marti8a- We have 2 sets of aluminum clad, low e, argon filled sliders and a set of the same outward opening french doors, all by Eagle (now owned by Andersen, but independent when we purchased them 8 years ago). They all operate easily, close securely and have no air infiltration, we are in NNY and have wind, cold and snow and have never had a problem. While I like the look of french doors better, we chose sliders in two our of three locations because we wanted screens on the doors, we don't have or want A/C, so screens are on the doors are a must for us. The one french door we have will someday open onto a small sunroom/conservatory (hopefully), that's why we chose a set of french doors in that area. Eagle, as well as the other well known manufacturers, have lots of options on the interior; primed, painted, stained, different wood species, hardware options, etc. We rented a house with vinyl sliders when we were building and I would not recommend them at all, they didn't work well, ice built up in the channels and the cold air poured in seemingly from the entire opening. I strongly prefer the wood interior and aluminum clad exterior, but overall I would get the best ones you can afford, good doors and windows pay for themselves in the form of lower energy costs. Good luck- sandyponder

You lost us at " the Home Depot salesman said...", lol. Provia makes a great hinged unit, as does Homeguard. In sliding, I agree with Wow's recommendations. I can't say that there is anything at HomeDepot that I'd recommend in terms of quality. I think that they can special order Thermatru which is probably the bare minimum of where I'd start. Regarding a hinged doo being weathertight, there is no issue with either as long as it is a quality product.

Anderson rep was presenting the vinyl clad with engineering wood inside option. Not sure which specific line it is. She was from Renewal by Anderson. Any particular reasons why you suggest against Pella/Alside - is it the low-end /vinyl part or brands in general? Would the wood on inside of elevate not be susceptible to rot? also eventually i plan to replace windows and in my budget would very likely be vinyl, will they look really out of place with a wood (painted white) pine patio door? (i dont have windows in that same room, but would be in adjacent/other rooms. for reference i replaced interior doors last year with menards 6 panel wood painted white). lastly, any thoughts on Marvin essential series (vinyl), likely to be cheaper as well. sorry for all the follow-ups, there are so many options and not having enough expertise/experience/feedback on who to trust, getting very confusing. glad we have this site with experts like you guys contributing.

No worries Anne, your post title was asking about interpretation of terms, and that's what we are after. I apologize because my initial response was way too cryptic and didn't really give you the information that you needed to help make a decision. And I am going to get technical and long-winded...sorry for that, but I think it's important here to do so....so here goes The China quote is 11.52mm glass plus 12mm pvb plus 6mm glass. This isn't really possible (I will try to explain why as this gets longer), but - 7/16 seems to be 3/16 glass 0.090 PVB 3/16 - is correct and makes perfect sense. However I am going to suggest that the 7/16" laminated glass as you wrote it isn't what you were actually quoted. Also not sure if you have a preference for using metric or english since T&C uses both, but I will be using both somewhat interchangeably because that's how it's done in glass/window industry (weird I know!). But I believe that it will help to clear up some confusion (hopefully), or maybe make it worse (I hope not!). First quote: 11.52mm Clear + 12A + 6mm Clear Laminated This looks like a quote for an IG unit, not like a quote for a single monolithic laminated lite. First, no one makes 11.52 glass thickness or 12mm pvb and while on first glance as written, it does appear that the 6mm is laminated and 11.52 is clear glass, that makes no sense (see previous comment), so I am assuming the 11.52 as laminated and 6mm as monolithic float. As I mentioned earlier, your statement that 7/16 seems to be 3/16 glass 0.090 PVB 3/16, is correct and in fact that is an excellent make-up for an impact lite. Since 7/16" converts to 11.11mm, which is thinner than the 11.52mm from the quote, why doesn't 3/16 glass 0.090 PVB 3/16 equal 11.52? In North America glass is floated (manufactured) using metric for glass thickness. The metric thicknesses are commonly replaced by their english equivalents in general usage, often by the window companies who use the glass, 3mm as 1/8", 4mm as 5/32", 5mm as 3/16", 6mm as 1/4"...so on. And while 3/16" is commonly referred to as fractional equivalent of 5mm, 3/16" is actually 4.76mm and not 5mm. Typical glass thicknesses used in residential applications in North America include 2.3mm, 3.0mm, 3.9mm, 4.7mm 5.7mm, and window companies (and glass folks) in North America often do refer to 3/16' and 4.7 as 5mm in general usage, while in other parts of the world, including China, glass is manufactured as 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, and 6mm. Since 4.7mm doesn't actually measure 5mm it's not allowed to be exported to either Europe or China as 5mm. So should "7/16 seems to be 3/16 glass 0.090 PVB 3/16" be calculated as 5mm / .090pvb / 5mm or as 4.7mm / .090 pvb / 4.7mm? That will depend on where the glass came from and what was originally specified. Metric equivalent of .090" pvb is 2.28mm, no variation, so using all metric means 5.0 + 2.28 + 5.0mm = 12.28mm while 4.7 + 2.28 + 4.7 = 11.68mm, both are close but slightly thicker than 11.52mm, so which one is this the actual make-up? Here's the rub, in China 5mm is 5mm (actual 5mm is also made in USA and that glass can be exported as 5mm), not 4.7, so if glass is 5mm + 5mm total, then 11.52 allows for only 1.52mm interlayer thickness not 2.28mm (.090) and it happens that 1.52mm is equivalent to .060". (See quote 2). I am suggesting that the first quote was actually for 5mm / .060" pvb / 5mm not .090 pvb. This make-up is not suitable for your application. It will not pass impact cycle requirements of either MDCA (large missile) or ASTM 1996 (missile level C, D or E). Second quote: 5mm Low E +1.52pvb+5mm+1.52pvb+5mm half tempered glass, clear This make-up is not standard and honestly doesn't make a lot of sense. There is no reason that i can think of for the middle lite in the laminated package, i fact they probably would have been much better off simply bonding the two .060" interlayers together as a single sheet of .120" and going with that. Unless for some reason they wanted to make the overall unit 5mm thicker by adding a third sheet of glass in the middle of their laminated sandwich, I would consider that the middle lite isn't necessary or particularly desirable for any reason i can think of. Also and my personal opinion is that a 5mm / .120" pvb / 5mm would be stronger than the make-up in the quote (and .090" pvb is usually (not always) adequate), so I can only assume that they are guessing at what should work...and the first quote would not. Also and please remember (and i can't over emphasize this enough)...the glass is only part of the equation. Keeping the glass secure in the hole in your wall is vital and you need to be dealing with someone who actually knows how to make this work. And all this is why I said that I wouldn't use either quote. I hope it's helpful.