Powermatic or General ( finally !!! )

I'd probably opt for the Powermatic. I think they're both great saws,
and anecdotal feedback seems to indicate that General can be a bear to
deal with from a customer service standpoint post sale.

Matt Zack wrote:
> Well... I never thought I would see this day, but it looks like I'm
shopping
> for a new dream table saw.

> Thanks in advance - Matt

I have run into three recent PM66 buyers who have been unhappy with
their saws. Excessive runout and warped tables. One sold, one
returned and one still dealing with customer service. I have nothing
against them; I have one - 25 years old that works fine. Whatever you
look at, learn how to check the runout and table flatness - new or
used.

I own the 650 - have for 2 years. Went through the same research and
comparisons your likely dealing with. Looked at them all in person and
chose the General - love it. Drop me an email at
[email protected] and I'll forward you an article from Wood
magazine, October 2003 that did a shootout. General came out on top.
That said, I think the 66 is pretty solid. The plastic motor cover
turned me off.

If your interested you can email: auto119042 @ hotmail dot com for the
.pdf table saw shootout article in Wood magazine from 10/03.

There are two types of GENERAL.....one made in CANADA (the standard in
school shops and many pro shops) and GENERAL INTERNATIONAL... imported.
The logos look very similiar to the uninformed. Big difference in prices
and quality.
They say the Canadian made one will stand up to 30 years of abuse by high
school shop students... 'nuff said?

"RonB" <[email protected]> writes:

>Wonder if the newer Unisaws will do as well as the ones we used in HS and
>college wood shops 30 years ago?

We had all Northfield tools at my HS shop in the 1980s. Table saw was a
16". I can't even imagine the cost of just the blade.

We also had a 14" or 16" Delta RAS and the thing wasn't usable most of the
school year because they couldn't afford a new bearing for the
raising/lowering mechanism.

Brian Elfert

[email protected] writes:

>I'd probably opt for the Powermatic. I think they're both great saws,
>and anecdotal feedback seems to indicate that General can be a bear to
>deal with from a customer service standpoint post sale.

General Canadian tools are so good you'll probably never have a need for
customer service.

Brian Elfert

"Dave W" <[email protected]> writes:

>I also just went through the General vs everything else selection and turned
>to General (made in Canada). I had a Powermatic Artisan. It was such a
>piece of junk that Powermatic never seriously entered the equation. My
>uhderstanding is that all their saws are made in the far east. The General

PM66s are still made in the USA. Personally, I would get the General
350/650 if the price was the same. I like my General drill press except
for the initial cost.

I only have a Unisaw, but it is plenty good for me. It is a refurb I got
for a decent price.

Brian Elfert

"Matt Zack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well... I never thought I would see this day, but it looks like I'm
> shopping for a new dream table saw.
> I need to stay in the $2000 range.
<snip>

Since no one else stepped in, I'd have to say if I had it all to do over
again, I'd still buy a 1950ish unisaw. I've had the opportunity to try
almost all newer table saws and I still haven't found any reason to upgrade
(other than the newer ones being prettier). You can pick up older unisaurs
for around $500-600 bucks. Save the rest of the dough for some other tool.
Just my 2 cents.
SH

In article <AwNje.21886$gp.5024@fed1read03>, AAvK <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"pho" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I'd still stay with the unisaw. With the exception of the motor, they
>are still USA made, and any part of the 2005 model will fit
>> the 1939 model..( right tilt). Best resale vale too... The motors
>come from Brazil and seem to be trouble free...
>>
>
>Ain't as safe tho... where are Sawstops made?


One of the Pacific Rim countries. I _think_ it's Tiawan, but I wouldn't
bet on it.

The downside to the Sawstop is the _cost_ of an activation. measured both
in time and money, it is non-trivial. circa $80, as I recall, for the
'replacement' cartridge, *plus* whatever damage is done to the blade.

Which leads the issue of 'false positives' -- those cases where the thing
triggers off for some reason _other_ than a human body-part in contact with
the blade. This is an issue that *NOBODY*KNOWS* how likely it is to occur.
It is impossible to predict what might happen in 'uncontrolled environments
that could trigger the safety device.

