Microsoft’s commitment to enhancing the performance of Windows 11 has taken a new turn in its latest development and beta builds, with the introduction of dedicated telemetry designed to monitor and log sluggishness within the operating system. This shift marks a distinct move towards data-driven troubleshooting in response to mounting user feedback on responsiveness issues—a topic that has lingered since Windows 11’s launch. As Microsoft gears up for the public rollout of Windows 11 version 25H2, this feature is poised at the center of its pledge to deliver a smoother, faster, and more stable user experience.
The new sluggishness telemetry is embedded directly into the latest preview builds available in the Dev and Beta channels. At its core, the feature is tailored to capture instances of poor performance—be it UI delays, unresponsive apps, or slow system operations—by generating logs automatically when such events are detected. These logs are stored in the
Unlike some traditional telemetry, which may operate continuously and transmit data silently, this new system is explicitly tied to user feedback. The logs created by this feature are only uploaded to Microsoft’s servers when a user chooses to submit performance-related feedback through the Feedback Hub app. This design balances Microsoft’s hunger for diagnostic data with the privacy expectations of users—addressing longstanding concerns about invasive, always-on telemetry that has dogged the company since Windows 10’s debut.
However, these improvements have not silenced a steady stream of user complaints. Across Reddit, forums, and tech outlets, anecdotes of random stutters, laggy animations, inconsistent window behavior, and unexplained system slowdowns are easy to find. Some users report that gaming performance seems worse on Windows 11 than on identically-configured Windows 10 systems, especially on older hardware. Others have flagged issues after major Windows updates, reporting everything from high CPU usage by system processes to delays in opening the Start Menu or switching desktops.
A constellation of factors appears to contribute. Windows 11’s new system requirements—mandating Secure Boot, TPM 2.0, and newer CPUs—mean its performance claims often rest on newer hardware. This distinction is crucial: Microsoft’s most dramatic performance comparisons between Windows 10 and Windows 11 often involve benchmark scenarios where the former is run on legacy, unsupported CPUs, while the latter benefits from 2020s silicon, faster storage, and driver updates tailored for modern architectures.
The idea is simple but smart: when a user experiences sluggishness and decides to report it, the system will bundle up not just their written feedback but also a snapshot of relevant diagnostic data. This could include metrics like CPU, memory, disk, and GPU usage at the moment of the slowdown, system event logs, and potentially stack traces or error codes from hung processes.
Armed with this context, Microsoft’s engineers stand a better chance of tracing slowdowns to their root causes—be it software bugs, inefficient code paths, driver conflicts, or background processes behaving badly. In theory, this tighter feedback loop should accelerate the diagnosis and resolution of performance bugs, making updates more targeted and effective.
This change is more than cosmetic. By tying the data collection to a visible, voluntary user action, Microsoft is signaling a renewed respect for user agency. Moreover, by storing logs locally until feedback is submitted, users potentially have the opportunity to review, copy, or delete these files themselves, further demystifying the feedback process.
Yet, the tension remains: users must trust that Microsoft is, in fact, only collecting what it says it is, and nothing more. If documentation is lacking, or if logs are difficult for non-experts to understand, these good intentions might ring hollow.
According to a recent Microsoft blog post detailing this change, the logs collected are strictly for performance-related feedback and are not sent automatically or continuously. Tech outlets such as Tom’s Hardware and Windows Central corroborate this, citing both the storage location and the user-driven mechanism for submitting diagnostics.
User-reported experiments in the beta channels show the existence of new files in the indicated folder after system slowdowns, and confirm that these files are referenced in subsequent Feedback Hub submissions. Early reports have not indicated any unexplained outbound connections linked to the new logging, supporting claims that logs are not silently transmitted.
Nevertheless, analysis is ongoing, and as with any system update, a degree of caution is always warranted for those with heightened privacy concerns. Third-party tools such as network traffic analyzers and forensic utilities will no doubt continue to probe these features for months to come.
