Like thousands of other people, I've been spending quality time with the Windows 7 release candidate this past week. Up until this point I've been testing Windows 7 betas on older notebooks, or in virtual machines. This time around, Windows 7 is taking root in a brand new PC with modern components.Historically, every version of Windows has been slower than the previous one. New versions don't feel that much slower because the Intels, AMDs, ATIs, NVidias, and Seagates of the world have been able to improve the performance at a pace that matches or exceeds Microsoft's ability to soak it up with features like animations, background file indexing, and Aero Glass. Since most people buy new PCs with their new Windows, though, it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison of performance; the slower new OS doesn't seem that bad.

This time around seems different, though. When I tested the previous Windows 7 betas on Vista-vintage hardware, they already seemed better and snappier than Vista. (This release candidate on new hardware is an absolute dream, but I'll save that story for later.) It really does seem like Microsoft did their homework in trimming and tweaking Vista into an operating system that is a more-than-worthy successor to XP. Some tests have confirmed that it's indeed faster, but spin it as a disappointment that it's not faster still. That seems unfair, because the fact that Windows 7 is faster at all is already a major departure from the past.

Microsoft is doing what they do in an environment where there are multiple suppliers of every component that makes up a PC. Operating system upgrades take years to develop, so Microsoft is always chasing a moving target in trying to take advantage of hardware without overreaching. The whole "Vista Capable" brouhaha shows the nightmare that can happen when they get it wrong. With Windows 7, Microsoft seems to have kept their ambitions in check and created an upgrade that doesn't hammer the hardware.