Why do some microwaves have a convenient quick-start option if you press 1 or 2 or 3, so that they instantly start cooking with 1:00 or 2:00 or 3:00 on the clock... but DON'T have this same functionality programmed into 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, which do nothing when pressed alone? How does an engineer possess both the vision to provide the former and the lack of imagination that results in the latter? If it's about cutting cost, is it really that expensive to add a few more instructions to the same circuit board? This doesn't bother me because I'm too lazy to press time-four-zero-zero-start so much as because I'm baffled how a machine could have turned out this way.


Eight Replies to Scott's Pet Peeve #2519

Denise Sawicki | December 21, 2010
Our microwave is like that. I assumed maybe it's a safety thing like 4 minutes would generally be too long for many purposes and would burn something. It is odd though.

Matthew Preston | December 21, 2010
My guess is that it's a safety-don't-want-to-be-sued issue. Some legal person somewhere along the line probably figured that cooking things over 3 minutes could cause problems. Either with destroying food, or causing damage to the microwave itself. Americans are quick to sue for the littlest things.

Ours has the same thing, but pressing the same button more than once usually compounds the time. For example when I want to cook something for 4 minutes, I press 3 - 1.

EDIT: whoops, sorry Denise. I had this window open for a bit and hadn't noticed you had replied. Looks like we were on the same wavelength! :-)

Denise Sawicki | December 21, 2010
Another question, why do microwaves have a popcorn button when every bag of microwaveable popcorn says "do not use the popcorn button". Do the microwave instructions also say not to use the button? If so, why do they have the button? If not, why are they risking getting sued? By the way, I use the button and it works fine :P

Matthew Preston | December 21, 2010
A marketing gimmick perhaps? I always secretly think the popcorn button is just set for 3 minutes.

Lori Lancaster | December 21, 2010
[hidden by author request]

Erik Bates | December 22, 2010
[hidden by author request]

Scott Hardie | December 22, 2010
I guess since I eat frozen entrées for most meals (diet status: haven't lost or gained weight since last message), I'm accustomed to 3-7 minutes being a pretty standard use for a microwave.

At the apartment we just moved out of, the quick-start buttons went up to 5, which was a little more reasonable. But this new one has a little spinning carousel that cooks my food evenly and doesn't require me to stir halfway, so I guess it's a step up.

I don't recall ever using the popcorn button or the number of minutes written on the box. I just put the bag in the microwave and stand there until I can hear the popping stop.

Denise Sawicki | December 22, 2010
I didn't think there still were any non-spinning microwaves in this century. :)


Logical Operator

The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »

Blog Entry Post

Pet peeve: Why do people redundantly call it "tuna fish?" You never hear "parrot bird" or "Cocker spaniel dog." Go »

Toothiness, Or: More Bad Dental Humor

You know what company makes my favorite commercials? Oral-B. (link) (link) The camera careens inside the "Oral-B Institute," where a legion of white-coated scientists look sternly at interactive hologram displays and lasers carve out futuristic technology inside reactor chambers. Go »

Modern Music

Sadness is not when one of your favorite bands (Smashing Pumpkins) puts out their final album in MP3 format only and you miss it because you don't want to get into file-sharing. Sadness is five years later, when you happily stumble across a website with the entire thing available for download and you finally learn how heinous and unpublishable the album was all along. Go »

All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy

I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »

Real Predictions, from a Guy Who Takes This Too Seriously

Some of my Oscar contest predictions are solely based on my odds of "winning" the contest. I'm curious to find out if what film I really think will win in certain categories comes out on top. Best Picture: Babel Best Original Screenplay: Babel Best Original Score: Babel Best Film Editing: Blood Diamond Best Costume Design: Marie Antoinette Here's looking forward to a good show tonight. Go »

Flak Album

Lately I've been enjoying Aimee Mann's I'm with Stupid. Oh, how I wish she'd saved that title for a duets album. Go »