With Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha 2 having made it out yesterday, we couldn't resist but to run some new benchmarks of the Lucid Lynx after our original tests last month found Ubuntu 10.04 was off to a poor performance start. In some areas the performance of Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Alpha 2 remains lower than in Ubuntu 9.10 -- largely due to performance regressions upstream in the Linux kernel -- but we have also included some very early performance numbers from Fedora 13.
On average Ubuntu 10.04 Alpha 2 was confusing one Watt less, which happened as less energy was beating consumed while the Lenovo ThinkPad T61 was idling but before the test had signaled the display to turn off via DPMS
Confusing indeed. Someone needs a beating for these errors.
Did you hire a dyslexic copyeditor or are you trying out some fancy new spell checking software?
Has any sense comparing a stable release with an alpha release, assuming the fact that the alpha release has debug codes?
I tried fedora 12 beta and fedora 12 "retail" on the same machine, and fedora 12 beta was completely unusable (Intel Pentium III 1 Ghz, 512 Mb RAM), while fedora 12 is much faster, so where's the point of comparing such uncompleted platforms?