It might make sense to you, and maybe using it once a month, or a few times a year it woould be fine.
Yes, we agree. That was my point. A hobbyist knocking together a few pieces of furniture each week/month/year isn't going to get their money's worth by buying a pro-rated machine. Unless they have the money and want it of course. The point is, cheap doesn't automatically mean useless or a bad economy, especially considering something basic like a track saw. As long as it's not faulty, there's really not much difference in performance. (See Peter's findings on this)
I worked in a cabinet shop, and the boss had the same rational.
With all due respect, he had a different rationale to what I'm saying. I'm not espousing buying cheap tools for a busy trade environment.
It does really mean how often its going to get used, and the OP is probably more the hobby user, so something cheap would probably do fine. But one thing i found about cheap power tools is build quality is lacking. Motor power is lacking and accuracy, especially on things like routers is well, pretty much non existent.
I see very little difference in build quality between my Festool TS55 and Mac Allister saw. They both have plastic cases over a metal base with a motor. The tracks are identical in quality. The Festool was heavier, and the accuracy is absolutely the same: they're just circular saws running along a track. There's really not much to it. The point is, every tool or machine has different considerations. Blanket statements that 'cheap tools are lacking and don't have power' just isn't true across the board. Nor is 'expensive is always better.' I had a Lie Nielsen block plane that wasn't as good as a dirt-cheap Groz plane. Everything has to be evaluated individually.
Pro tools, even if used occasionally can always be relied upon to work without issues. Not to struggle in use, not to prematurely wear out due to a sudden need to do a short production run.
I generally agree, though machines aren't infallible. Google 'Festool Problems' or 'X problems' X being your preferred brand and you'll find plenty of tradespeople reporting problems with their pro tools. Nothing is ever free of issues, though better brands tend to have better warranties and support, but having recently looked, they are still usually limited to around 3 years, which Erbauer and other cheaper brands offer.
I accept all that you've said except comparing a pro festool or mafell to a macallister tool. The difference is plain, and they cannot be held in the same high esteem. One is not equal to the other.
The difference exists, but it isn't plain, apart from their asking price. I agree that a Mac Allister can't be held in the same 'esteem' as higher brands, but that's a perception issue and not a practical use issue. One ideally would need to use both tools for a given time before knowing how different they are in practice and whether that's worth the price difference. WIth regards to being equal, the OP is a hobbyist, how equal does he need to be to the industry/trade? That's a question each person has to decide for themselves. You and I, I think, are doing a good job of offering two views that the OP can hopefully learn from.
All that said, I'm only debating for the sake of the question. I do agree with you that broadly speaking, more expensive tools 'should' be better and if one can afford the more expensive tool and enjoys owning high-esteem brands, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just personally think that it's a more complex issue than simple cheap = bad and expensive = good.
But I certainly appreciate your experience and point of view
