Business
When it’s time to consider new windows, here’s what you need to know
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.
From LifeSiteNews
Of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s fleet of 1,200 drones, 79% pose national security risks due to them being made in China
Canada’s top police force spent millions on now near-useless and compromised security drones, all because they were made in China, a nation firmly controlled by the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) government.
An internal report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Canada’s Senate national security committee revealed that $34 million in taxpayer money was spent on a fleet of 973 Chinese-made drones.
Replacement drones are more than twice the cost of the Chinese-made ones between $31,000 and $35,000 per unit. In total, the RCMP has about 1,228 drones, meaning that 79 percent of its drone fleet poses national security risks due to them being made in China.
The RCMP said that Chinese suppliers are “currently identified as high security risks primarily due to their country of origin, data handling practices, supply chain integrity and potential vulnerability.”
In 2023, the RCMP put out a directive that restricted the use of the made-in-China drones, putting them on duty for “non-sensitive operations” only, however, with added extra steps for “offline data storage and processing.”
The report noted that the “Drones identified as having a high security risk are prohibited from use in emergency response team activities involving sensitive tactics or protected locations, VIP protective policing operations, or border integrity operations or investigations conducted in collaboration with U.S. federal agencies.”
The RCMP earlier this year said it was increasing its use of drones for border security.
Senator Claude Carignan had questioned the RCMP about what kind of precautions it uses in contract procurement.
“Can you reassure us about how national security considerations are taken into account in procurement, especially since tens of billions of dollars have been announced for procurement?” he asked.
“I want to make sure national security considerations are taken into account.”
The use of the drones by Canada’s top police force is puzzling, considering it has previously raised awareness of Communist Chinese interference in Canada.
Indeed, as reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier in the year, an RCMP internal briefing note warned that agents of the CCP are targeting Canadian universities to intimidate them and, in some instances, challenge them on their “political positions.”
The final report from the Foreign Interference Commission concluded that operatives from China may have helped elect a handful of MPs in both the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. It also concluded that China was the primary foreign interference threat to Canada.
Chinese influence in Canadian politics is unsurprising for many, especially given former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s past admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Canadian senator appointed by Trudeau told Chinese officials directly that their nation is a “partner, not a rival.”
China has been accused of direct election meddling in Canada, as reported by LifeSiteNews.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, an exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Carney and Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to China and the World Economic Forum. Despite Carney’s later claims that China poses a threat to Canada, he said in 2016 the Communist Chinese regime’s “perspective” on things is “one of its many strengths.”
Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.
|
When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net Needs Your
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
Media bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
Sometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
MAiD1 day ago
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Business1 day agoWhat’s Going On With Global Affairs Canada and Their $392 Million Spending Trip to Brazil?
-
Energy1 day agoCanada following Europe’s stumble by ignoring energy reality
-
Focal Points2 days agoPharma Bombshell: President Trump Orders Complete Childhood Vaccine Schedule Review
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty
-
Automotive2 days agoTrump Deals Biden’s EV Dreams A Death Blow
-
Business1 day agoWhy Does Canada “Lead” the World in Funding Racist Indoctrination?