The Sawstop cabinet saw _LOOKS_ to be well built, and is actually priced
fairly competitively. Their contractor saw price, however, is on the
high side.

How well it stands up to heavy use is, _at_this_time_, an "unknown question".
When a 'significant' number of users have had them in 'day-in/day-out' use
for 10-15 years or more, THEN there will be some 'hard data' available, as
regards the construction 'quality'.

If _I_ were in the market for a *NEW* cabinet saw, I might actually consider
the SawStop saw. I'd be a _lot_ more inclined to do so, if they gave an
"insurance policy" against false triggerings -- that would replace the
cartridge and the blade..


That said, I'm _not_ likely to ever buy a _new_ saw. I'd much rather buy
a "well used" older saw. :)

In article <[email protected]>,
Bob G. <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 May 2005 11:56:25 -0700, "Slowhand" <I'm@work> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>>Since no one else stepped in, I'd have to say if I had it all to do over
>>again, I'd still buy a 1950ish unisaw. I've had the opportunity to try
>>almost all newer table saws and I still haven't found any reason to upgrade
>>(other than the newer ones being prettier). You can pick up older unisaurs
>>for around $500-600 bucks. Save the rest of the dough for some other tool.
>>Just my 2 cents.
>>SH
>>
>
>Maybe you can pick up an older Unisaw for 5 to 600 bucks...but I can
>not even remember when I saw a used one for sale...PERIOD !
>
> That said IF I found a used one I would buy it in a heart
>beat...Pretty rare around this neck of the woods to see any tablesaws
>(except Craftsman) for sale...

Check out the U.S. Dept. of Defense sales. The "Defense Property Disposal
Office." You wouldn't *believe* what they have for sale on occasion. :)

In article <[email protected]>,
Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Which leads the issue of 'false positives' -- those cases where the thing
>> triggers off for some reason _other_ than a human body-part in contact
>with
>> the blade. This is an issue that *NOBODY*KNOWS* how likely it is to
>occur.
>> It is impossible to predict what might happen in 'uncontrolled
>environments
>> that could trigger the safety device.
>
>Sorry Robert, but that's not a valid reason not to buy it. You're basing
>your argument on the lack of evidence as a reason not to consider buying it.
>That thinking is a basic fallacy of logical argument. It is understandable
>however, that you might be uneasy about it because it is a new product and
>not yet time tested.

"Total Cost of Ownership" is a _valid_ consideration in making a purchase
determination. Ongoing 'operating' cost is an integral part of TCO. The
likelihood of a 'significant' recurring expense is a part of estimating
on-going costs.

If the thing 'false triggers' on a -weekly- basis, at a "cost" of half
an hour of down-time, and $50-$200 in parts, It is 'too expensive' to
maintain.

If the false triggers are 'less than once in 20 years', it is an entirely
different matter.

The _lack_of_data_ on the subject means that there *is* a significant
"uncertainty" as to the future operating costs of this device.

"Don't know" _means_ *don't*know*, and from a 'prudent business decision'
standpoint, one must assume a fairly pessimistic probability for expenses
that one does _not_ have data to make 'informed estimates' for -- failure
to do so can, and *has* put firms out of business, when expenses turned
out to be 'higher than estimated'.

In a 'personal-use' purchase, one doesn't have the 'business risk' consider-
ations, granted. However, there is always the question of "'how much more'
is this particular feature worth to me?" If you cannot make a reasonable
estimate of the total costs (immediate _and_ future) you cannot make a
reasoned decision in regard to "is it worth the cost".

How much 'uncertainty' one is willing to buy into _is_ a valid purchasing
decision consideration.

*IF* -- and I want to stress that I am pulling numbers out of thin air here,
strictly for purposes of discussion; I have *NO*IDEA* what the actual
false-positive triggering rate is -- ,in "real-world" environments, the
sawstop 'false triggers' 1000 times (at a cost of $100+) for every valid
triggering, and that valid triggering prevents an injury that costs $25,000
including treatment *and* any loss-of-use, impairment, disability, etc.
then society as a whole, _and_ the average user, is better off *not*
spending the $100,000+ to save a perceived value of $25,000. If there
are only 25 false positives per valid triggering, the economics of the
situation are *entirely* different.

