What's particularly amusing about the comments is how contradictory they are. Many people (probably Windows supporters) are saying things like
- "This is abysmally biased and inaccurate." or
- "This article was very biased, it was the users first time installing Windows XP, and they seemed like they've used Ubuntu before."
- "Move home directory to new partition ... That cant take more than 30 secounds?" and
- "Why did he even do that [move the home directory to /data]? He should have just created/used a partition just for /home.He could have done that at install time. At any rate....that isn't a problem someone else would have and shouldn't be included in the time."
Of course, what's also interesting about the comments that I'm "obviously biased" is that nowhere in the piece do I conclude that one operating system is better than the other. All I'm doing is reporting the time it took me to get (what I consider to be) a fully functioning operating system (/ computer). I just explained what I did and let people draw their own conclusions based on the data presented. If you think that an OS that installs in half the time (for one user on one machine) is inherently superior, well, OK. Personally, I think other factors should come into the equation.
Oh, and I can't help but share my favorite comment of all from digg:
this felt like one of those fake articles you see in the paper that have 'advertising feature' written above it in small letters.