After installing FF 4.01 I found the scrolling (whether by mouse wheel
or dragging scroll bar) was so jerky that it was unacceptable and I've
reverted to 3.6.17 - problem gone. IE8 scrolling is also perfectly
smooth. The problem affected all web pages, even local files.

Smooth scrolling is enabled in config and I tried a couple of add ons
that were supposed to improve things, but they had negligible effect.

Any suggestions welcomed!

--
John Gruffydd
Mold
Wales UK

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6199 (20110611) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Local problem.  Check to make sure you have current Direct X for your
OS, and that you have current video driver for your video hardware.  If
all else fails, turn off hardware acceleration and see if that makes a
difference.
Scrolling here is smooth as silk.

news:mailman.904.1307832974.5956.support-firefox*******...

In my comparison of different browsers, Firefox is the slowest and most
sluggish when scrolling long pages containing a lot of embedded graphics.
FF4.0.1 and 3.6.17 both behave that way on my system, so you should feel
lucky that reverting to 3.6.17 fixed your problem. Otherwise you might try
something else like Opera, which seems the zippiest of all of them.
--
JQP
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

news:mailman.904.1307832974.5956.support-firefox*******...

In my comparison of different browsers, Firefox is the slowest and most
sluggish when scrolling long pages containing a lot of embedded graphics.
FF4.0.1 and 3.6.17 both behave that way on my system, so you should feel
lucky that reverting to 3.6.17 fixed your problem. Otherwise you might try
something else like Opera, which seems the zippiest of all of them.
--
JQP
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

Just the opposite here, Firefox 4.0.1 is faster than the latest Chrome,
Opera and IE. I suspect it to be compatibility with video card and
related drivers, etc. There are other factors as well, including the AV
application scanning pages/images as they download.

My recommendation is to stick with what you have and investigate the OS
and it's hardware/software before blaming the browser(s).

news:RqSdnS4AEtARBGnQnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d*******...

There's a practical limit to such technical investigations, seeking the
ultimate truth or the perfect resolution. In my experience a pragmatic
choice is often more productive. So if something works faster or better on
your computer, use it. Computers are different. What works for you may not
work for me, and vice versa. Assigning blame is pointless. The problem can
be worked from both ends, or either end, or neither end - whatever is
easiest.
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

This advice did not warrant posting twice.  Your system has obvious
problems, judging from your previous posts, and your inability to solve
them is not the fault of the browser, its your system srtup.

The issue is that the OP posted a problem that only seems to occur on
his computer. Recommending to change browsers is not a solution but
rather an alternative. In any support group, finding a solution is
paramount to an alternative, the alternative being the easy way out.
Finding the solution not only helps the OP but also all those others
that may be reading and not posting.

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird

news:LZ-dnaGwRsPkI2nQnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d*******...

I respectfully disagree.
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

Of course you do, no surprise there.
Good luck learning how to use your computer and
HAND.

news:08ednVKCZdoGuWjQnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d*******...

I suspect that OP's problem happens to many others too, including me.
Scrolling with the mouse wheel in Firefox is klunky. False claims that
Firefox is faster fall on deaf ears and don't lead to a solution.
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

news:n56dnUpI99ITGGjQnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d*******...

I know how to use my computer very well. As for my hand, it works better
sometimes than others - lately it has been better. Thanks.
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

I agree, it happens to many others and therefore recommending to switch
browsers in lieu of fixing the issue at hand is not warranted. Also,
false claims that Firefox is slower also can fall on deaf ears and not
lead to a solution as well.

What we need to do is to:

1) Find out if the slow scrolling happens on all sites or just one or
two, etc.

2) Make sure mouse drivers are up to date

3) Disable the AV to see if that helps

4) Make sure video drivers are up to date

5) Determine if an addon is conflicting by restarting with addons disabled

6) Create a new profile in order to eliminate all possibilities of
profile corruption somewhere

After all that is done, we'll proceed to an eventual solution maybe, yes?

Stating that "it doesn't happen here" can be of some value as it is not
the fault of Firefox itself but maybe some conflict with one's system
you think?

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird

news:ntSdnQFDeNgMYWjQnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d*******...

Probably not. I suspect it's built into the Firefox design and code.
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

news:ntSdnQBDeNibYGjQnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d*******...

As already explained in the other branch of this thread.
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

My bloviated meandering follows what JohnQPublic graced us with on
6/13/2011 11:53 AM:

For the vast majority of folks willingly migrating to Fx 4.x, the speed
differences are either unnoticed or acknowledged to be improved. This
suggests (Ockham's Razor-like) that for those who are experiencing speed
problems, the problem lies elsewhere. I suspect in a number of these
cases, it may be due to outdated hardware, either cpu, video card,
drivers or a combination of all of them. In these situations, the best
way to ascertain the problem is via a process of elimination,
acknowledging ahead of time that in some small percentage of case, the
answer may be to either stick with the back-level version, move to
another browser or upgrade one's equipment.

--
Sailfish - Netscape/Mozilla Champion
Netscape/Mozilla Tips:  http://www.ufaq.org/  ,  http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff:  http://www.projectit.com/

Works fine for me and always has.

I've never noticed speed changes not attributable to my ISP's vagaries.

Gee, it's nice to NOT have a problem every once in a while.

--
Cheers, Bev
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
                    --Revolution Books, New York, New York

Hmm, in that case you must have your own private code! I see we're not
getting anywhere with this but maybe there are those with the same
problem reading this and getting some benefit, who knows.

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird

sometimes, you optimism gets carried away, Jay...

news:BL6dnRGRDO5L9mvQnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d*******...

Even though you state it more elequently than most, with all due respect
(considerable), to me that sounds like canned hype intended to promote the
Firefox browser in the battle for world domination! :)

Are there statistical studies to prove that assertion? (references) Even a
public poll where each Firefox user is invited to register their
opinion/experience would be better than nothing. For example: Assuming the
change is from Firefox v3.6.x to v4.0.x ... What percentage of people notice
no speed change? What percent notice a slowdown? What percent notice a
speedup? Which browser operation(s) are involved? And are the noticed
changes anecdotal or are there defined tests involved?

[an interesting inference, a new concept for me, I'm reading about it]

I still believe Firefox is one of the slowest browsers, and await evidence
to the contrary. I'm Dutch-stubborn about it. :)

Is there a list of the minimum hardware and software requirements for each
major version of Firefox? (1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 4.x, ...)

Yes, always in logical fashion. The problem lies with the assumption that
Firefox is perfect, so the cause lies elsewhere. Also the number of criteria
involved (as listed by Jay Garcia) is too much for average user to handle,
and I doubt that they solve the problem very often.

That percentage isn't important to me. I'm neither pro- nor anti-Firefox,
except I will concede that it is the most customizable of the browsers that
I've tried.
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

If I thought you really meant that then I would take offense to that
statement regarding "canned hype intended to promote .....". Please keep
in mind and understand that we are "peer support" users that are not
paid to giveth of our time and experience . We do this as volunteers
freely and willingly. And yes, I noted your :) smiley. :-)

"Public polls" are basically useless IMHO based on experience in
managing forums for a very long time and it usually erupts into a
prolonged flame war "mine is faster - yours is slower" and so on ad
nauseum. It then becomes a challenge as to who's findings are accurate
and believable, etc.

You like everyone else is entitiled to an opinion based on observation.
Opinion is elevated to fact by comparing like scenarios using different
browsers. To be most accurate in the results this testing has to be done
in sterile conditions and based on a set state of controls. Due to no
two systems being identical, this IMHO cannot be done effectively.

System requirements for FF 3:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0/system-requirements/

And for FF 4:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/system-requirements.html

In most cases the actual difference between browsers accessing the same
site(s) can be as miniscule as 1 or 2 seconds at best.

There are always those users that are constantly looking around the next
corner for something perceivably "better". I am of the opinion that
sticking with what you have, learning it inside and out and only
upgrading it if absolutely necessary is the way to go. The only reason
that I upgrade is to help users with support, otherwise I would stay put
with whatever works best for me. I don't see any benefit to running
around to different forums and stating that YOUR browser sucks or YOUR
browser is slow and on and on. Support forums are dedicated to helping
users, not grandstanding and otherwise creating mayhem and/or browser
battles. 8-)

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird

My bloviated meandering follows what JohnQPublic graced us with on
6/14/2011 5:10 AM:

I have provided you a few links in the past that, taken together, should
provide you the proof that you seek. One was a independent review by a
technical source where it confirmed the very real performance increases
in Fx4. Another was a link to show the large number of Fx4 downloads
with a running count of new downloads. You chose to dismiss these as
either biased or untruthful, as I recall? Additionally, I ask you to
simply look at the support questions posed on this newsgroup as proof of
my claim. Looking at all of the questions regarding Fx4 issue, only a
very few complain about its performance. If it were as bad as you
suggest, there would be a higher percentage, no?

So, I now ask you to show me your proof that Fx4 has a performance issue
except for a small percentage of people.

Understood, but as I've already provided links to independent reviews
that state otherwise, to which you dismissed off-hand, I now ask you to
show your proof from reputable independent source to counter my claim.
Fair, no?

This link,  http://mzl.la/X5is2  , provides a baseline set of requirements
but doesn't go into details regarding such things as video cards and
their driver updates.

No software is perfect and just a quick glance at bugzilla, http://bit.ly/Z3W7t  , for Firefox bugs will attest. I cannot comment on
your claim about unsolved problems since I don't have any objective
proof to show otherwise, do you? However, my subjective impression is
that most people asking performance related questions on this support
group do, in fact, get a resolution to their problem.

True, that.

--
Sailfish - Netscape/Mozilla Champion
Netscape/Mozilla Tips:  http://www.ufaq.org/  ,  http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff:  http://www.projectit.com/

I don't remember, but would look at them if you care to provide again. It
might depend on whether scientific tests are used to measure "real
performance", which browser operations are involved, what kinds of test
websites are involved, etc.

Visitors to this NG are strong dissuaded from registering any anti-Firefox
opinions, and are attacked for doing so, so that result/conclusion is surely
biased.

Alas I have no such independent proofs to offer, neither pro nor con. I'm
not aware of any. My opinion that Firefox is one of the slowest browsers is
based largely on my own tests, although I've seen the same mentioned
elsewhere too. I don't claim that everyone will find Firefox slow, or a
particular version slower. Others may have a different experience than me,
because computers are different.
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

Thanks for the links...

Minimum Hardware for FF3: Pentium 233 MHz (Recommended: Pentium 500MHz or
greater)

Recommended Hardware for FF4: Pentium 4 or newer processor that supports
SSE2

I don't know what "SSE2" is, without looking it up. Also there's no mention
of AMD or other processors, only Intel. Also that's quite a big change in
processor requirements from FF3 to FF4. I really don't know thereby if my
AMD Athlon XP 2400+ 2GHz processor qualifies to run FF4. Perhaps I, and
everyone else with older processors, should stick with FF3 for that
reason(?).
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

Thought you knew enough about your system?

news:fbudnY2N_LHGTGrQnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d*******...

I know about my system, but the FF hardware requirements aren't clear at: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0/system-requirements/ http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/system-requirements.html

--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

My bloviated meandering follows what JohnQPublic graced us with on
6/14/2011 1:55 PM:

You should be able to find my previous links by searching my replies to
you on this newsgroup regard performance related threads. You can also
simply use Google and easily find several links yourself.

Most people don't report problems by framing it as an "anti-Firefox"
issue. Also, Chris Ilias (moderator), and others, tends to chasten those
who unfairly attack others who are registering complaints, no?
Additionally, most of the threads here revolve around problems people
are having with the browser so performance related problems would also
be included in that mix, yes?

Agreed. And, in fact, Firefox 4.x may be slower for your configuration.
The hard part is determining why. I don't recall if you responded to my
previous suggestion to select Firefox>Options>Advanced and uncheck the
"Use hardware acceleration when available" checkbox. If so, did it seem
to improve your situation at all? What about creating a clean profile
and starting Firefox with that, does that seem to improve your performance?

Ultimately, your particular machine+platform+video card combination may
be such that it cannot be improved without upgrading but let's eliminate
the other, less costly, tests first.

--
Sailfish - Netscape/Mozilla Champion
Netscape/Mozilla Tips:  http://www.ufaq.org/  ,  http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff:  http://www.projectit.com/

news:5eadnbBEq4g6S2rQnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d*******...

After poking around I believe my processor is equivalent of Intel Pentium 4
but it does not have SSE2. If that's important to FF4 then my processor
doesn't qualify. Maybe that's why FF is slow on my computer compared to
other browsers(?).
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

I'm not that interested. It's a complicated bunch of threads. Maybe another
day.

Well, again, I'm going mostly on personal experience, but also how I see
other people's queries responded-to. There is usually a presumption that FF
is perfect so any problems are the fault of user's computer, drivers, or
whatever. A long list of difficult tests is then presented which very few
people can understand or perform. It's like making your dog jump thru 100
hoops before it earns a bone. Poor doggie... :)
Cheers,
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

My bloviated meandering follows what JohnQPublic graced us with on
6/14/2011 3:20 PM:

REF 1:  http://anse.rs/kkL4YQ
Ref 2:  http://bit.ly/kPD8SF

The references above provides some detailed discussion regarding SSE2
and  how it relates to non-SSE2 processors but it seems mostly to do
with floating pointing computations (which I suspect is used a lot when
rendering pages.) Whether the lack of this is to complete cause of your
Fx4 sluggishness experience, I cannot say, but it does seems to at least
be part of it.

--
Sailfish - Netscape/Mozilla Champion
Netscape/Mozilla Tips:  http://www.ufaq.org/  ,  http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff:  http://www.projectit.com/

I believe that the processor is up to the task, but the video hardware
may have issues.  For what it is worth, my Core 2 Duo 2.6Ghz processor
is more than fast enough for running just about anything short of the
most demanding games, but the video hardware HP installed is blacklisted
by Mozilla for D2D, unless I update to a video software release that HP
isn't making available, and MS won't let me download.  But the thing
likes the 2.2Ghz single core processor and the video hardware in my
laptop.  Go figure.
BTW, Firefox 5 works just perfectly on BOTH.

To see if your processor supports SSE-2, download and intall CPU-Z from
here:

http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

Tells you a lot about your CPU.

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird

Your support input can be quite valuable at times. However, this sort of
reply is way overboard and best taken to email. Although I am not a
moderator here I feel quite confident that THE moderator would agree,
thanks.

followup set to .general

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird

Got it. Thanks.

I had Everest v1.51.195 available from http://www.oldversion.com/Everest%20Home%20Edition.html
which gives the same info but had fallen out of the habit of using it, so
forgot what it contained. An advantage of Everest is that the info is easy
to copy & paste, or it can produce .txt file reports. This older version
works better on my old computer than newer versions. Your results may
vary...
--
J.Q.P.
(XP Home SP3, FF4.0.1 default browser with FF3+ theme, FF4.0.1_portable,
FF3.6.17_portable, Chrome11_portable, Opera11_portable, Iron11_portable,
Maxthon3_portable, Seamonkey2_portable, IE6, Outlook Express default
mail/news)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE2

--
Ed Mullen http://edmullen.net/
They show you how detergents take out bloodstains. I think if you've got
a T-shirt with bloodstains all over it, maybe your laundry isn't your
biggest problem.