The point is, again, that we *don't*know*. Which means that any decision
is being made on a basis of "faith" -- an _un-reasoned_ conclusion.

This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. As long as you
understand that that _is_ what you are doing, and you know _why_ you are
doing it.

Deluding oneself that one is making a "rational, reasoned, decision", on
the basis of something that can be only 'taken on faith' is exactly that.
Delusions.

In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
>...
>> The downside to the Sawstop is the _cost_ of an activation. measured both
>> in time and money, it is non-trivial. circa $80, as I recall, for the
>> 'replacement' cartridge, *plus* whatever damage is done to the blade.
>
>Which would undoubtedly be considerably extended in medical costs and
>likely in missed work time, irregardless whether the woodworking is
>professional or hobby....

That assumes that the triggering _did_ prevent an accident. <grin>

Yes, in the case of an _actual_ accident prevention, the expense is
"cheap at {bigmultiple} the price".

In the case of a 'false alarm', it is a totally _unnecessary_ expense.

The trick is differentiating the two cases -- maximizing the former,
and minimizing the latter.

The manufacturer concentrates almost exclusively on the first situation,
and (apparently) totally ignores the latter one.

>> Which leads the issue of 'false positives' -- those cases where the thing
>> triggers off for some reason _other_ than a human body-part in contact with
>> the blade. This is an issue that *NOBODY*KNOWS* how likely it is to occur.
>> It is impossible to predict what might happen in 'uncontrolled environments
>> that could trigger the safety device.
>...
>
>Well, the rate could be pretty well predicted on the basis of extensive
>testing which I would presume they would have quite a bit of...I'm
>unaware of them having published any data from which to draw any
>conclusions on either side. I would suspect they will have a pretty
>good idea before they commit to production, however.

Obviously you're not aware that the saw *IS* in production. <grin>
They've been delivering since last fall.

And that "lack of published data" is _precisely_ the point. Emphasis on
the word "PUBLISHED". If the manufacturer knows, they're *not*talking*.
Which leads one to ask "why _not_?"

I can think of only _two_ possible answers to that --
1) they do *not* have comprehensive false-triggering data.
2) the data shows an 'unacceptably high' rate of false-triggering,
and disclosing it would adversely affect their marketing.

I do *NOT* have any reason to believe that #2 is the case.

I strongly suspect that #1 -is- true. It is *very* difficult to test for
'unexpected' circumstances. It may seem trite, but if you can think of
it happening and test for it, then it is _not_, by definition, an 'unexpected'
situation.

One kind of a "silly" example:

You're making a zero-clearance insert, from some plastic 'scraps' obtained
from a local manufacturer. You trim to size, put it in the table, turn on
the saw, and start to raise the blade.

*BANG*

It turns out that that piece of plastic was sufficiently *conductive* to
trigger the protective mechanism.

_Could_ that happen? *You*betcha*! How likely is it? *GOOD* question! I
don't have the data to begin making an estimate.

Is there any _rational_ way for the manufacturer to _test_ for it?
And, if they do, what does it show?


There is a saying in the Q.A business:
"For every fool-proof system there exists a
*sufficiently*determined* fool capable of breaking it."

*NOTHING* can substitute for a few million hours of actual use by the afore-
mentioned "sufficiently determined" types.

"Discovered bugs, are finite in number. *UNDISCOVERED* bugs, on the other
hand, are, by definition. _infinite_ in number."

In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> >>
>> >...
>> >> The downside to the Sawstop is the _cost_ of an activation. measured both
>> >> in time and money, it is non-trivial. circa $80, as I recall, for the
>> >> 'replacement' cartridge, *plus* whatever damage is done to the blade.
>> >
>> >Which would undoubtedly be considerably extended in medical costs and
>> >likely in missed work time, irregardless whether the woodworking is
>> >professional or hobby....
>>
>> That assumes that the triggering _did_ prevent an accident. <grin>
>
>In that scenario, yes, obviously that was intended.
>
>> Yes, in the case of an _actual_ accident prevention, the expense is
>> "cheap at {bigmultiple} the price".
>>
>> In the case of a 'false alarm', it is a totally _unnecessary_ expense.
>>
>> The trick is differentiating the two cases -- maximizing the former,
>> and minimizing the latter.
>>
>> The manufacturer concentrates almost exclusively on the first situation,
>> and (apparently) totally ignores the latter one.
>...
>
>You have shown no evidence to support that claim other than your
>hypothesis.

