alright, i've re-ran the windows test, but this time, i put chrome into the startup folder, instead of relying on me clicking on it. i used OCN here as my homepage.
i noted the following times:
when desktop appears: 56s
browser appears: 1m 15s
internet connection Made: 1m 35s
browser homepage loads: 1m 45s
context menu becomes responsive: 1m 56s
homepage becomes scrollable: 2m 20s
desktop widgets load and display data: 2m 30s
(these are all averages of 6 test)
to me its pretty clear, the original test is still valid, as it still takes 2m 30s for widgets to load and display data (yes they do matter as they are part of the start up process) and by removing myself out of the equation to start chrome, it was still almost a solid 1m 30s after desktop and taskbar appeared,before the browser was even able to scroll thru ocn.
i'm not even going to bother with redoing the ubuntu test, cause imho, i've already done my best to make windows look better at boot up than it is (and this is for my rig, not saying the entire windows 7 running world is the same.).
windows 7 already has several clear advantages over my ubuntu install, its a newer install, has way less startup services and applications, it is on the outer edge of the HDD platter, windows partition well maintained (no virus's or malware, defragged once a week, no excessive amount of installed programs, no modding programs, like rainmeter or customs UI, its all pretty default with the exception of my wallpaper. but that can't be a factor as my wallpaper is the same i have in ubunut...)
i could spend the rest of the day tweaking my windows...and possibly get the boot time to that of ubuntu atm, but that would be inflating windows over ubuntu, cause i've made mention in the earlier post, i've done nothing special to tweak the ubuntu startup, it still has all the original startup apps (actual more than it needs, since it still boots up gnome stuff, since i installed KDE 4.6 from ubuntu), all original services (no services disabled), plus all the stuff i've added later on, it also mounts 3 partitions off the primary drive, and 2 more harddrives (and i forgot about the network shares it mounts from my server) that windows does not mount...i am also using a stock kernel...
and as promised, i did my vista boot test
results weren't as earth shattering as i'd hoped, but then again, vista is also on an old IDE 5400 rpm 80 GB drive.
from grub to "usable": 4m 25s
^at least windows 7 was able to "beat" its counterpart. might throw vista on a sata II 7200 rpm drive some time this week, and load it up with the same programs that 7 has and do a true comparison