Yet, as recent criticisms underline, these claims are muddied by how benchmarks are conducted. Microsoft’s most publicized demonstrations compare Windows 11 running on modern 12th or 13th-generation Intel processors against Windows 10 running on significantly older hardware—a scenario that is, at best, an apples-to-oranges comparison. Even Geekbench 6 multi-core results, sometimes cited in official presentations, vary drastically depending on CPU class, cooling, storage, and RAM configurations.
For most users, real-world performance is what matters: does Windows 11 feel faster in day-to-day workloads, on typical hardware? Do games run as smoothly, or better, than on legacy systems? Are UI elements consistently responsive, even on lower-spec machines? For all Microsoft’s technical claims, the persistence of user complaints indicates that optimization work is far from done.
Some power users and IT professionals have called for the logs to be open-sourced or, at a minimum, better documented, so that third parties can assist in diagnosing or even fixing issues. Others urge Microsoft not to lose sight of edge cases—such as how antivirus, virtualization tools, or accessibility software can affect system responsiveness.
If the company delivers timely, targeted performance fixes as a direct result of this telemetry, the reputation of Windows 11 as a “snappy” operating system may finally catch up with its design ambitions. Conversely, if no tangible improvements are seen—or if the logging creates new headaches—skeptics will remain unconvinced, and Microsoft will face further questions about its ability to deliver on the promises of its flagship operating system.
The move lands at a sensitive juncture. On one hand, Microsoft has real work to do: with persistent reports of lag and UI delays, it can’t afford to ignore the grievances of its most engaged users. On the other hand, building lasting trust will require not just more data, but more transparency—about what is collected, how it is used, and what improvements result.
For now, the new system’s opt-in nature and careful targeting represent an improvement over past blunt-force approaches to telemetry. Should Microsoft match this with timely, meaningful enhancements to the Windows 11 user experience, users and critics alike may start to see the operating system in a new light: not just as the next step in Windows’ evolution, but as a platform that truly listens—and learns—from its community.
Source: Tom's Hardware Microsoft adds telemetry to monitor Windows 11 sluggishness in latest beta, dev builds — logs reportedly only sent when users submit feedback
The Sluggishness Telemetry: How It Works
The new sluggishness telemetry is embedded directly into the latest preview builds available in the Dev and Beta channels. At its core, the feature is tailored to capture instances of poor performance—be it UI delays, unresponsive apps, or slow system operations—by generating logs automatically when such events are detected. These logs are stored in the %systemRoot%\Temp\DiagOutputDir\Whesvc directory, where “Whesvc” refers to the Windows Hardware Error Service.Unlike some traditional telemetry, which may operate continuously and transmit data silently, this new system is explicitly tied to user feedback. The logs created by this feature are only uploaded to Microsoft’s servers when a user chooses to submit performance-related feedback through the Feedback Hub app. This design balances Microsoft’s hunger for diagnostic data with the privacy expectations of users—addressing longstanding concerns about invasive, always-on telemetry that has dogged the company since Windows 10’s debut.
Context: Microsoft’s Struggle with Windows 11 Performance
Since Windows 11’s unveiling, Microsoft has repeatedly promoted it as a leap forward in both design and speed compared to its predecessor, Windows 10. Under-the-hood modifications like improved resource management—prioritizing foreground tasks for better perceived responsiveness—were trumpeted as game changers. Early benchmarks and Microsoft’s own documentation claimed meaningful reductions in memory usage, faster wake times, and more efficient battery consumption, especially on new hardware.However, these improvements have not silenced a steady stream of user complaints. Across Reddit, forums, and tech outlets, anecdotes of random stutters, laggy animations, inconsistent window behavior, and unexplained system slowdowns are easy to find. Some users report that gaming performance seems worse on Windows 11 than on identically-configured Windows 10 systems, especially on older hardware. Others have flagged issues after major Windows updates, reporting everything from high CPU usage by system processes to delays in opening the Start Menu or switching desktops.
