# Changing contact lenses at specsavers



## Unregistered (9 May 2005)

Hi all, 

I'm a customer of specsavers but never buy my lenses there, always buy online.  I get my yearly lens check up at specsavers just so I know if there has been any change in my prescription.  
I now want to change the brand of lenses I use (focus dailies) as I find they are slightly irritating to my eye when left in for longer than a few hours and I want to see if there are others out there that would be more comfortable.

Does anyone know if I can get specsavers to give me a free sample of a few different brands or do I have to pay to try out new kinds?

thanks.


----------



## CCOVICH (9 May 2005)

Surely you should make an appointment with an optician to get the cause of the discomfort checked out?  (I, like you, am a 'customer' of Specsavers, but buy my lenses elsewhere for much less).

I would imagine that if they are going to recommend new lenses, they will give you a free trial first (they did the same for me a few years ago).


----------



## RainyDay (9 May 2005)

Specsavers (and the other 'chain' opticians) are the McDonalds of their industry - Do you really want those guys messing round with your sight?


----------



## Vanilla (10 May 2005)

I agree with Rainyday- far better to go to an independant optician even if it costs a little extra. My optician is brilliant, I have utter faith in him, my whole family goes to him and I 'll bring my kids to him too. Each check-up is completely thorough, he runs a top class practice, and will post contacts or glasses to me whenever I want if I cant get to him quickly. He offers every kind of frame, from the basic to the sublime, and has a really good eye for what suits your face shape. And frankly I really dont care if he costs more than specsavers or the like, although I cant whether he is, cause I've never been tempted to check the prices. His name is Pat O'Donoghue and he's based in Killarney. Top class.


----------



## Mrs Dara (10 May 2005)

Unregistered, can't really answer your question but I also got the focus dailies.  I wear glasses most of the week but then at the weekend will wear the dailies and I also find I have to take them out after about six hours.  They become really dry, even though when I was tested for them, they said my 'tears' were fine.  

My sister uses the monthly ones and says they are much better than daily.  I would also like to try these out on a trial basis but haven't looked into it yet.


----------



## Cahir (10 May 2005)

My optician recently changed my brand of contact lenses from 1-day acuvue because she said they're the same as others only more expensive.

She's completely wrong!  I've been using the cheaper ones for a couple of months now and I hate them.  They could be focus dailies but I'm not sure because I threw out the boxes and the lenses don't have any identifying marks.

They make my eyes so dry that it can be difficult to take out the lenses.  I still have a couple of pairs of acuvue left so I use them if I know I'll need the lenses in for more than about 4 hours.  I'm going back to the optician at the weekend and getting her to order in acuvue for me.


----------



## Unregistered (10 May 2005)

thanks for all the comments, I will go for check up with specsavers and see if they can recommend lenses that are less likely to cause problems.  It looks like the focus dailies are cheaper for a reason - ie they are not as user friendly as some of the other brands.
Thanks.


----------



## casiopea (10 May 2005)

Interesting. I have the exact same problem with my focus dailies. Slightly off topic, has anyone heard anything about new lenses on the market that you can supposedly leave in (sleep in) for days at a time (6 days I believe). It was mentioned to me recently by a friend but he is not in the industry. 
Thanks
cas


----------



## Unregistered (10 May 2005)

casiopea said:
			
		

> Interesting. I have the exact same problem with my focus dailies. Slightly off topic, has anyone heard anything about new lenses on the market that you can supposedly leave in (sleep in) for days at a time (6 days I believe). It was mentioned to me recently by a friend but he is not in the industry.
> Thanks
> cas



yeah, i did a trial of those (Night and Day i think they are called) - they're a lot thiner than the usual lenses and they are made of silicone (i think) so they're breathable. You just put them in and leave them for about 6 days, and then take them out for a day; i think each pair of lenses last about a month. It's as close to getting your normal sight back as you can get.They're more expensive than the normal ones. I ended up going back to my normal lenses because i suffer from dry eyes and i was finding the Night and Day uncomfortable, but i do know someone who's v.happy with them.


----------



## Vanilla (10 May 2005)

*'new lenses'*

Don't think those lenses are very new, though- my optician gave me a ( free) trial of them over two years ago. I couldnt take to them at all though. Maybe theres an even newer version?