The facts are self-evident. There is *NO* published information available
to consult. This does *NOT* necessarily mean that there _is_ an 'objectionably
high' rate of false triggering. It *DOES* mean the _potential_ customers
"don't know" what the risk is.

"Don't know", and _can't_find_out_.

The more 'unknowns' there are about an object, the "riskier" the purchase
of that object is.

> I have just as strong evidence (my belief and experience in
>product engineering/development) that Type II error would certainly have
>been considered by the manufacturer.

Whether or not the _manufacturer_ 'considered' it is irrelevant to the point
under discussion.

*NO* data is available to the prospective _purchaser_, to evaluate the
likelihood of such an occurrence -- which *will* cost the purchaser money.

There is a tacit admission by the manufacturer that the system _will_
false-trigger under some circumstances. They provide a means for
disabling the 'stop' capability.o

But _what_ those circumstances are, and how frequently they are likely to
occur -- who knows? The company isn't telling.

Of course, after purchasing, customers can find out -- the hard way. *BANG*
and another $80-200 out the window.


>...snip stuff on purported difficulties in testing....
>
>While it is true that not every conceivable action can be explicitly
>tested, it is certainly possible to analyze and test against quite broad
>classes of likely operational and mal-operational conditions.

And it is -guaranteed- that the 'sufficiently determined' customers will
come up with "hundreds, if not thousands" of situations that were not
tested for.

I have _personal_ experience *being* that 'sufficiently determined',uh, "party"
that breaks systems *without*deliberate*effort* --

Many years ago, I made an _inadvertent_ mistake in producing *one* control
card in a job deck to be fed to an IBM mainframe. As a result, that machine
was *totally* out of commission for more than a week. Because of that
incident, IBM did an emergency _hardware_ modification to every similar
installed system _world-wide_. (I grabbed a card that was already partly
punched, without realizing it -- and what resulted was _not_ what I had
intended. Unfortunately that which resulted _was_ comprehensible to the
machine.)

It 'broke' the system because the directive was *SO*STUPID*, and so non-
sensical, that nobody in their right mind would ever do it, and thus the
system was not protected against that particular form of idiocy. It had
simply never occurred to the designers this particular kind of thing might
happen.

The consequences of that little error were *staggering*. Among other
things, _payroll_ was late. Sending payroll deductions to the Gov't was
delayed. Not just for that company, but for 28 _other_ agencies that they
acted as 'service bureau' for.

In later years, I had a couple of clients who retained me specifically as
a 'tester' for their software products. They would send me a product, and
I would try what 'seemed reasonable' to me, in using it. They figured if
it survived 24 hours in my hands, it was safe to ship to customers. <grin>
The _really_ funny part is that I did _not_ set out to deliberately try
and break the software, either. It was 'reasonable, but un-conventional'
use that broke things every time. I got things like software that wouldn't
even _install_ on my MS test-bed platform -- it couldn't cope with _local_
hard-drive X: as the install destination, for one example.

> If
>exhaustive testing of every possibility were required to make any
>product, no products of any complexity would exist, so such claims that
>such is required before release of this particular product are simply
>specious.

Now go back and _read_ what I wrote. <grin>

I *never* claimed that any such 'exhaustive testing' is necessary.
In fact, I meant to suggest that 'exhaustive testing' is =not= practical.
That there is *no* real substitute for a few million hours of 'hands on'
in the care of 'sufficiently determined' fools.

Disclosure of _what_kinds_ of realistically-encountered situations could cause
false triggering -- so that potential customers could evaluate the likelihood
of experiencing =that= kind of event -- is something that seems to be missing
from the manufacturer's materials.

Well, not *quite* entirely. It is well documented that you can't use it
for slicing up hot dogs. <grin>

Sawstop! http://www.sawstop.com/ see the movies there and
you could do a search for past posted reviews in this group.