A constellation of factors appears to contribute. Windows 11’s new system requirements—mandating Secure Boot, TPM 2.0, and newer CPUs—mean its performance claims often rest on newer hardware. This distinction is crucial: Microsoft’s most dramatic performance comparisons between Windows 10 and Windows 11 often involve benchmark scenarios where the former is run on legacy, unsupported CPUs, while the latter benefits from 2020s silicon, faster storage, and driver updates tailored for modern architectures.
Microsoft's Data-Driven Response
By linking performance logs to voluntary feedback submissions, Microsoft hopes to address a core challenge: replicating and diagnosing the highly variable, sometimes elusive issues that users face in the wild. Traditionally, performance bottlenecks can be incredibly difficult to troubleshoot remotely, as they may depend on unique hardware configurations, third-party drivers, power settings, background apps, or even specific user behavior.The idea is simple but smart: when a user experiences sluggishness and decides to report it, the system will bundle up not just their written feedback but also a snapshot of relevant diagnostic data. This could include metrics like CPU, memory, disk, and GPU usage at the moment of the slowdown, system event logs, and potentially stack traces or error codes from hung processes.
Armed with this context, Microsoft’s engineers stand a better chance of tracing slowdowns to their root causes—be it software bugs, inefficient code paths, driver conflicts, or background processes behaving badly. In theory, this tighter feedback loop should accelerate the diagnosis and resolution of performance bugs, making updates more targeted and effective.
Strengths of the New Approach
- Privacy-Aware Telemetry: Unlike blanket data collection, logs are only transmitted with explicit user consent, addressing one of the thorniest sticking points from prior Windows telemetry controversies.
- More Actionable Feedback: Combining user-written reports with granular diagnostic data bridges the gap between subjective experience (“my PC feels slow”) and objective metrics. This is essential for tackling complex, intermittent issues.
- Accelerated Problem Resolution: If widely adopted, this system could result in faster updates and bug fixes targeting genuine pain points, rather than hypothetical or synthetic benchmarks.
- Community Empowerment: By investing in the Feedback Hub workflow rather than obscure background services, Microsoft implicitly acknowledges the value of its enthusiast and power user community.
Risks, Questions, and Critiques
Despite the apparent promise, some caveats loom large:- Effectiveness Depends on User Participation: If few users file feedback, or if those who do are not experiencing the most problematic issues, the diagnostic benefit is diminished.
- Potential for Data Overload: Microsoft will need robust internal tools to parse, prioritize, and act on what could become a deluge of logs, separating meaningful patterns from noise.
- Gaming and Offline Contexts: Some of the most significant complaints—such as in-game stutters or periodic slowdowns offline—may not be easily captured if users don’t or can’t submit feedback immediately.
- Transparency and Control: Many users remain skeptical of telemetry regardless of scope. Microsoft will need to clearly document what data is included, how long it is stored, and who can access it, especially as regulations around data privacy continue to evolve globally.
- Possible Impact on System Resources: There’s a credible risk that extra background logging, even if dormant most of the time, could itself contribute to resource usage, particularly on lower-end hardware.
Comparison with Previous Telemetry Efforts
Microsoft’s relationship with OS telemetry has long been contentious. Windows 10’s default diagnostic logging drew criticism for being indecipherable and difficult to disable, sparking privacy debates and, in some cases, regulatory scrutiny. In contrast, Windows 11’s new sluggishness monitoring builds in explicit user consent—logs are only sent when a user actively engages with the Feedback Hub.This change is more than cosmetic. By tying the data collection to a visible, voluntary user action, Microsoft is signaling a renewed respect for user agency. Moreover, by storing logs locally until feedback is submitted, users potentially have the opportunity to review, copy, or delete these files themselves, further demystifying the feedback process.
Yet, the tension remains: users must trust that Microsoft is, in fact, only collecting what it says it is, and nothing more. If documentation is lacking, or if logs are difficult for non-experts to understand, these good intentions might ring hollow.
Independent Verification and Evidence
To accurately assess the rollout and operations of this new telemetry, it’s vital to examine both Microsoft’s official communications and independent user reports.According to a recent Microsoft blog post detailing this change, the logs collected are strictly for performance-related feedback and are not sent automatically or continuously. Tech outlets such as Tom’s Hardware and Windows Central corroborate this, citing both the storage location and the user-driven mechanism for submitting diagnostics.
