Vanity sizing
Replies
-
I've gotten interested in sewing again, and was browsing the Folkwear pattern site. According to their size chart, which is based on the original 70's designs, X Small was a 6-8, with 23-24" waist and 32.5-33.5" hip. Medium is 28-30" waist, 38-40" hip, considered size 14-16.
The size chart on the Lands End website has XXS, size 00, with 24.5-25.5" waist, 34" hip. Their size 14 has 33.5-34.5" waist and 43" hip. They call this 'large'.2 -
When I was younger - a lot younger - I wore a size 10. Now at the same weight, I wear 2s and 4s. Strange that my underwear sizes haven't changed at all.2
-
Angierae75 wrote: »Sizes have definitely changed. Back in the 90's at 125 I was in a size ten. Now, at 180 I'm in a 14. I'll be back in a ten by 160.
My mom was a size 10 in the 90s and was 140-150. I really think it depends where you shop.0 -
Size numbers don't mean much except a headache. Measure yourself. Look at a size chart for the brands you buy. If you order online read reviews. In person try things on. Wear what fits and don't worry about what number it says.
3 -
I don't ever seem to get rid of clothes. Now on my weight loss journey, I'm fitting into a size 16 jean from Old Navy. However, looking through my drawers, I found several size 16 that I can't squeeze into.0
-
I also think it is the material. Jeans, in particular never had the give that they do now! They either buttoned or they didn't there was no stretching it. Also, because of this, your jeans did not stretch out and fall off by the end of one days wear!
Ugh, this is a major pet peeve of mine! I hate stretchy jeans. It's hard to find ones that aren't anymore so I'm taking very good care of my old, original Levi's.3 -
I also think it is the material. Jeans, in particular never had the give that they do now! They either buttoned or they didn't there was no stretching it. Also, because of this, your jeans did not stretch out and fall off by the end of one days wear!
Ugh, this is a major pet peeve of mine! I hate stretchy jeans. It's hard to find ones that aren't anymore so I'm taking very good care of my old, original Levi's.
This drives me crazy as well! The jeans that fit nicely at breakfast are falling off of me by lunch.
2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.
They are still pattern cut by waist size because pattern cutting blocks are based on the whole body. The adjustment for the different rises is accounted for. You don't suddenly get a 27" waist referring to a garment with a waistband on the hips. It's pattern cutting 101 (and I appreciate the number of people familiar with pattern cutting and clothing manufacture isn't that great).4 -
I went snow tubing on a date recently. The guy said he'd pick me up a pair of snow pants. He got them at the salvation army and they were a size 10. I was like...wtf, I'm not a 10! But they were totally from the 80's. I am an 80's size 10.5
-
Vanity sizing is nonsensical. My daughter is 19; she is very petite, she takes a size 00. How is that even a size?! My husband can take a pair of jeans off a shelf, buy them, they will fit. How many women could ever do that? Back in the 1990's I was the same weight I am now - about 115 and I'm 5'2".. Back then I wore a size 8. Now I'm a size 2 or 4, depending on the store/name brand. It's all nonsense. The clothing industry thinks all women want to be a small size, so they've re-created the sizing structure. Problem is, every brand and store has a different size structure, so every store you walk into, you're a different size. Not too confusing, huh?!
This is why I have gone to buying men's jeans for winter wear. They are consistent, sturdy, and actually look kinda cute. Edited to add: plus, they have pockets that are usable.1 -
Fitnessgirl0913 wrote: »My great Grandma worked at Hickey Freeman (a US based clothing manufacturer) she worked in the factory and actually explained to me the original cause of vanity sizing. She said every clothing store would make their clothes from a pattern, these patterns were always sold brand new to upscale clothing stores (today think Banana republic) and every time they would cut clothing to fit the model a small piece of the model got cut off as well. Eventually the model drifted down to a cheaper store (maybe an H&M today?) but would have already been used by the upscale store so all these little pieces were actually taken out of it, however it was still used as the same size in both stores but was physically smaller at the second store. This caused the size in the more upscale store to run smaller than the same size in the "lower scale" stores. Hence why you would wear a smaller size in a fancier more expensive store. I know that is obviously not the reason behind vanity sizing today but I just thought it was interesting.