----------



## CCOVICH (10 May 2005)

I have 'extended wear' monthly lenses.  You can leave them in night and day for 30 days.  I have had them for over 3 years, and have never had any problems with them.  They cost around €85 for 3 months supply with getlenses.com, but I am considering ordering them of a UK site for less next time round.


----------



## Mrs Dara (10 May 2005)

Is there a more expensive version of the focus dailies cos I don't mind paying a bit more if they don't keep drying out.


----------



## Unregistered (10 May 2005)

I keep hearing that acuvue daily disposables are the best disposables around -does anyone on these boards use them and have you had any problems with dry eyes with them?

thanks.


----------



## Sue Ellen (10 May 2005)

These previous topics on contact lenses might be of interest


----------



## Cahir (11 May 2005)

Like I said earlier I'm going back to 1 day acuvue as soon as possible.  I could wear them from 6 in the morning before work til about 3 the next morning after a night out with not a hint of dryness in my eyes.  The lenses I have now are practically stuck to my eyes after a couple of hours and then my eyes are sore for a while after taking them out.  

I don't mind paying the extra, they're well worth it.


----------



## Unregistered (11 May 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Specsavers (and the other 'chain' opticians) are the McDonalds of their industry - Do you really want those guys messing round with your sight?




On what basis are you suggesting that they're less qualified to examine your eyes than some other guy who happens to charge more?

Are you, or do you have any connection with anyone, involved in the industry.


----------



## RainyDay (11 May 2005)

Unregistered said:
			
		

> On what basis are you suggesting that they're less qualified to examine your eyes than some other guy who happens to charge more?


I'm sure Specsavers and the other chains employ qualified opticians. However, when it comes to my eyes (and any other parts of my body), I want a bit more than the minimum qualifications. I want a named professional with a great reputation. I want to know that the professional I saw on my last visit will be the same professional I see on my next visit. And your assumption that the other guys charge more is not correct.


			
				Unregistered said:
			
		

> Are you, or do you have any connection with anyone, involved in the industry.


I consider my own optician to be a good friend, though I haven't seen or spoken to her for over a year now. That's my only connection with the industry. I do hold a modest shareholding in one of the lens manufacturers mentioned on this thread, but their contact lens business is just one small part of their overall business.


----------



## ClubMan (11 May 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Specsavers (and the other 'chain' opticians) are the McDonalds of their industry - Do you really want those guys messing round with your sight?



Assuming that this comparison is meant disparagingly - and there seems no other way to take it given the "messing around" comment - then, unless it can be backed up with specific, independent and objective evidence that _Specsavers _in some way offer an inferior service to customers than other opticians then this slur should be withdrawn.

For what it's worth, I have attended _Specsavers _as well as numerous other opticians over the years and I have no complaints about the service offered by _Specsavers_. In fact, they seemed to provide a much more thorough examination and better value on spectacle frames and lenses (I haven't worn contact lenses in years now) than many smaller practices that I've attended.


----------



## RainyDay (11 May 2005)

It's my opinion, based on my experience. It is just as valid as your opinion, and any other posters opinion. It is glaringly obvious that they are a chain operation, not an individual practice. 

I could ask that your statement that "I have no complaints about the service offered by Specsavers. In fact, they seemed to provide a much more thorough examination and better value on spectacle frames and lenses (I haven't worn contact lenses in years now)" which I assume is meant supportively be backed up by 'specific, independent and objective evidence' to show that Specsavers are as good as other opticians, but I don't work that way.


----------



## ClubMan (11 May 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> It's my opinion, based on my experience. It is just as valid as your opinion, and any other posters opinion. It is glaringly obvious that they are a chain operation, not an individual practice.



It was not clearly stated as an opinion or as based on personal experience. It was phrased like you knew of something specific that supported the assertion that they were the _"McDonald's of their industry" _(something that many people might read as pejorative) and that they are _"messing with [peoples'] eyes"._ The latter comment constitutesa blatant slur and should not stand without supporting evidence. Even if you had prefixed your comments with "in my opinion" or "in my experience" or whatever they would still be outrageous in the absence of supporting proof. A reasonable interpretation of your comments is that you are insinuating that _Specsavers _are in some way dodgy. This is outrageous and unacceptable (in my opinion).



> I could ask that your statement that "I have no complaints about the service offered by Specsavers. In fact, they seemed to provide a much more thorough examination and better value on spectacle frames and lenses (I haven't worn contact lenses in years now)" which I assume is meant supportively be backed up by 'specific, independent and objective evidence' to show that Specsavers are as good as other opticians, but I don't work that way.