User-reported experiments in the beta channels show the existence of new files in the indicated folder after system slowdowns, and confirm that these files are referenced in subsequent Feedback Hub submissions. Early reports have not indicated any unexplained outbound connections linked to the new logging, supporting claims that logs are not silently transmitted.
Nevertheless, analysis is ongoing, and as with any system update, a degree of caution is always warranted for those with heightened privacy concerns. Third-party tools such as network traffic analyzers and forensic utilities will no doubt continue to probe these features for months to come.
The Broader Performance Debate
It’s important to situate this telemetry initiative within the ongoing debate over Windows 11’s responsiveness. Microsoft has often highlighted Windows 11’s superior performance by referencing improvements like reduced startup times, enhanced battery life, or optimized background processes.Yet, as recent criticisms underline, these claims are muddied by how benchmarks are conducted. Microsoft’s most publicized demonstrations compare Windows 11 running on modern 12th or 13th-generation Intel processors against Windows 10 running on significantly older hardware—a scenario that is, at best, an apples-to-oranges comparison. Even Geekbench 6 multi-core results, sometimes cited in official presentations, vary drastically depending on CPU class, cooling, storage, and RAM configurations.
For most users, real-world performance is what matters: does Windows 11 feel faster in day-to-day workloads, on typical hardware? Do games run as smoothly, or better, than on legacy systems? Are UI elements consistently responsive, even on lower-spec machines? For all Microsoft’s technical claims, the persistence of user complaints indicates that optimization work is far from done.
Community and Industry Responses
The Windows enthusiast community’s reaction to the new sluggishness telemetry is cautiously positive but tinged with skepticism. On popular tech forums and social platforms, users often express frustration with Microsoft’s historical communication and perceived defensiveness over Windows 11’s issues. For many, the direct connection between user feedback and detailed diagnostic logs is a step forward, but ongoing transparency will be crucial.Some power users and IT professionals have called for the logs to be open-sourced or, at a minimum, better documented, so that third parties can assist in diagnosing or even fixing issues. Others urge Microsoft not to lose sight of edge cases—such as how antivirus, virtualization tools, or accessibility software can affect system responsiveness.
What’s Next? Looking Forward to Windows 11 25H2
With the sluggishness monitoring poised to become a baked-in feature of Windows 11 version 25H2, Microsoft appears set to make this data-driven approach a foundation of its support strategy moving forward. The success of this initiative will likely depend on a combination of technical refinement, user community engagement, and sustained communication from Microsoft.If the company delivers timely, targeted performance fixes as a direct result of this telemetry, the reputation of Windows 11 as a “snappy” operating system may finally catch up with its design ambitions. Conversely, if no tangible improvements are seen—or if the logging creates new headaches—skeptics will remain unconvinced, and Microsoft will face further questions about its ability to deliver on the promises of its flagship operating system.
Final Analysis: Balancing Progress, Privacy, and Perception
Microsoft’s introduction of sluggishness telemetry in Windows 11 preview builds is both a symbol and a test: a symbol of the company’s broader embrace of user-driven diagnostics, and a test of its ability to walk the line between actionable data collection and individual privacy.The move lands at a sensitive juncture. On one hand, Microsoft has real work to do: with persistent reports of lag and UI delays, it can’t afford to ignore the grievances of its most engaged users. On the other hand, building lasting trust will require not just more data, but more transparency—about what is collected, how it is used, and what improvements result.
For now, the new system’s opt-in nature and careful targeting represent an improvement over past blunt-force approaches to telemetry. Should Microsoft match this with timely, meaningful enhancements to the Windows 11 user experience, users and critics alike may start to see the operating system in a new light: not just as the next step in Windows’ evolution, but as a platform that truly listens—and learns—from its community.
Source: Tom's Hardware Microsoft adds telemetry to monitor Windows 11 sluggishness in latest beta, dev builds — logs reportedly only sent when users submit feedback