If the pattern became smaller, wouldn’t that make the clothes smaller? That’s how it works for patterns nowadays. Plus, why would the cheapest stores have to use hand me down patterns. Were they made out if some valuable material? Every pattern I have ever seen has been very thin paper, which seems like it would be very cheap, unless your grandma was in ancient Egypt and the patterns were papyrus or some such.
3 -
youngmomtaz wrote: »I hate vanity sizing! I am a solid size 10, sometimes a 12 for comfort. Some shops have clothing in a small that is fitting me well or actually too big. I have jeans and dresses in a size 6. My question is what do the “small” people wear if an x-small toop will fit me?
I do not care what the tag on my clothing says. I just want it to look nice.
I'm an extra small top/dress and I have a really hard time finding clothes that aren't too big. Many stores don't even carry an extra small.
1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.
They are still pattern cut by waist size because pattern cutting blocks are based on the whole body. The adjustment for the different rises is accounted for. You don't suddenly get a 27" waist referring to a garment with a waistband on the hips. It's pattern cutting 101 (and I appreciate the number of people familiar with pattern cutting and clothing manufacture isn't that great).
They might be true to size, but that isn't always helpful because they make assumptions about the rest of a woman's measurements. Apparently, they assume we are all perfect hourglasses. I am short-waisted, so I always buy low or mid rise pants. I cannot buy according to my waist size because I have proportionally small hips (or a large waist. However you want to look at it). I have to buy a size that is 4-5 inches smaller than my true waist size or they won't stay up.1 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.
They are still pattern cut by waist size because pattern cutting blocks are based on the whole body. The adjustment for the different rises is accounted for. You don't suddenly get a 27" waist referring to a garment with a waistband on the hips. It's pattern cutting 101 (and I appreciate the number of people familiar with pattern cutting and clothing manufacture isn't that great).
They might be true to size, but that isn't always helpful because they make assumptions about the rest of a woman's measurements. Apparently, they assume we are all perfect hourglasses. I am short-waisted, so I always buy low or mid rise pants. I cannot buy according to my waist size because I have proportionally small hips (or a large waist. However you want to look at it). I have to buy a size that is 4-5 inches smaller than my true waist size or they won't stay up.
I get that. It's not an hourglass figure that clothing is cut for these days though (I'm an hourglass, nothing fits). It's usually about 6" waist to bust and 9-10" waist to hips. So much more of an up and down body than in times past. I have 12-14" difference waist to hips and 10" waist to bust. Women are just so variable that a lot of us will find it hard. But that doesn't change how pattern cutting is done and that was what my comment was about.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.
They are still pattern cut by waist size because pattern cutting blocks are based on the whole body. The adjustment for the different rises is accounted for. You don't suddenly get a 27" waist referring to a garment with a waistband on the hips. It's pattern cutting 101 (and I appreciate the number of people familiar with pattern cutting and clothing manufacture isn't that great).
They might be true to size, but that isn't always helpful because they make assumptions about the rest of a woman's measurements. Apparently, they assume we are all perfect hourglasses. I am short-waisted, so I always buy low or mid rise pants. I cannot buy according to my waist size because I have proportionally small hips (or a large waist. However you want to look at it). I have to buy a size that is 4-5 inches smaller than my true waist size or they won't stay up.
I get that. It's not an hourglass figure that clothing is cut for these days though (I'm an hourglass, nothing fits). It's usually about 6" waist to bust and 9-10" waist to hips. So much more of an up and down body than in times past. I have 12-14" difference waist to hips and 10" waist to bust. Women are just so variable that a lot of us will find it hard. But that doesn't change how pattern cutting is done and that was what my comment was about.
I agree with you about how patterns are cut. It is interesting, though, how differently we define "hourglass." Since I have a 7" difference between bust/waist and waist/hips, a 10" difference seems huge to me! My hips are 35" so if I want low-rise jeans to fit, I have to buy a 24-25 (even though my actual waist measurement is 28"). And people wonder why shopping is such a traumatic experience for women...1 -
Either measure the waist bands or buy designer.0
-
Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.