--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> I'd probably opt for the Powermatic. I think they're both great saws,
> and anecdotal feedback seems to indicate that General can be a bear to
> deal with from a customer service standpoint post sale.

Being a Canadian, I'd opt for the General. I haven't bought one yet, but
it's on my wishlist. As far as customer service goes for General, I think it
depends on who your service rep is for General and how you deal with them.
I've talked to a few General sales reps at more than one woodworking show
and to a man, they've all been very accommodating with information,
technical details and following up.

I'd still stay with the unisaw. With the exception of the motor, they
are still USA made, and any part of the 2005 model will fit the 1939
model..( right tilt). Best resale vale too... The motors come from
Brazil and seem to be trouble free...

AAvK wrote:
> Sawstop! http://www.sawstop.com/ see the movies there and
> you could do a search for past posted reviews in this group.
>

Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
...
> The downside to the Sawstop is the _cost_ of an activation. measured both
> in time and money, it is non-trivial. circa $80, as I recall, for the
> 'replacement' cartridge, *plus* whatever damage is done to the blade.

Which would undoubtedly be considerably extended in medical costs and
likely in missed work time, irregardless whether the woodworking is
professional or hobby....

> Which leads the issue of 'false positives' -- those cases where the thing
> triggers off for some reason _other_ than a human body-part in contact with
> the blade. This is an issue that *NOBODY*KNOWS* how likely it is to occur.
> It is impossible to predict what might happen in 'uncontrolled environments
> that could trigger the safety device.
...

Well, the rate could be pretty well predicted on the basis of extensive
testing which I would presume they would have quite a bit of...I'm
unaware of them having published any data from which to draw any
conclusions on either side. I would suspect they will have a pretty
good idea before they commit to production, however.

AAvK wrote:
>
> Although, I can imagine false triggerings occuring through wet wood... ay?
>
> But if the system is warrenteed, guarenteed, has undergone years of devel-
> opment and perfected all along the way, shouldn't be a problem, but I would
> take more concern into all they have discovered in possibilities.

My understanding is there's a bypass mechanism provided for such
usage--of course, using it defeats the whole purpose of the saw, but
apparently there are some instances where the technology just isn't
suitable...

Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >>
> >...
> >> The downside to the Sawstop is the _cost_ of an activation. measured both
> >> in time and money, it is non-trivial. circa $80, as I recall, for the
> >> 'replacement' cartridge, *plus* whatever damage is done to the blade.
> >
> >Which would undoubtedly be considerably extended in medical costs and
> >likely in missed work time, irregardless whether the woodworking is
> >professional or hobby....
>
> That assumes that the triggering _did_ prevent an accident. <grin>

In that scenario, yes, obviously that was intended.

> Yes, in the case of an _actual_ accident prevention, the expense is
> "cheap at {bigmultiple} the price".
>
> In the case of a 'false alarm', it is a totally _unnecessary_ expense.
>
> The trick is differentiating the two cases -- maximizing the former,
> and minimizing the latter.
>
> The manufacturer concentrates almost exclusively on the first situation,
> and (apparently) totally ignores the latter one.
...

You have shown no evidence to support that claim other than your
hypothesis. I have just as strong evidence (my belief and experience in
product engineering/development) that Type II error would certainly have
been considered by the manufacturer.

...snip stuff on purported difficulties in testing....

While it is true that not every conceivable action can be explicitly
tested, it is certainly possible to analyze and test against quite broad
classes of likely operational and mal-operational conditions. If
exhaustive testing of every possibility were required to make any
product, no products of any complexity would exist, so such claims that
such is required before release of this particular product are simply
specious.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:31:37 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> If the thing 'false triggers' on a -weekly- basis, at a "cost" of half
>> an hour of down-time, and $50-$200 in parts, It is 'too expensive' to
>> maintain.
>
>One other thing occurred to me. I think most would agree that this is a well
>built saw, excluding any consideration for the saw-stop function. If, (which
>appears to be one of your favourite words) as you say it 'false triggers'
>once in awhile or too much for whatever time period you deem to be
>appropriate, then you can still turn the saw-stop function off, have a good
>working saw on hand and not worry anymore about some of your 'false
>triggers' happening in the future.
>
>It's not as if any 'false-triggers' are going to bankrupt you. It might
>disappoint you or you might end up with a little bit less of a machine than
>you wanted, but any way you look it, you'd still own a highly capable, solid
>piece of woodworking machinery. As far as I'm concerned, that's a win in my
>books.