I think that it is pretty clear that this was stated as an individual opinion based on personal experience.


----------



## RainyDay (12 May 2005)

The interpretation that they are in some way dodgy is yours, not mine. I don't think McDonalds are 'dodgy'. I've chosen not to eat there in the past 5 years or more. I'd bet that I haven't been sober in a McD's for the past 10 years. Specsavers are what they are - a high street chain with a heavy emphasis on advertising and 'special offers' to bring customers in the door. If the 18% staff turnover that they experience in the UK is replicated here, your chances of building up a relationship with an optician who can get to know your eyes and your preferences are slim to none. That's not what I look for from a healthcare professional. If they meet your requirements or those of other posters, best of luck with that.


----------



## ClubMan (12 May 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Specsavers (and the other 'chain' opticians) are the McDonalds of their industry - Do you really want those guys messing round with your sight?



The underlining is mine. I feel that you should either justify this comment or remove it. I reckon that this is potentially libellous/slanderous and brings the good name of _AAM _into disrepute and is probably in breach of the .

Disclaimer: I have no vested interest in _Specsavers _other than as an occasional customer.


----------



## RainyDay (12 May 2005)

The underlined piece is a question (as indicated by the question mark at the end) not a comment.


----------



## ClubMan (12 May 2005)

(As I anticipated earlier we're into semantics/hair splitting...)

Yes - a seemingly rhetorical one that implies that the answer is "no" and insinuating that _Specsavers _are in some way inferior to other opticians. I stand over my assertion that this comment is out of order and should either be justified or removed.


----------



## RainyDay (12 May 2005)

It seems to me that it is your interpretation of my comments that is problematic, rather than the comments/questions themselves. I can't be responsible for your interpretations.


----------



## Mumha (12 May 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Specsavers (and the other 'chain' opticians) are the McDonalds of their industry - Do you really want those guys messing round with your sight?


 
I used to go to Specsavers but changed recently and am glad I did. I went to Egan's in Cork (used to when I was growing up but switched for the cost). It was more expensive but not by a whole lot (about 320 euro for two pairs, one of which was sunglasses), and the reassurance made up for it. Also my eyes have a larger asigmatism than is the norm, and was well impressed with the attention to detail.

Specsaves are probably fine for the standard type of customer.


----------



## ClubMan (12 May 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> It seems to me that it is your interpretation of my comments that is problematic, rather than the comments/questions themselves. I can't be responsible for your interpretations.



No. It is your prejudicial insinuation about the services offered by _Specsavers _that is the problem and this is your responsibility. Implying that the problem lies with my interpretation of your comments is a subterfuge. You have still offered no justification for the insinuation that there is some problem with the service offered by _Specsavers _or, specifically, how they might be _"messing with [customers'] eyes"_. Dress it up whatever way you want but this comment is out of order.


----------



## RainyDay (12 May 2005)

I didn't make any insinuation. I made one comment, and I asked one question. I stand by my comment, and I read with interest your response and that of other posters to my question.


----------



## Unregistered (12 May 2005)

If anyone else made that type of unsubstantiated claim, you'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Looks like a case of double standards.


----------



## ClubMan (12 May 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> I didn't make any insinuation. I made one comment, and I asked one question. I stand by my comment...



But you don't specifically stand over your (rhetorical it seems to me) question? How anybody can read the rhetorical question at issue as anything other than an insinuation of some sort of dodginess on the part of _Specsavers_, how anybody can continue to defend at length such an groundless insinuation iand how such a comment is allowed to stand without substantiation and in the light of the posting guidelines is beyond me... 



> Specsavers (and the other 'chain' opticians) are the McDonalds of their industry - Do you really want those guys messing round with your sight?


----------



## Unregistered (13 May 2005)

I'm a bit confused as to why Clubman can make scurrilous, unsupported claims about Microsoft in this thread http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=9922 (buggy software, buggy crap, site keeps getting hacked, cheaper/better alternatives), but yet objects to the claims about Specsavers in this thread. Surely, unless it can be backed up with specific, independent and objective evidence that MS in some way offer an inferior service to customers than other software providers, then this slur should be withdrawn.


