gardensean, You are right. I should blame insufficient research. Mine and I accept full culpability. I am however, inclined to warn others who may be thinking of replacing windows that they should pursue every avenue available to them NOT to do what I did and get an insert. I should have figured out that an insert window would be unacceptable - to me. I'm sure you're comfortable with the idea. For my part, I would never get one again. There is no way that it could be as robust as a proper in-place installation. As per a previous poster, apparently the Canadians agree with me - and Loewen makes no such creature. This was not a DIY job. We hired a very good window installer to do the job and he just finished it today. How much? I don't feel it is any of your business, but if the window was about $800, the installation was close to one and a half times that. Expensive enough for you? He did a very good job - insulated, shimmed, sealed, screwed in etc. It looks very clean and like a very good installation. Unfortunately for me, (a) I can't stand the sight of the frame of the insert window which is unavoidable in this insert business, (b) I don't actually like the look of Marvin's thick and chunky frames and (c) I can't imagine he could have done a better job, but I have no delusions that the caulk he put in and that is [all that is] responsible for sealing the opening will last the lifetime of the window. Actually even as I say (c), I understand he did put in some additional protections to shore up and seal of the opening. However, that is not what these types of windows are designed for - he went over and above because he knew that we were having such acute misgivings about ordering the insert. And I stand by my assertion that insert windows are just a bad concept. I do wish I'd internalized the trade-offs before I ordered one in lieu of a "new construction". I also wish I'd ordered the Loewen (which ONLY makes new construction windows) instead of the Marvin.

Dillydally, it is a fixed window--it does not open. Suero, why didn't I think of that? Except I don't know who made them; I will look at the other windows to see if the info is there. They are probobly not from a major manufacturer. Perhaps if I called any manufacturer, the info would apply. Thanks!

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.

Aren't walls framed with 2 x 4s and with 1/2" of drywall and stucco the depth of around 5" seems pretty standard around here (north CA). My neighbors are installing vinyl windows (e.g., the ones from Milgard) and they are able to easily fit shades in the interior of the frame. I talked to a local Marvin dealer and he gave me a quote for their integrated shades. They are pricey (almost 70% of the cost of the windows just for the shades). If all else fails, I guess that is our only option if we want an in-frame mount.