But if you turn the saw stop function off, and you're left with a saw
whose functionaity is no different than any other cabinet saw on the
market, but its price is at or very near the top of the list and it's
been on the market for less than a year (raising questions of
durability, company longevity, etc.), how is that a win?

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Which leads the issue of 'false positives' -- those cases where the thing
> triggers off for some reason _other_ than a human body-part in contact
with
> the blade. This is an issue that *NOBODY*KNOWS* how likely it is to
occur.
> It is impossible to predict what might happen in 'uncontrolled
environments
> that could trigger the safety device.

Sorry Robert, but that's not a valid reason not to buy it. You're basing
your argument on the lack of evidence as a reason not to consider buying it.
That thinking is a basic fallacy of logical argument. It is understandable
however, that you might be uneasy about it because it is a new product and
not yet time tested.

"pho" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I'd still stay with the unisaw. With the exception of the motor, they are still USA made, and any part of the 2005 model will fit
> the 1939 model..( right tilt). Best resale vale too... The motors come from Brazil and seem to be trouble free...
>

Ain't as safe tho... where are Sawstops made?

--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

I also just went through the General vs everything else selection and turned
to General (made in Canada). I had a Powermatic Artisan. It was such a
piece of junk that Powermatic never seriously entered the equation. My
uhderstanding is that all their saws are made in the far east. The General
has met my expectations completely. It is a very serious machine that
should long outlast me.
Dave

Doug - please try

mattzack at gmail dot com

Thanks

"bole2cant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have a General 350 for sale but the email I sent bounced because it is
> invalid.
>
> -Doug
>
>

Although, I can imagine false triggerings occuring through wet wood... ay?

But if the system is warrenteed, guarenteed, has undergone years of devel-
opment and perfected all along the way, shouldn't be a problem, but I would
take more concern into all they have discovered in possibilities.

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I'm glad you are asking about the "best" price. Many ask about the lowest
> price and later find that was not the best. Check out your local dealers.
> When buying a $2000 tool, the dealer service is much more important that
> saving 20 bucks up front.

Good point. A decent working relationship with a vendor can easily save a
person hundreds of dollars in frustration and aggravation.

"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> If the thing 'false triggers' on a -weekly- basis, at a "cost" of half
> an hour of down-time, and $50-$200 in parts, It is 'too expensive' to
> maintain.

One other thing occurred to me. I think most would agree that this is a well
built saw, excluding any consideration for the saw-stop function. If, (which
appears to be one of your favourite words) as you say it 'false triggers'
once in awhile or too much for whatever time period you deem to be
appropriate, then you can still turn the saw-stop function off, have a good
working saw on hand and not worry anymore about some of your 'false
triggers' happening in the future.

It's not as if any 'false-triggers' are going to bankrupt you. It might
disappoint you or you might end up with a little bit less of a machine than
you wanted, but any way you look it, you'd still own a highly capable, solid
piece of woodworking machinery. As far as I'm concerned, that's a win in my
books.

In article <M3mke.22037$gp.16751@fed1read03>, "AAvK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Although, I can imagine false triggerings occuring through wet wood... ay?

Why would anyone be cutting wet wood on a table saw?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Wonder if the newer Unisaws will do as well as the ones we used in HS and
college wood shops 30 years ago?

"Matt Zack" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I like smooth adjustments and minimal vibration.
> Has anyone a/b tested both saws?
>
> Also... General has something called the Millineum right now. Is it
> worth $2069 ? What model is the best General to get?
> Matt
>

The differences between the top line saws are not nearly as important as
the differences between the dealers and/or distibutors from whom you can or
will purchase the saw.

Availability, shipping, setup, knowing who has the current 'hot deal', who
has stock at a good price and wants to move it, who has the accessories
that you may need, whose repair services match your needs...

You've said nothing about where you live, so I can't recommend a dealer
near you.

