Monday, December 18, 2006

Vacuums: Bags or Filters?

The great thing about Ezzie's blog is that it's kind of like a hang out for everyone and any conversation is fair game. With that in mind, I would like to talk to you about a touchy subject. Yes, you guessed it. Vacuums. Till now, we have had a Dirt Devil that has the old bags in it. It broke recently, and we bought a new Eureka, but this time, instead of the bags, it has the filter technology. Apparently, the filters are all the rage now and most vacuums only use the filters. The only thing people have to say about the filter vacuums is that you don't have to worry about those "messy" bags anymore. uhhhh, ok. Here is my opinion on the whole stupid matter:

With a bag, I would vacumm till it gets full or almost full, take out the bag and toss it. With the filter vacuums, its a whole shpeal. If I want the filter itself to remain somewhat clean, then I have to empty out the storage cup (with the dust) each time. And when you do, dust always seems to rise up after hitting the trash and sometimes, it even falls to the floor. Then I have to go and shake off the dust that has accumitlated on the filter. And not only that, the instruction manual recommends that you can even rinse the filter in some warm water, but you have to let it dry before using it again. Lets not forget about the cost. An extra filter costs $15.00 each. Bags on the other hand, are about $5.00 for, IIRC, 4 bags. And I am assuming you have to change filters about the same amount of time you would change a bag.

So I ask you, what have I saved? Nothing. I haven't saved money with the filters nor time with the clean up. How does this sort of technology get past the consumer and ends up dominating the market? Why re-invent the wheel. And whats even more nutts, is the people that shell out $500 on a dyson. Those things are huge and heavy.

Am I wrong here? What do you guys prefer?