----------



## BlueSpud (13 May 2005)

Nice on RainyDay, eh unregistered guest.  The difference here is that MS o/s are buggy, and while the competition are not as slick and feature rich, the only reason they survive at all is that they are much less buggy.  Companies still use o/s's like OpenVMS as back end servers cos they can stay up longer.

Specsavers are all right, they may be a chain but they are very transparent (boom boom).  You know what you get and I believe they are just as thourough as the private guy, inho, I have been going to them for years.


----------



## ClubMan (13 May 2005)

Unregistered said:
			
		

> I'm a bit confused as to why Clubman can make scurrilous, unsupported claims about Microsoft in this thread http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=9922 (buggy software, buggy crap, site keeps getting hacked, cheaper/better alternatives)



Actually it was _Microsoft _themselves who insinuated that their own software (at least the versions before the latest releases) was buggy and open to hacking/cracking. I merely alluded to the radio advertisement that carried these comments and which basically said that a good reason to upgrade was because the existing software was dodgy while the new software was more reliable/secure and was on special offer.



			
				BlueSpud said:
			
		

> Nice on RainyDay, eh unregistered guest.



To be fair, I'm pretty sure that if _Rainyday _had something to say on this matter then he would not resort to posting as _Unregistered _so I assume that this was not him.


----------



## Unregistered (14 May 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Actually it was _Microsoft _themselves who insinuated that their own software (at least the versions before the latest releases) was buggy and open to hacking/cracking. I merely alluded to the radio advertisement that carried these comments and which basically said that a good reason to upgrade was because the existing software was dodgy while the new software was more reliable/secure and was on special offer.



Your comments are (to use your own words and standards) disparaging, scurrilous, pejorative, outrageous in the absence of supporting proof, potentially libellous/slanderous, brings the good name of AAM into disrepute and is probably in breach of the posting guidelines. If anyone wants to listen to the advert in question, download RTE’s Morning Ireland from 28th April last ([broken link removed]) and jump to the ad break about 42 minutes into the show. The advert actually refers to two specific problems that may have occurred with older versions;

-	your inbox may be stuffed with spam
-	you may get a virus which wipes your hard drives

No reference to bugs, buggy, buggy crap, sites getting hacked at all. The ad goes on to mention one benefit of the new version as ‘secure access to your data when out of the office’. If Saab or Volvo offer a new safety feature like side air bags, does that make their older cars 'dodgy'?

But that’s a bit of a diversion. Clubman & Bluespud are entitled to their opinions on MS, as Rainy is entitled to his opinion on Specsavers. The interesting question is whether Clubman is applying the same standard of proof to his own contributions to those of others?


----------



## ClubMan (14 May 2005)

Unregistered said:
			
		

> Your comments are (to use your own words and standards) disparaging, scurrilous, pejorative, outrageous in the absence of supporting proof, potentially libellous/slanderous,



Not at all. Most, if not all, software contains bugs. If you want proof that _Microsoft's _software specifically contains bugs then simply look at _Microsoft's _own  or any of the many media reports about this issue (e.g. [broken link removed] to get you started and here are a few more  if you want to dig further). Comments such as mine would only be potentially libellous/slanderous if they were untrue. Obviously they are not. The same cannot be said right now for the earlier comments about _Specsavers_.


----------



## Unregistered (14 May 2005)

Oh let’s please get back to the real world. The double standards being applied here are glaringly obvious. The reference to the MS bug database is a subterfuge. Everyone knows & accepts that MS software, like all commercial software (including what you describe as the ‘cheaper/better’ alternatives) has bugs. 

But your original comment didn’t say that MS software has bugs. You referred to it as the ‘buggy software that keeps crashing’ and ‘a load of buggy crap’. Where is the “specific, independent and objective evidence” (your words) that MS in some way “offer an inferior service to customers than other“ (your standard of proof) software providers to back up this disparaging remark. 

You refer to ‘site that keeps getting hacked’ in your insinuation that MS hosting software is somehow inferior.  Of course, there were no reference to sites or hacking at all in the real advert, so your allegation that this is part of the advert is absolutely untrue. Is this not an ‘outragous’ and ‘scurrilous’ (your words) accusation that is potentially slanderous/libellous (your words)? Where is the independent and objective evidence” (your words) that MS in some way “offer an inferior service to customers than other“ (your standard of proof) hosting providers to back up this disparaging remark. 

