It appears these updates are usage trackers:

KB 2952664
KB 3022345

No. KB 2952664 is a Compatibility update for upgrading Windows 7. It has nothing to do with telemetry.

And KB 3022345 -- which does have to do with telemetry -- has been superseded by KB 3068708.

Other telemetry updates are:

• KB 3075249 "Update that adds telemetry points to consent.exe in Windows 8.1 and Windows 7"
• KB 3080149 "Update for customer experience and diagnostic telemetry"

.
Then there is KB 3021917 ("Update to Windows 7 SP1 for performance improvements") which is sort of a telemetry update insomuch as it does indeed send back telemetry data to Microsoft, but supposedly only data related to performance issues and not actual usage.

That's all I know about.

FYI: Web site for encouraging responsible UAV operation:

  http://www.dronepilotwings.com/

(run by Randy Cassingham of This Is True fame)

I agree about the .NET recompiles which seem to always occur just after a Windows Update, but proposing that as the cause of the OP's problem is just a WAG. Proper investigation into the problem is the only reliably way to get to the bottom of the problem.

What I'm trying to say is you should just offer intelligent GUESSES, but rather offer guidance in how to gather the necessary empirical hard evidence of precisely WHAT is causing the slowdown.

Process Explorer should help a lot in this regard, but Windows itself has a Performance Monitor feature that should allow them to dig even deeper.

Don't guess. Know.

"John's Phone" is just a simple cell phone and nothing more:

http://www.johnsphones.com/store/item9

No GPS. No web. No chat. No texting. No apps. No operating system at all, to speak of.

All it can do is make phone calls and receive phone calls. That's it.

It's the ultimate dumb phone.

Then she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any computer that's connected to the Internet.

Seriously.

An Internet connected computer in the wrong hands can be a very dangerous threat to the rest of us who share the Information Super-Highway with her. Her incompetence and irresponsibility can seriously hurt a lot of people very quickly.

She is behaving like a person who wants to drive a car but is not interested in obtaining a license that proves she knows how to operate said motor vehicle is a safe manner. She just wants to get on the road. To hell with leaning how to drive!

That's irresponsible.

If she cannot take the time to learn how to safely operate a computer connected to the Internet or cannot demonstrate that she knows how to do so, then she should NOT be alowed anywhere near one.

At least not without close supervision.

IMO only a very foolish company or gov't entity would ever allow a computer running an antiquated insecure operating system controlling a very expensive and critical piece of company equipment to be connected to the internet or rely on a vendor that doesn't support an operating system any newer than one that's already 12 years old which they knew for years ahead of time was no longer going to be supported.

But then maybe that's just me.

In a democracy, the public IS a higher authority than the government. Sometimes, the officials forget this.

No. The official know this all too well. Sadly, it is the CITIZENS who are the ones who have forgotten.

Similar results occurred in a similar "experiment" on lie detector operators (polygraph operators) performed years ago by 60 Minutes:

60 Minutes - Truth and Consequences

Even though no camera was actually stolen and each "suspect" knew this (were privy to the experiment), each examiner fingered whichever "suspect" that they were told beforehand might have stolen it.

Similar results occurred in a similar "experiment" on lie detector operators (polygraph operators) performed years ago by 60 Minutes:

Even though no camera was actually stolen and each "suspect" knew this (were privy to the experiment), each examiner fingered whichever "suspect" that they were told beforehand might have stolen it.

"You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate."

You are under the impression that there is a "universal right" and "universal wrong" (and you claim to know the right in this case)

In a democracy the majority should get their way - by definition.

Freedom of speech allows everyone the right to voice their opionion in the form of criticism towards another or their beliefs.

A right is something that is enjoyed equally by the minority as it is by the majority. Otherwise it is not a right but a wrong.

And don't forget, they've got twice as much money for advertising those drugs as they have for researching those drugs and running those clinical trials.

With good reason I would suspect.

Developing a new drug is a very risky and very expensive thing. R&D costs money and lots of it, while generating exactly zero dollars in income.

The sales of said drugs (i.e. the fruit of R&D's labor) however, is what generates income, and is what ultimately covers the incredible cost involved in developing it in the first place (as well as the cost of failed research efforts on drugs which "never panned out" and thus never made it to market).

If the percentages spent on promotion verses R&D were reversed (e.g. only 13.4% on marketing verses 24.4% for research and development), they might not be able to generate enough income to cover the cost of all the dollars they were sinking into developing their new wonder drug, and then where would we be? After all, "He who has a thing to sell and goes to whisper in a well, is not as apt to get the dollars as he who climbs a tree and hollers!"

Now I'm no fan of seeing so many advertisements for drugs in so many magazines, etc (since such advertisements are mostly lots of hype sprinkled with heavy doses of fine printed medical gobbledy-gook which I can neither read what with my poor eyesight nor understand what with my non-existent medical training), but bashing drug companies for spending more on advertising than your average non-drug company is hardly a convincing argument that they are therefore all greedy sons of bitches. (There are much easier ways to make money than developing new life-saving drugs after all, so greed (i.e. wont for profit) can't be the sole motivating factor).

Bottom line: given a choice between fewer life-saving drugs but a couple extra dollars in my pocket verses a realible supply of some life-saving drug that I might some day need in order to survive (at the marginal cost of more dollars going into their pockets instead of mine), I vote for the latter thank-you-very-much.

NOW THEN, getting back on topic...

If they have indeed had more than plenty enough time to recoup the costs incurred in developing said drug and are now simply wishing to prolong their ride on the profit train their investment generated because they inadequately failed to plan ahead for said train eventually reaching the end of the line which they knew was coming, then fuck 'em. They should have planned ahead better.

The Radioactive Boy Scout

The Changing Face of Control Room Design

Handbook of Control Room Design and Ergonomics [Hardcover]

NASA may understand things related to aeronautics and space, but, sadly, they sure as heck don't understand HTML very well:

    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
    (img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg" width="120" height="90" ...
    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D298_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a) ...

and:

    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
    (img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg" width="120" height="90" ...
    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D853_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a) ...

and:

    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg" target="_blank" class="captionText")
    (img src="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg" width="120" height="90" ...
    (a href="../../images/20100723_D2010_0723_D867_50.jpg")Full Size Image(/font)(/a) ...

Ummm... Houston? We have a problem here!

The "width" and "height" attributes of the HTML "img" tag *DOES NOT CHANGE THE SIZE OF THE IMAGE FILE*. It only changes the how that (image) FILE is /rendered/ on the screen.

The entire 2.31 MB (9.4 x 6.3 inches (23.8 x 15.9 cm) 2250 x 1500 Pixel), 1.57 MB (5.8 x 8.1 inches (14.8 x 20.6 cm) 1400 x 1942 Pixel), and 2.01 MB (8.8 x 5.8 inches (22.3 x 14.8 cm) 2104 x 1400 Pixel) files will /still/ be downloaded whenever the page is displayed.

They'll just get squeezed into a tiny 120 x 90 pixel area on the page, which sort of renders moot the whole point of providing thumbnails, doesn't it?

What /should/ be, at most, a several kilobyte web page is, thanks to the rocket scientist that wrote your page's HTML code, is now a 5.9+ MEGABYTE web page, that even with high speed DSL /does/ take a while to load.

I've seen this mistake made far too many times by amateur web authors. You'd think the folks at NASA would be smart enough to get it right.

I mean this isn't exactly rocket science we're talking about here!

But then maybe that's the problem? They only understand rocket science, so anything that /isn't/ rocket science completely baffles them??

Makes you wonder sometimes....