PC Magazine - 2009 11.pdf - Libertad Zero

a Significantly better thanaverageb Better than averageWithin the average rangec Worse than averaged Significantly worse than averageProduct name in RED indicatesReaders’ Choice.OVERALL SCORE†RELIABILITYTECHNICALSUPPPORTREPAIRSPERCENTAGENEEDING REPAIRLIKELIHOOD OF BEINGRECOMMENDEDHOME (continued)Epson (548) 8.0 b 8.3 — — 2% a 8.3 bKodak (60) 8.0 8.0 — — 32% d 8.1Samsung (143) 7.8 8.2 — — 2% b 7.9Dell (168) 7.4 c 7.9 — — 4% 7.2 dLexmark (272) 7.1 d 7.5 d — — 2% a 7.4 dAVERAGE 7.9 8.1 6.7 5.8 6% 8.0PRINTERS LESS THAN A YEAR OLDCanon (265 responses) 8.5 a 8.7 b — — 4% 8.8 aBrother (163) 8.3 8.7 b — — 1% a 8.6Epson (154) 8.2 8.5 — — 2% b 8.5Samsung (58) 8.2 8.7 — — 0% a 8.4HP (805) 8.0 c 8.2 d 6.1 — 6% 8.5Lexmark (84) 7.9 8.2 — — 0% a 8.0Dell (58) 7.6 8.3 — — 12% 8.0AVERAGE 8.1 8.5 6.1 5% 8.4* At least 2 confidence intervals from the average.** 1 confidence interval from the average.† Overall score is based on answers to the question “Overall, how would you rate this desktop PC?”It is not the average of the other scores in the table.Except for numbers indicated by a percentage, scores are based on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is best.A dash indicates that we do not have enough survey data to give the company a score.and our results for the first time after runningadvertisements promoting its inexpensiveconsumables. The company garnereda Readers’ Choice with last year’s response.Not so this year. Kodak’s overall score wentfrom a BA 8.3 to an average 8.0 this year,though it did well with home printers, gettinga BA 8.0.Perhaps worse for Kodak, it’s the firstcompany to show a percentage of productsneeding repairs higher than Xeroxdoes. We’ve never exactly been able to fig-NOVEMBER 2009 PC MAGAZINE DIGITAL EDITION 59