Where is the “independent and objective evidence” (your words) that the alternative packages which you recommend as ‘cheaper/better’ are actually cheaper (when total cost of ownership is taken into account) and better?

Or perhaps having reviewed all this, you’ll feel that there is really nothing wrong with an off-the-cuff remark expressing a personal opinion regarding a particular provider in the market?


----------



## ClubMan (14 May 2005)

Unregistered said:
			
		

> Oh let’s please get back to the real world. ... The reference to the MS bug database is a subterfuge.



Are you saying that _MSDN _is not part of the real world and can be so easily dismissed as proof that _Microsoft _software contains bugs/flaws, security holes etc....?



> Where is the “specific, independent and objective evidence” (your words) that MS in some way “offer an inferior service to customers than other“ (your standard of proof) software providers to back up this disparaging remark.



... if so then I trust that the CERT website will satisfy your need for independent proof that this is the case?



> Or perhaps having reviewed all this, you’ll feel that there is really nothing wrong with an off-the-cuff remark expressing a personal opinion regarding a particular provider in the market?



I have backed up my points in the other thread with evidence. No such evidence was presented for the earlier comment about _Specsavers_.


----------



## Unregistered (14 May 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Are you saying that _MSDN _is not part of the real world and can be so easily dismissed as proof that _Microsoft _software contains bugs/flaws, security holes etc....?


No - my point (which in all fairness was pretty clear first time round) is that existence of bugs does not come within an asses roar of backing up your scurrilous, outrageous, potentially libellous/slanderous claims that MS software is 'a load of buggy crap'. As you pointed out yourself, all software has bugs. You come nowhere near reaching the standard of proof that you expect from others, i.e. 'offer an inferior service to customers than others'



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> ... if so then I trust that the CERT website will satisfy your need for independent proof that this is the case?


I get a 'The page cannot be displayed' error on that link. But if (as I suspect) you are pointing to Cert's listing of MS bugs/vulnerabilities, then that is no more relevant than the MSDN bug list above, for the same reasons. As you pointed out yourself, all software has bugs. You come nowhere near reaching the standard of proof that you expect from others, i.e. 'offer an inferior service to customers than others'. Indeed, the alternative OS products recommended on the Todd Verbeek page you linked to have their share of appearances on the CERT databases. Does thes make Linus & Mac OS a pile of buggy crap too?



			
				ClubMan said:
			
		

> I have backed up my points in the other thread with evidence. No such evidence was presented for the earlier comment about _Specsavers_.


Please refresh my memory - I see no other evidence presented in the other thread to support your scurrilous, outragous, potentially libellous/slanderous claims.


----------



## CCOVICH (14 May 2005)

Is this post still about changing contacts at Specsavers, or is it a debate about the bugginess or otherwise of MS software?  Or is it about something else?


----------



## ClubMan (14 May 2005)

Apologies for the earlier broken link.  is more or less the same thing.

For what it's worth [broken link removed] supporting the claim that _Microsoft _may not be giving consumers value for money compared to other software vendors.

I don't think that anybody can argue that _CERT _or the _US/EU _courts are anything but independent and objective?


----------



## Unregistered (15 May 2005)

Clutching at straws.....

I'll try one final time. Existence of bugs does not meet the standard of proof that you set for others, i.e. "offer an inferior service to customers than others". Your beloved Linux has 1240 appearances in the bug database, compared to 1815 for Microsoft. Given the vast range/quantity of MS products out there, this does nothing to prove your point. You are simply proving over & over again that all software has bugs. Not very productive really.

And as for the motley crew of Eweek articles, I see nothing here to support your 'buggy' allegations. I see nothing here to support your 'sites can be hacked' allegations. Indeed, you haven't done anything to back up that particular allegation! How anybody can continue to defend at length such an groundless insinuation and how such a comment is allowed to stand without substantiation and in the light of the posting guidelines is beyond me... 

It is very clear to all that the standards you apply to others do not apply to your own postings for some mystical reason. Sheer hypocrasy, in my book.

But now I'm tired of this. You can link to another bug database if you wish, but the hypocrasy and lack of balance is obvious to all.


----------



## ClubMan (15 May 2005)

Unregistered said:
			
		

> Clutching at straws.....



No - I presented evidence and you are simply dismissing/ignoring it.



> Your beloved Linux



Where did I ever say that I loved _Linux_? 



> But now I'm tired of this.



Me too.


----------

