When it’s time to consider new windows, here’s what you need to know

Todayville Content Team

Published

3 years ago

7 minute read

Replacement Windows vs. New-Construction Windows – What Should I Get?

If installing new windows for your home is on your 2022 to-do list, there are two routes you can take. Either you can get new construction or replacement windows. The type you choose depends upon several factors, such as your house, current windows, and their condition.

If you are new to home renovation, you must wonder what the difference is between replacement and new construction windows. Keep reading to learn everything about both types and where to buy windows that work best for your house.

What are replacement windows?

As the name suggests, these windows basically replace your house’s old windows using the existing rough openings. They are usually custom-made to fit easily into the current frame.

Replacement windows are comparatively easy to install than construction windows as they require minimal work, which can be done without touching the trims or the insulation around the window.

What are construction windows?

New construction windows are typically used for newly constructed homes or other new constructions, like a home extension. This does not imply that they can only be used for newly built homes. In some situations, such as intense remodelling or repairing badly damaged existing structures, replacing old windows with new construction windows is the best option.

Replacement windows and construction windows are available in various styles, finishes, and materials. So you can pretty much find a style that goes well with your home based on whichever window is right for your home.

When should I use replacement windows?

Replacement windows are a good choice if your window frames are in good condition and you’re ready to invest in new energy-efficient windows. Generally, these units are used when the wall has already been constructed and cannot be significantly altered. These windows are ideal when:

you are replacing an existing window
you want the wall to stay in its place as much as possible
the window is not going to be used for a new building
you want to get the same window style but modern and energy-efficient

When should I use new-construction windows?

Replacement windows are not the ideal option if the window frames in your current home are damaged. In that case, you would need to remove the existing frame. Installing new construction windows is the ideal solution in such a situation. In addition, new construction windows are suitable when:

you are building a new house
you are planning an extension in your house
the wall is being rebuilt
the wall is damaged and needs major repairing

Whether you should opt for replacement or new-construction windows depends upon several factors, as mentioned above. However, keep in mind that construction windows are standard-sized windows. So you cannot just plug them into any opening where an existing window was removed from, even if they appear to be the exact same size as the old window.

Which one is more cost-effective?

When it comes to installing new windows in your home, replacement windows are generally the least expensive option. Because these windows are inserted in existing frames, they typically require less labour making them more affordable. The price for a replacement window may start from $300 per unit and rise depending on the custom features you choose, such as:

Frame material. Vinyl here is the most affordable, while wood is the most expensive.
Hardware. You can choose standard or opt for elite hardware, customizing locks, handles, etc., to match your preferences.
Colour. White, Black or other basic colours will not significantly affect the price. Still, if you want custom shades to complement your exterior and interior, you should expect a price change of around 15%.
Glazing. The current standard is double pane windows, but if you live in cold regions, triple pane windows would be a better choice. But the price for these units may be up to 20% higher depending on the glazing and LoE coating you choose.

Initially, the price of new-construction windows may appear less, but it truly relies on the type and number of windows you order. Since they are standard size, they are produced in large volumes and hence available at a lower price.

However, the price can significantly increase when you consider the cost of replacing the current window frame and repairing the surrounding interior and exterior walls.

But installing construction windows can prove to be the most acceptable alternative and the best investment if you’re installing windows in new construction or your current window frames are in poor condition.

Where to buy new windows for your house?

Due to a large number of Red Deer window companies in the market today, you will have several options at various price ranges.

To help you pick the best option for your house, we advise dealing with experienced professionals that offer Energy Star-rated windows, free quotes & consultation and qualified in-house installers to ensure correct installation and maximum energy efficiency for your new windows.

Final thoughts

If you are about to install new windows, choosing whether to get replacement windows or new construction windows is a decision you must make very carefully.

A new construction window may be a good option in situations like an extension to your home or building a new home.

However, a replacement window will be more suitable if you plan to replace your existing windows, not changing rough openings and window styles. Opting for custom-made replacement windows means saving yourself a lot of time, hassle, and money in the future.

Todayville Content Team

www.todayville.com/

Todayville Content Team works with a wide variety of clients to develop compelling content solutions. Our experienced team develops strategic campaigns that use video and storytelling, digital advertising and social media to help our clients position and distinguish themselves in the market.

Follow Author

PlayAlberta’s Struggle to Compete With International Platforms

Business / 5 days ago

Carney’s Floor-Crossing Campaign. A Media-Staged Bid for Majority Rule That Erodes Democracy While Beijing Hovers

Also Interesting / 6 days ago

From Innovation Hubs to Digital Habits, How Work and Leisure Are Changing in Alberta

Business

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on November 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Artificial Intelligence

Lawsuit Claims Google Secretly Used Gemini AI to Scan Private Gmail and Chat Data

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

By Ken Macon

Whether the claims are true or not, privacy in Google’s universe has long been less a right than a nostalgic illusion.

When Google flipped a digital switch in October 2025, few users noticed anything unusual.

Gmail loaded as usual, Chat messages zipped across screens, and Meet calls continued without interruption.

Yet, according to a new class action lawsuit, something significant had changed beneath the surface.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Plaintiffs claim that Google silently activated its artificial intelligence system, Gemini, across its communication platforms, turning private conversations into raw material for machine analysis.

The lawsuit, filed by Thomas Thele and Melo Porter, describes a scenario that reads like a breach of trust.

It accuses Google of enabling Gemini to “access and exploit the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications, including literally every email and attachment sent and received.”

The filing argues that the company’s conduct “violates its users’ reasonable expectations of privacy.”

Until early October, Gemini’s data processing was supposedly available only to those who opted in.

Then, the plaintiffs claim, Google “turned it on for everyone by default,” allowing the system to mine the contents of emails, attachments, and conversations across Gmail, Chat, and Meet.

The complaint points to a particular line in Google’s settings, “When you turn this setting on, you agree,” as misleading, since the feature “had already been switched on.”

This, according to the filing, represents a deliberate misdirection designed to create the illusion of consent where none existed.

There is a certain irony woven through the outrage. For all the noise about privacy, most users long ago accepted the quiet trade that powers Google’s empire.

They search, share, and store their digital lives inside Google’s ecosystem, knowing the company thrives on data.

The lawsuit may sound shocking, but for many, it simply exposes what has been implicit all along: if you live in Google’s world, privacy has already been priced into the convenience.

Thele warns that Gemini’s access could expose “financial information and records, employment information and records, religious affiliations and activities, political affiliations and activities, medical care and records, the identities of his family, friends, and other contacts, social habits and activities, eating habits, shopping habits, exercise habits, [and] the extent to which he is involved in the activities of his children.”

In other words, the system’s reach, if the allegations prove true, could extend into nearly every aspect of a user’s personal life.

The plaintiffs argue that Gemini’s analytical capabilities allow Google to “cross-reference and conduct unlimited analysis toward unmerited, improper, and monetizable insights” about users’ private relationships and behaviors.

The complaint brands the company’s actions as “deceptive and unethical,” claiming Google “surreptitiously turned on this AI tracking ‘feature’ without informing or obtaining the consent of Plaintiffs and Class Members.” Such conduct, it says, is “highly offensive” and “defies social norms.”

The case invokes a formidable set of statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California’s constitutional right to privacy.

Google is yet to comment on the filing.