They are still pattern cut by waist size because pattern cutting blocks are based on the whole body. The adjustment for the different rises is accounted for. You don't suddenly get a 27" waist referring to a garment with a waistband on the hips. It's pattern cutting 101 (and I appreciate the number of people familiar with pattern cutting and clothing manufacture isn't that great).
They might be true to size, but that isn't always helpful because they make assumptions about the rest of a woman's measurements. Apparently, they assume we are all perfect hourglasses. I am short-waisted, so I always buy low or mid rise pants. I cannot buy according to my waist size because I have proportionally small hips (or a large waist. However you want to look at it). I have to buy a size that is 4-5 inches smaller than my true waist size or they won't stay up.
I get that. It's not an hourglass figure that clothing is cut for these days though (I'm an hourglass, nothing fits). It's usually about 6" waist to bust and 9-10" waist to hips. So much more of an up and down body than in times past. I have 12-14" difference waist to hips and 10" waist to bust. Women are just so variable that a lot of us will find it hard. But that doesn't change how pattern cutting is done and that was what my comment was about.
I agree with you about how patterns are cut. It is interesting, though, how differently we define "hourglass." Since I have a 7" difference between bust/waist and waist/hips, a 10" difference seems huge to me! My hips are 35" so if I want low-rise jeans to fit, I have to buy a 24-25 (even though my actual waist measurement is 28"). And people wonder why shopping is such a traumatic experience for women...
In my late teens and 20s my measurements were 36, 24/25, 36, which was a typical measurement back then (80s) for young women, which is 10-12 inch difference between waist/bust, and waist hips.1 -
Vanity sizing is real. In the 90’s I was a size 4 or 6 in pants & skirts, an 8 in dresses. In the 90’s the smallest size was a 2. Now with the triple zero, double zero and zero sizes all the other sizes have gone up. Today I am 17lbs heavier, have had 3 children, and wear a size 2 pant/jean in most mall stores, but have a 29inch waist. I wear an 8 in dresses & tops with 36 inch bust. H&M’s size chart is true to 90’s measurements so I wear one size bigger there. I’m a big online shopper so I’ve learned to shop for bottoms by my hip measurement (36) and tops & dresses by my bust measurement. Saves a lot of time & frustration. I agree with the OP about the stretch in jeans. It’s definitely changed everyone’s size.0
-
Vanity sizing is real. In the 90’s I was a size 4 or 6 in pants & skirts, an 8 in dresses. In the 90’s the smallest size was a 2. Now with the triple zero, double zero and zero sizes all the other sizes have gone up. Today I am 17lbs heavier, have had 3 children, and wear a size 2 pant/jean in most mall stores, but have a 29inch waist. I wear an 8 in dresses & tops with 36 inch bust. H&M’s size chart is true to 90’s measurements so I wear one size bigger there. I’m a big online shopper so I’ve learned to shop for bottoms by my hip measurement (36) and tops & dresses by my bust measurement. Saves a lot of time & frustration. I agree with the OP about the stretch in jeans. It’s definitely changed everyone’s size.
Another wrinkle is how each woman is shaped. I think others mentioned that in this thread. Men tend to be shaped straight up and dow, whereas women are not. Also, women tend to be more concerned with finding clothing that will flatter their figures, whereas every man I know finds something and puts it on.
I think it's interesting that you wear a size 2. I have a 26" waist (I'm 5'9") but 38" hips, so I could never sustain wearing a 2 (believe me, I've tried!) I tend to wear size 27/28 in Madewell jeans or size 6 in j.crew pants. This is another example of how two women with a seemingly similar waist measurement can't wear the same size.1 -
Fitnessgirl0913 wrote: »My great Grandma worked at Hickey Freeman (a US based clothing manufacturer) she worked in the factory and actually explained to me the original cause of vanity sizing. She said every clothing store would make their clothes from a pattern, these patterns were always sold brand new to upscale clothing stores (today think Banana republic) and every time they would cut clothing to fit the model a small piece of the model got cut off as well. Eventually the model drifted down to a cheaper store (maybe an H&M today?) but would have already been used by the upscale store so all these little pieces were actually taken out of it, however it was still used as the same size in both stores but was physically smaller at the second store. This caused the size in the more upscale store to run smaller than the same size in the "lower scale" stores. Hence why you would wear a smaller size in a fancier more expensive store. I know that is obviously not the reason behind vanity sizing today but I just thought it was interesting.
