I have an old Macintosh in my basement, and it boots faster than most computers I use nowadays. It does not prove anything excepted that every operating system existing added bloat over the past decades.
On another note, I still can't find a Linux distribution that will run my netbook faster than Windows XP. (Heck, I even tried ArchLinux, installing only what I needed with a tiling window manager.) The problem seems to be the graphics (i.e. the X server) is just painfully slow. I now understands why Ubuntu wants to invest in Wayland. But imho there are other parts of the kernel which are just as crappy.
It always makes me laugh when I see a Linux distro branded "for old computers", Windows XP being always faster on those computers (and the distros relatively slow) because the distros use recent kernels.
XP has the "windows rot" problem. After it has been in use for a couple of months, it slows down significantly and especially booting it takes forever. Some people claim that they can avoid this but I have never seen any hard evidence :)
There's a free tool called Sysinternals Autoruns (autoruns.exe) which lets you remove all kinds of startup/resident crap. I use it to clean up every couple of months, and as a result my XP is as fast as after a fresh install.
There is pagedefrag, also from the sysinternals folks. That said, Linux doesn't have a similar Linux rot problem. I have some installs that have been going since 2002 or so, with successive "apt-get dist-upgrade"s crossing releases without much significant trouble except a ssh key regen.
I've never quite understood the point of boot time tests. I almost never reboot. Sleep/hibernate seem far more important to me. That sad sleep and hibernation cycle tests could get bad for Linux. My work laptop has an annoying tendency to not wake up. Haven't used a system this unstable since Windows 98.
On the other hand, my last three Dells, my Acer netbook and my no-brand ancient notebook sleep and hibernate flawlessly under Linux. My son has the same experience with his HP, albeit he has been booting the machine more frequently because he wants Windows for some of his games.
Usually the slowness comes from the graphic driver, not the X server. Many netbooks use an intel graphic chipset with closed specs, and therefore run under linux using the very slow VESA driver. This is definitely the makers (particularly Intel) fault, not Linux.
Actually Intel is one of the best manufacturers about releasing documentation. Nvidia is one of the worst. ATI/AMD is pretty good.
Suspend/resume is problematic because the device manufacturers don't implement ACPI to the spec, the implement it to whatever works with Windows. Try OpenBSD sometime. Their have an independent implementation of AML that might work where others do not.
Almost all modern video drivers provide 2D acceleration (including Intel's X.org driver). From firsthand experience, I can attest that running unaccelerated X is painfully slow.
When I joined Apple in '87 there was a sign in the systems software group saying "Time to boot tripled!"
Sort of a group conscience thing; this was just prior to System 6 shipping, and things had gotten lots slower due to collective abdication of the "time to boot" feature. They fixed it, more or less, then less and less over time . . .
Boot time is a good indication of /other/ neglect, and long boot times point to possible architectural and systemic problems. For one thing, if your OS developers are suffering long boot times, what kind of system are you actually hatching?
My netbook running Puppy Linux 4.3 boots from power button to connected wifi ready to go in less than ten seconds. It feels just about instant, although I've never timed it. I've used that exact same disc on machines as old as a K6 that I can't imagine trying to run XP on... and it still runs pretty darn well.
"I even tried ArchLinux, installing only what I needed with a tiling window manager."
Me too. I use Arch Linux and the Musca window manager and my eee pc boots faster than my Windows 7 gaming desktop (which boots much faster than Windows XP did, for me). It doesn't a lot faster, but its ready to use the second I log in, while windows takes a few seconds to start background programs (having said that, I could disable most of them, so its not really a fair comparison).
On another note, I still can't find a Linux distribution that will run my netbook faster than Windows XP. (Heck, I even tried ArchLinux, installing only what I needed with a tiling window manager.) The problem seems to be the graphics (i.e. the X server) is just painfully slow. I now understands why Ubuntu wants to invest in Wayland. But imho there are other parts of the kernel which are just as crappy.
It always makes me laugh when I see a Linux distro branded "for old computers", Windows XP being always faster on those computers (and the distros relatively slow) because the distros use recent kernels.