How do these two Handbooks compare, Which is better , ???

The NFPA version of the Handbook
or
McGraw-Hills version of the Handbook

I have been looking into buying one and have noticed there's quite the difference in price.

I don't like the McGraw Hill's handbook. I found quite a few places in the one that Ihad bought that was not updated to reflect some of the more important code changes. I also don't like the graphics. I personally will never buy it again.

Ryan tell us how you really feel.

Bob

I probably should have, but I held back

I have an older (1990) version of McGraw-Hill's Handbook.
One advantage of theirs is that it does not reprint the NEC text and therefore the explanations were much more detailed.
This may not still be the case with the current editions.
That being said, I have had an NFPA version every cycle since about '87 and have always chosen them.

Bought McGraw Hill one time about 20 years ago and have bought NFPA version ever since. I like the occasional "Formal Interpertation" featured for sure.

[This message has been edited by George Little (edited 04-16-2006).]

I've not bought the McGraw Hill version, but as a side note, the McPartland's (authors) are very good to/for our industry.

In case you haven't noticed, I am a contributing editor... thanks for the posts, especially Ryan.

I will let you know that I believe I have convinced Brian McPartland it is time for a major overhaul of the book. I will let you know if it will come to fruition.

BTW: they are aware of its shortcomings, so I do think that this code cycle we will see some changes... it all comes down to money, so we shall see...

At least he held back....

Bob

I didn't like writing what I wrote, since I know Pierre (who I consider a freind) is involved with it, but unfortunatley, I was quite disappointed with the book. I also think the book needs an overhaul, mainly in the graphics, which in my opinion don't help the reader much.

Ryan... I am not familiar with the McG book in particular, but...

I have seen far too many "expert" books with major flaws, that seem to have been slicked together by marketing, with no review or input from their intended market. In some cases, it is almost as if they want all of us to "edit" their first edition for them, for free!

A mattter of money? Seems like, considering the ststure of the competition, you have no xhoice but to outshine them!

Ryan- I think you said what needed to be said and I venture to say if you wrote a book or anyone else you'd have to stand the critque of all of us and you'd be able to do it. Never let it be said that Mr. Jackson sugar coated anything.

George, thanks for the support. I edit for Mike Holt, and I expect to hear about it when someone finds a mistake there.

OK - Guys thanks for the input. I must admit I was already leaning toward the nfpa. I think I may have been pushed all the way now .

I love'em both.

Not buying them is no saving.

I love the McGraw-Hill (2005) illustrations.

Naturally, I have both.

My 'trade library' is about the last place I try and economize.

I was actually thanking you guys. I have been tactfully trying to have some changes positioned for the book, and I used this thread to maybe help push it along. So if you have some more constructive critisism, have at it... more to fuel the fire.

My stance is the book has to come into the 21st century. It was THE book too many years ago. Try dealing with a mega publisher such as McGraw Hill though.

If this thread is being used for the publisher, then erase my compliment about the McPartlands, as I don't want them to get a big head

Lucky -

...just as a FYI....if you go to eBay auctions, you can find the McGraw-Hill version(s) for pennies on the dollar.

That said, like Ryan, I'd never buy one for myself.

"In some cases, it is almost as if they want all of us to "edit" their first edition for them, for free!"

In many cases it isn't a matter of editing. To edit something it should be proof read first. I don't think they are going that far in a lot of instances.

Just a moment for a "catty" comment....

IF I wrote something, then had to write another boox explaining what I meant.... well, wouldn't that suggest I was a poor writer?

Shakespeare is considered a good writer.

None the less there are many books explaining his works.

Good one, Iwire! I'll lower my expectations accordingly.... :-)

"To bond, or not to bond: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of the authority having jurisdiction, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, by opposing him at the appeals board ..."

Greg LOL

Bob

I thought we might like some Shockspeare