. An OLED display has alternating colors of adjacent organic LEDs. Do you notice a pattern? Exactly! It's all a similar design of differently colored pixels right next to each other. But some of these pixels are more efficient than others. OLED are by far the best approach, but they are costly to manufacture. LCD is cheap to manufacture at scale, is lightweight and very thin, and color quality is close enough when using a good backlight and good color filters. This is where QLED comes into the picture. The idea of FullHD is an illusion. The human eye cannot process the colors that "FullHD" purports to put out onto a TV screen. I really hope that was a typo. FullHD has absolutely nothing to do with colors. But yes, there are difference in color gamut and in dynamic range. Historically, that was one of the areas where plasma had a distinct advantage. It used to have a much better dynamic range than LCD technology, only OLED was equivalent (or better). But OLED didn't really exist as a viable consumer product at that time. Color gamut is the big elephant in the room though. Traditional standard definition TV has a really narrow color range, and that's really noticeable when compared to film. These days, you can get a similar visual experience, if your TV is HDR capable, and if the source material includes the necessary information. In general, this is only available for 4k-enabled systems. So, independent of resolution, 4k does bring important picture improvements. And even if you no longer have 20/20 vision, most people will easily be able to tell the difference between standard and high dynamic range. All of a sudden, details in dark scenes are possible to be made out without washing out bright spots in the same scene. A good starting point to learn more about high dynamic range and color gamut is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_video Make sure to click on the links though. There is a lot more information hidden on Wikipedia that is relevant to this topic. The human eye can only process at most, 480p It should be self-evident that this statement is obviously incorrect. The human eye doesn't have a fixed resolution in pixels. It does have a limit though as to what the smallest detail is that it can discern. This means, the closer you sit to the screen the more pixel you can discern. But nobody sits a foot away from their screen. In fact, because of our limited field of vision, there are guidelines how far away you should sit given a particular screen size. In practice, many people sit back a little more than the optimal distance. The average distance from the screen in the US is about 9 feet. For people with normal 20/20 vision and with a normal ~50" screen, that means that can easily distinguish between 480 scan lines, 720 scan lines, and even 1080 scan lines. But most of us wouldn't be able to tell the difference of 2160 scan lines in a 4k image. But don't take my word for it. Have a look at this very informative Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

Thanks for the heads up. I just took a look at it. The dimensions are 18” wide, 10” top to bottom. It is fitted (with room to spare) into an open compartment in our kitchen cabinets. I don’t see any immediately visible stickers identifying the wattage or model. I think we got it 4-5 years ago for $99 at Best Buy. Never any smoke coming from back or anyplace. I never fry chicken, whole steers, paper greeting card or popcorn it it. Buti use it multiple times a day for things like defrosting, reheating, heating hot packs for my back, and maybe boiling water to sterilize the hummingbird sugar water (which, of course I then cool). I’ll have to see what size we bought. I may have to sneak a backup into the house. Smiling because I remember people on the Rose Forum kidding around about sneaking new rose acquisitions past their reluctant spouses. (They rarely did this, but had fantasies.) I hope you’re happy with the microwave you bought. It seems that the older appliances lasted longer. We had a second hand washer and dryer ($100 and $125 each) that lasted us 24 years. Not bad. In the cellar, so no one minded that they were the 1960s harvest gold and avocado green.

Nicole, I was shopping for a second refrigerator for the garage one year....friend had left a mammoth vintage side by side here that I just couldn't look at any longer. He was divorcing and somehow had some kind of strange attachment to this fridge (although it did run just fine and now several years later its in the clam digging/field games equipment storage room at SILs at the beach for summer beverages) A sales woman at a Sears Appliance was so bent on selling me an extended GE warranty, she was completely denigrating her product - the simple no frills fridge I had thought I'd buy. She was so focused on explaining all the reasons I would need that warranty (and I've never bought any of the extended), she made the refrigerator sound like a real piece of crap ;) I don't think she could hear herself and didn't have a clue what she was doing or why she lost the sale. I walked. It was such a ridiculous pressured conversation, I considered calling her manager and explaining why I hadn't made a purchase but then let it go - picked up the same GE at Home Depot.