I am confused. Isn't what you are describing the exact opposite? Fancy store gets size 8 at the correct pattern size and then low end store cuts smaller clothes from smaller actual pattern, still labeled 8? So technically clothes would run small at low end store if that were true.
Also highly unlikely to explain modern day vanity sizing considering patterns are probably digital and even paper patterns could habe been reproduced by machine to their correct size decades ago.
It is a charming story though, thank you for sharing it.
I always assumed (just an assumption, no supporting data) that the higher the averge weight of a store's audience is, the worse thwir vanity sizing would be?2 -
Unfortunately I have gone up and down in weight over the last few decades. Every time I’m at or near my goal weight I’m extremely frustrated with how dresses are made. The designers assume the bust and hips are around the same. My current measurements are 5’8” tall, 40.5” bust (size 14), 31” waist (size 12) and 39” hips (size 10). To wear a size 12 dress I have to lose 1.5 inches off my bust down to 39”. I don’t think that will ever happen. I will continue to get smaller hips and waist, but the bust line doesn’t change that much. I like curvy dresses because they show my figure and show I’m not fat just because I have a large bust line.
When I get to this point I get so upset that I’ve worked so hard but can’t find a dress that fits both my hips and bust and feel really defeated and depressed. No matter how much I lose I can’t be good enough to be “normal”.I feel like I can’t fix this without surgery.
Anyone else have this problem? What do you do? Do you just have dresses altered? How do I get over feeling like crap because of this?
1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »With that graphic it says H&M vanity size.
H&M are the worst. I can go in H&M and leave with two things, one is a 12 the other is a 16, and they fit the same one me!
1 -
You should buy larger and get them altered. It's a shame that custom made clothes are no longer cheap in the USA. I had some items made for me when I lived abroad and it was cheap, the clothes fit perfectly and I picked out the designs and fabrics. I just found what I wanted in a photo from a magazine, showed it to the seamstress and she made it. No patterns necessary. I made some of my own clothes but iused patterns and now I just do not have the time.1
-
@Wiseandcurious It used to be that the cheaper the store, the bigger the size you had to be. So if you were X size in a mid-range store, you needed to buy X+2 size in a cheaper competitor.0
-
I also think it is the material. Jeans, in particular never had the give that they do now! They either buttoned or they didn't there was no stretching it. Also, because of this, your jeans did not stretch out and fall off by the end of one days wear!
Ugh, this is a major pet peeve of mine! I hate stretchy jeans. It's hard to find ones that aren't anymore so I'm taking very good care of my old, original Levi's.
Duluth Trading Company has a style of jeans that are reminiscent of my old Levi’s. Love them. You have to get the work jeans, not the thinner, stretchier “daily” jeans. I’m a 14/16 there, but a 12 at Old Navy.0 -
lucerorojo wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.
They are still pattern cut by waist size because pattern cutting blocks are based on the whole body. The adjustment for the different rises is accounted for. You don't suddenly get a 27" waist referring to a garment with a waistband on the hips. It's pattern cutting 101 (and I appreciate the number of people familiar with pattern cutting and clothing manufacture isn't that great).
They might be true to size, but that isn't always helpful because they make assumptions about the rest of a woman's measurements. Apparently, they assume we are all perfect hourglasses. I am short-waisted, so I always buy low or mid rise pants. I cannot buy according to my waist size because I have proportionally small hips (or a large waist. However you want to look at it). I have to buy a size that is 4-5 inches smaller than my true waist size or they won't stay up.
I get that. It's not an hourglass figure that clothing is cut for these days though (I'm an hourglass, nothing fits). It's usually about 6" waist to bust and 9-10" waist to hips. So much more of an up and down body than in times past. I have 12-14" difference waist to hips and 10" waist to bust. Women are just so variable that a lot of us will find it hard. But that doesn't change how pattern cutting is done and that was what my comment was about.
I agree with you about how patterns are cut. It is interesting, though, how differently we define "hourglass." Since I have a 7" difference between bust/waist and waist/hips, a 10" difference seems huge to me! My hips are 35" so if I want low-rise jeans to fit, I have to buy a 24-25 (even though my actual waist measurement is 28"). And people wonder why shopping is such a traumatic experience for women...
