You may be right, you may be wrong on this. I have not seen much saying that reduced access times directly lead to a noticeably quicker OS on the desktop PC. Personnally i have often found that believing in something tends to influence what one seems to feel. I am not wanting to annoy you, what i say concerns myself in fact. In my situation what i "believe" is a bit different though. I don't think in terms of "this drive is faster than this other one" concerning the drives i use in my own computer (in case they are reasonably comparable of course). As long as the objective test results are good enough i am OK with that; i just make sure that the disks holding my OS and applications are fast.
In definitive i did not have the "impression" that an Atlas10KIII class drive was definitely faster than my previous IBM 75GXP (Raid 0) although there is quite a difference objectively speaking. Basically, the less i care the less i notice as long as everything is stable and fast in my eyes. I think that what one thinks and feels is quite dangerous and will often lead to contrary positions from different people hardware even being equal.
This is probably valid for CPUs too in respect to higher speed grades if one restricts the usage to what i would call general stuff like internet browsing & (heavy) multitasking included for instance which any power user tends to do regularly. General OS usage needs a quite a stronger CPU to be noticeably quicker.
Second, as far as feelings go, there is also another problem relative to the one or other usage and the one other system etc. Maybe one would not "feel" that the one or other drive is faster because there is plenty of Ram etc. (which indeed is a simplified example but halfway true).
Personnally, that's just my opinion, i prefer objective results like Storagereview's over feeling (after all we have the same reference).