Benchmark Results: File Copy Time
The file copy tests are initiated and timed via the operating system command line interface (CLI). In order to get a realistic measurement, a reboot is necessary between each iteration. The test files include the ISO image of Ubuntu 10.04 LTS and a folder containing 275 high-def wallpapers.
Hard Drive To Hard Drive
When copying files from one directory to another on the same hard disk drive, Fedora 16 beats Ubuntu by a half second and Windows by nearly four seconds.
Hard Drive To USB
An 8 GB Kingston DataTraveler 100 G2 USB thumb drive is used in a USB 2.0 port on the front panel of our test system for the USB tests. The thumb drive is formatted with the FAT32 filesystem. Due to consistent results between iterations and the long duration of this test, we only need to run two the test twice to confirm our scores.
Although Fedora and Ubuntu tie in the longer hard drive-to-USB file copy test, Windows beats both Linux distros by nearly a minute an a half.
USB To Hard Drive
The USB-to-hard drive test is essentially a three-way tie. Ubuntu 11.10 finishes a little over one second before Fedora 16 and a split-second before Windows 7.
Adding up all of the times in these tests can be a little misleading. If you were to do that, Windows 7 would have a massive advantage due to the win in hard drive-to-USB file copy times. However, since the hard drive-to-hard drive times are by far the most significant to everyday performance, this one goes to Fedora 16.
In the end, I'm downgrading to a much older distro of Ubuntu, and supplementing it with Windows 7. I'll be keeping an eye in the coming years to see how these rusty GUI releases turn out-- hopefully for the better. But for now, linux has lost a lot of its useability and it's flare. I'll miss the days when upgrading to a newer distro actually felt like an upgrade, but maybe after all these mistakes, developers will learn and make Linux exciting again. I'll be waiting to see.
Nobody, IMHO, who actually uses a computer for anything of value wastes their time with Fedora. You can't upgrade it, so your own personal enhancements and bug fixes are lost. Features you like are abandoned for broken replacements. Fedora is a nightmare and has been since it began. I began the adventure years ago with Red Hat 5 and finally gave up and moved to more useful distros after Fedora 8. Fedora is now for the masochistic.
On the other hand, if you like superficiality, as in wallpaper and clock positions, and enjoy the animated struggle that comes with installing something new all the time and reporting bugs then Fedora is a good thing.
With that Fedora is also made for workstations and Ubuntu made for end user support 2 differnet applications so why only show benchmarks of end user things and not anything on network support, domain support, VM thin client viability, accessing files from the network, etc. like that things which Fedora is good at not just things which Ubuntu is I think this article was basised and another should be made with more benchmarks to not be as basised towards one or the other.
Unity, Metro, GNOME 3, Etc.
Alas, I must suffer each day for the Wacom preferences panel in GNOME settings. Ties me to GNOME 3 (or a derivative). How silly.
Now, I admit that neither of these configuration options are immediately visible to a new user. Despite that, your review is bad, and you should feel bad.