It is rumoured that the first production Unisaw built is still in regular
service.

http://groups-
beta.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/browse_frm/thread/ba3c2ac47f80f84/aba
2fa46b0954aa4?q=el+guapo+unisaw&rnum=1&hl=en#aba2fa46b0954aa4

With Delta's current changes, picking either the Powermatic or the General
is an excellent choice.

Patriarch

Bob G. <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>Since no one else stepped in, I'd have to say if I had it all to do
>>over again, I'd still buy a 1950ish unisaw. I've had the opportunity
>>to try almost all newer table saws and I still haven't found any
>>reason to upgrade (other than the newer ones being prettier). You can
>>pick up older unisaurs for around $500-600 bucks. Save the rest of
>>the dough for some other tool. Just my 2 cents.
>
> Maybe you can pick up an older Unisaw for 5 to 600 bucks...but I can
> not even remember when I saw a used one for sale...PERIOD !
>
> That said IF I found a used one I would buy it in a heart
> beat...Pretty rare around this neck of the woods to see any tablesaws
> (except Craftsman) for sale...
>

It's Murphy's Law of Used Tool Acquisition. When I was looking for a used
lathe, three really nice, very reasonably priced cabinet saws became
available, over a period of two weeks, through the club email lists. (SF
Bay Area)

When I gave up on the used lathe, and bought a new one, a 50+ year old 8"
long bed Delta jointer, fully rebuilt, showed up on the list. The lathe
lesson fresh in my mind, I bought the jointer, too.

One thing I'll say: My wife recognizes a new tool in the shop, all bright
and shiny. A used tool is a stealth tool.

Patriarch

"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> But if you turn the saw stop function off, and you're left with a saw
> whose functionaity is no different than any other cabinet saw on the
> market, but its price is at or very near the top of the list and it's
> been on the market for less than a year (raising questions of
> durability, company longevity, etc.), how is that a win?

A win (maybe not a big win admittedly) to me is when something doesn't
function as well as expected, but is still entirely useable under any other
circumstance. As well, owning a good, solid cabinet saw is a win as far as
I'm concerned. And don't forget, we're only discussing turning off the
saw-stop feature in the event of a number of false-triggers. I'd guess that
it will happen under certain circumstances, but until it does and there's a
measure of information out there to refer to, all that can be done for now
is to project apprehension on a still relatively unproven technology. Much
as I've been hassling Robert, he's right, this is a product that is going to
have to prove itself very well before it becomes widely accepted.

> I'd still stay with the unisaw. With the exception of the motor, they
> are still USA made, and any part of the 2005 model will fit the 1939 model..( right tilt). Best resale vale too... The motors
> come from Brazil and seem to be trouble free...
>

Yeah I'd still say that safety factor is mighty strong argument tho...too good.
Plenty of beloved saws are Chinese. It's what I'd have to do considering my
nerve conditions. But that's just me.

--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

"Matt Zack" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> but thinking that maybe one of you know where I can find my best price,

I'm glad you are asking about the "best" price. Many ask about the lowest
price and later find that was not the best. Check out your local dealers.
When buying a $2000 tool, the dealer service is much more important that
saving 20 bucks up front.

I have a General 350 for sale but the email I sent bounced because it is
invalid.

-Doug

That is all okay with me, the cost of the cylinder and all... I would
use the saw carefully as possible and buy a new one every other
month, build up an arsenal of them over time. That safety factor is
too good for my nervous system. Not gonna buy the saw though.

--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Obviously you're not aware that the saw *IS* in production. <grin>
> They've been delivering since last fall.

Consider this. People are much more likely to complain problems with a
product than they are to compliment a product. Would to agree to that? If
so, then considering that it *has* been in production since last fall, I
have yet to see anyone complaining about one of your "false-positives"
happening to them. I imagine that if there were any, someone would have been
yelling wide and long by now and everybody here would know about it.

How does that affect all your "if's" you've been proposing? Seems to me so
far, your "ifs" have succumbed to a few "has nots" or "has not yets". :)

On Mon, 23 May 2005 15:54:26 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <M3mke.22037$gp.16751@fed1read03>, "AAvK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Although, I can imagine false triggerings occuring through wet wood... ay?
>
>Why would anyone be cutting wet wood on a table saw?