In my late teens and 20s my measurements were 36, 24/25, 36, which was a typical measurement back then (80s) for young women, which is 10-12 inch difference between waist/bust, and waist hips.
I was 34-27-34, which was also pretty typical. I'm not quite sure what you are saying. I don't think basic body shapes have changed since we were younger. You were an hourglass and I was a ruler. Still am.1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@Wiseandcurious It used to be that the cheaper the store, the bigger the size you had to be. So if you were X size in a mid-range store, you needed to buy X+2 size in a cheaper competitor.
I actually found the opposite to be true--I could wear a size 8 at Banana Republic or J Crew, but at Armani or Burberry I was a size 12.
0 -
Mouse_Potato wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mouse_Potato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If you're buying by waist then they should be true to size. It's the 6/8/10 ones that are ambiguous due to individual retailers sizing standards. I'm a different size in most retailers but buying by measurements it's always pretty close allowing for manufacturing variance.
not true. there are several rises for women...ultra low rise, low rise, mid rise, normal rise and high rise. prolly others i've missed. the rise will be wear the waist band sits...hips, belly, waist, above belly button....so no, can't go by waist measurement on jeans.
They are still pattern cut by waist size because pattern cutting blocks are based on the whole body. The adjustment for the different rises is accounted for. You don't suddenly get a 27" waist referring to a garment with a waistband on the hips. It's pattern cutting 101 (and I appreciate the number of people familiar with pattern cutting and clothing manufacture isn't that great).
They might be true to size, but that isn't always helpful because they make assumptions about the rest of a woman's measurements. Apparently, they assume we are all perfect hourglasses. I am short-waisted, so I always buy low or mid rise pants. I cannot buy according to my waist size because I have proportionally small hips (or a large waist. However you want to look at it). I have to buy a size that is 4-5 inches smaller than my true waist size or they won't stay up.
I get that. It's not an hourglass figure that clothing is cut for these days though (I'm an hourglass, nothing fits). It's usually about 6" waist to bust and 9-10" waist to hips. So much more of an up and down body than in times past. I have 12-14" difference waist to hips and 10" waist to bust. Women are just so variable that a lot of us will find it hard. But that doesn't change how pattern cutting is done and that was what my comment was about.
I agree with you about how patterns are cut. It is interesting, though, how differently we define "hourglass." Since I have a 7" difference between bust/waist and waist/hips, a 10" difference seems huge to me! My hips are 35" so if I want low-rise jeans to fit, I have to buy a 24-25 (even though my actual waist measurement is 28"). And people wonder why shopping is such a traumatic experience for women...
In my late teens and 20s my measurements were 36, 24/25, 36, which was a typical measurement back then (80s) for young women, which is 10-12 inch difference between waist/bust, and waist hips.
I was 34-27-34, which was also pretty typical. I'm not quite sure what you are saying. I don't think basic body shapes have changed since we were younger. You were an hourglass and I was a ruler. Still am.
I was just responding to the other post that said that she had a difficult time buying clothes these days because the ratios had changed. I can't say if that's the case because I'm no longer that measurement, but in my early adulthood (1980s/90s) I never had any issues with clothes not fitting even with the 10-12 inch waist to bust/hips difference. Things are never standard across the board since different designers and stores do things differently so it doesn't mean much.
I actually DO think basic body shapes have changed though and not just sizes in proportion. This is why the VANITY sizing exists in the first place. Women are BIGGER than they were back then and rather than everyone wearing a size 18 or 20, the numbers keep getting smaller.2 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »I always assumed (just an assumption, no supporting data) that the higher the averge weight of a store's audience is, the worse thwir vanity sizing would be?
I always thought the same. I’m a 2 in Ann Taylor Loft, but a 0 (sometimes a zero is too big, hah) in Ann Taylor, which is for slightly older women than Loft (so probably a bit bigger). Other stores targeted to 30s-40s women (J Jill, Talbots) are sometimes entirely too large for me (although maybe they’ve added smaller sizes since I last tried them on about 7-10 years ago). I’m 5’4”, 127-133lbs, 33-26-34. I shouldn’t be too small for a small, and I’m definitely not a 0.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions