I had a bagless vac before and then i got my dyson and I was :O We are mucky bastards.
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 12:52, archived)
they've got a 5-year guarantee and when my mum's one broke a man came out to her house to fix it. She's had it about 10 years now with only one issue. Pricey at first, but worth it.
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 12:55, archived)
I may go Ebaying for a refurbed one though as they are ridiculously expensive and I would rather spend my money on other things!
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 12:57, archived)
department stores love giving them away and you usually get 20% off your first shop with it. Pay it off and cut the card up. Simples.
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:29, archived)
and it's mostly marketing hype. Miele make the best vacuums by a country mile.
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:07, archived)
No wonder I'm getting sniffly.
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 12:54, archived)
I bought my new hoover before I moved out. Previously my parents had an old Dyson DC04. My brand new hoover made it look like we'd never cleaned the house :P
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 12:55, archived)
It's having a new machine that does it, plus the cyclones in a Dyson make the dirt more "obvious" in the clear bin
a vacuum is a vacuum. The clue is in the name. One can't be better than another at sucking, beyond basic power differences. The only thing that really makes a difference is having a powered spinning brush in the suction head for deep cleaning carpets and furniture. Try a Miele Cat&Dog.
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:05, archived)
Dyson just put a spin on it all
Theyve got it in the bag....
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:07, archived)
It was absolute shit and the 10 year old DC01 my mum gave her worked better.
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:20, archived)
I'm not really talking about personal experinece here. It's just a statement of engineering fact, dyson's marketing hype is bullshit. beyond a very basic level that is achieved by all reasonable quality models, the vacuum part of a vacuum cleaner is identical. Dysons don't "suck better" because they can't.
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:26, archived)
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:38, archived)
*a mile being the official measure of vacuum inefficiency, obviously
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:41, archived)
They are what we've used in the pharma and biotech industries for years for clean room air handling, till some bright spark decided to put them in a domestic vacuum cleaner. Yes, James Dyson, you again. Now everyone does it.
They are completely pointless in that role, save for almost certainly upping the rate of childhood asthma, and they cost a lot to replace, and block quite quickly. and have very small pores so restrict flow. Take them out, put a normal filter in, bosh, better cleaning.
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:53, archived)
TAKE THAT, MOTHERFUCKERS *dives off the roof, double black flip onto a motorbike, drives away into sunset*
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:20, archived)
(, Mon 29 Jun 2009, 13:25, archived)