Because you needed to make that rip cut on your Home Depot treated
deck board to complete your deck installation?

Dave Hall

On Sun, 22 May 2005 11:56:25 -0700, "Slowhand" <I'm@work> wrote:

>

>
>Since no one else stepped in, I'd have to say if I had it all to do over
>again, I'd still buy a 1950ish unisaw. I've had the opportunity to try
>almost all newer table saws and I still haven't found any reason to upgrade
>(other than the newer ones being prettier). You can pick up older unisaurs
>for around $500-600 bucks. Save the rest of the dough for some other tool.
>Just my 2 cents.
>SH
>

Maybe you can pick up an older Unisaw for 5 to 600 bucks...but I can
not even remember when I saw a used one for sale...PERIOD !

That said IF I found a used one I would buy it in a heart
beat...Pretty rare around this neck of the woods to see any tablesaws
(except Craftsman) for sale...

Bob Griffiths.

On Fri, 20 May 2005 23:15:35 GMT, "Matt Zack"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I like smooth adjustments and minimal vibration.
>Has anyone a/b tested both saws?

What's both?

You mention a General and nothing else.

I own a General 650 and have used PM66's, new and old Unisaws, the
JTAS-10, and a Grizzly Z-series cabinet saw. I didn't specifically
test any saw head to head. My individual feelings:

The PM66 & 350/650 are identical in quality. I like the way General
installs the wings at the factory, but I like the PM66's polished
table. Both are super 10" saws. I cannot see a difference in use
between the two.

I think the Jet and current Unisaw are good, but have too many cheaper
plastic parts. The Grizz is a quality saw, with fit and finish a
small notch below Jet and Delta, but Delta and Jet are quickly sliding
down the slippery slope, while Grizzly is getting better.

I think all five are beyond what is needed in a one man shop, hobbyist
or pro. They will all cut accurately, and last a good long time. The
two more expensive saws have nicer feeling cranks, etc.. but the
functions are the same.

Personally, I'd look for a used PM, General, or Unisaw. I don't list
Grizz or Jet as used candidates, as some of their older stuff was a
bit rough.

Barry

On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:40:25 -0400, pho <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Best resale vale too...

Can you cite statistics?

The resale on a General 350 or PM66 is pretty sweet, if you can
actually find one for sale.

Barry

I like smooth adjustments and minimal vibration.
Has anyone a/b tested both saws?

Also... General has something called the Millineum right now. Is it worth
$2069 ? What model is the best General to get?
Matt

That is very impressive !!
You only need to take advantage of that thing once !
Thank you.
"AAvK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:13uje.10977$gp.10209@fed1read03...
>
> Sawstop! http://www.sawstop.com/ see the movies there and
> you could do a search for past posted reviews in this group.
>
> --
> Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
> cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
> not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/
>

On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:07:26 -0400, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I'd probably opt for the Powermatic. I think they're both great saws,
>> and anecdotal feedback seems to indicate that General can be a bear to
>> deal with from a customer service standpoint post sale.
>
>Being a Canadian, I'd opt for the General.

I've got a General 650, which I couldn't be happier with. However,
I've used plenty of PM66's which I also loved. What impressed me to
buy the General was that it's got very little plastic, and a beautiful
table that gets the wings shimmed and installed at the factory. Word
has it that the saws are assembled upside down. This would be a
downside of you need to get the saw up or down stairs, as you'll
probably need to disassemble it.

I've also heard that General's tech support can be a pain, but I've
honestly never needed them, so I wouldn't know. <G>

I say pick a color...

Barry

On 20 May 2005 15:39:26 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>I'd probably opt for the Powermatic. I think they're both great saws,
>and anecdotal feedback seems to indicate that General can be a bear to
>deal with from a customer service standpoint post sale.

============>

I was cheap and purchased a Jet Cabinet saw 10 years ago....But my
reason for commenting is that I feel that IF customer service for
either a Powermatic or General is needed then the machines are over
rated...

Never needed Jet Customer service in the 10+ years I've owned the saw
and my Jet sure AIN'T no Powermatic or General...

Just my thoiughts..

Bob Griffiths