Dave-H

I love Microsoft's suggested workaround to avoid the problem. Basically, just don't do it! Thanks again @jaclaz, you've given me a lot to get my head around here, but that's what this forum is all about of course. Cheers, Dave.

Thanks again, as I'm sure you're now well aware, I have only ever gone into the intricacies of disk partitioning at a very basic level! So if I read your analogy correctly, extended partitions are like they're in a container, into which utilities like mbrwiz cannot read? For some reason lost in the mists of time, I have always formatted my data drives as extended partitions, my only primary partitions are the system drives for Windows 98 and Windows 10. Disk 2, the Windows 10 drive, was partitioned by Windows setup, and both partitions are primary. The Windows XP partition on disk 1 isn't, it's an extended partition. Is there any disadvantage to the data drive partitions or the Windows XP partition being primary partitions, presumably as long as they're not set active?

Thank you, I'll have to read that a few times to get my head around it, but I should have of course made the connection that the partitions concerned were extended partitions, not primary ones! Is it normal for MBRWiz not to see the drive letters and volume labels of extended partitions?

Well I'm glad you found a workaround anyway, although the performance hit on Firefox after it's been open for a while, even with a completely clean profile, is very puzzling.

@jaclaz Not wishing to hijack this thread, but as someone with three SDDs on my system and two conventional drives, I just tried this out myself, just out of interest. This is what I got - The two SSDs that are partitioned, disk 1 and disk 2, both show the start of the first partition as 2048, which I assume is good. Disk 3 is also an SSD, but shows its single partition start as 16065. Is that OK? Disk 0, a conventional FAT32 IDE drive, also shows 16065, and disk 4, a conventional FAT32 SATA drive connected via an expansion card, shows 16321. Also slightly puzzled that I'm only seeing drive letter and label information for two of the partitions, is that normal?

This is all I'm seeing on Firefox 52.9.1 ESR. Nothing very useful!

If that's the case, I'm certainly on borrowed time!

Two updates today, KB4484267 for Excel, and KB4484163 for Outlook. Both installed with no problem and everything is fine. Still a very long scan on Microsoft Update, but it got there in the end!

I assume you have add-ons? If Firefox is slowing down even when it's apparently not being used, it could be an add-on working in the background that's doing it. Try running Firefox with add-ons disabled (under the help menu) and see if it slows down if it's left alone like that.

As AVG and Avast are now the same company, I don't see how one can be considered OK and the other "discredited"? When I tried them both they seemed to be virtually identical.

But am I right in assuming that your original installation of non-ESR Firefox 52 didn't have this scrolling problem? If so, I wouldn't have thought that it was an intrinsic problem with the graphics hardware. More likely it is a configuration issue somewhere in the new version of Firefox. As you seem to have tried a lot of different settings parameters, and there is always a chance that settings can interact, so changing just one wouldn't necessarily affect the problem, I would try resetting all the configuration options to their defaults and see if the problem is still there then. To be safe, take a backup of your Firefox profile folder, and then if you get into trouble you can always restore it to get your present configuration back.

OK, well the other variable in the system is your graphics card of course. The visual performance of browsers is very dependent on how they interface with the machine's graphics, especially when it comes to things like playing demanding videos. Of course that doesn't explain why your original installation of non-ESR Firefox 52 presumably didn't have the problem, with the same hardware. I have a very old video card. I do have "Use hardware acceleration when available" ticked, but I suspect that it isn't actually available! The symptoms sound like a buffer is getting full or something like that, and re-starting the browser clears it.

FWIW I've never noticed any scrolling problems on FF 52.9.1 ESR. It always seems to be fine to me. The problem must be due to running it in the sandbox I would have thought.

I found that enabling multiprocess on 52.9.1 ESR made a very big difference to performance on things like Facebook pages. It was well worth doing! Glad to hear that slack is still OK. As I said, I don't know anything about sandboxie, but is it possible that when Firefox is running in it, and it tries to run another program (in this case plugin-container.exe) that sandboxie might treat this as a possible threat, and block it?

Yes, "plugin-container.exe" runs for me when I load a YouTube page, and stops when I leave it, so it's definitely needed. If it won't run under sandboxie I'm afraid I don't know what to suggest, as I have no experience of that. If there is a forum for sandboxie users, perhaps you could ask there. Did you try "slack" on your temporary 52.9.1 installation BTW, did it work?

You're right, IE11 and Edge cannot connect to that site even on Windows 10. Firefox 72 however, can.

I'm on the 52.9.1 ESR version because it is the very last version of official Firefox which is XP compatible. It also supports all plugins. I'm afraid I've no idea if "slack" will still work for you with 52 ESR, I'm afraid that the only way to find out is to try it! I would try installing 52.9.1 ESR as a separate installation into a new folder, which should not affect the existing installation, and give it a try. If it works OK, I would update your existing installation of 52 to 52 ESR. If there are still problems with YouTube then, it will be a lot easier for me and others to try and diagnose. At the moment we don't know what effect it not being the ESR version could be having.

Both the videos that are failing for you are OK here. Interesting that you have the banner saying that some plugins are no longer supported. Just to confirm, you are using the ESR version of Firefox 52? If not, that could well be the problem.

Please don't duplicate threads. As your first thread had no replies, I guess no-one else here is using that type of printer.

The videos on both your links work fine here on Firefox 52.9.1 ESR. What HTML5 support do you have in your browser, is it the Adobe Primetime Content Decryption Module? That's what I'm using.

The ad blocking nag banner has come back again for me. I changed my ad blocker from Adblock Plus to uBlock Origin recently, so I don't know if that might be the cause, it's disabled on this site of course. As a Platinum Sponsor I shouldn't be seeing any ads anyway!

Thanks!

Just another update, later today I had another PM, and this time I did get an e-mail notification!

Saw I had another two PMs when I came here this morning. Still no e-mail notifications for them.

I had two PMs today, and didn't get an e-mail notification about either of them, although they were flagged when I went to the board. I am still getting notifications for new posts on threads I'm subscribed to though. Looks like something is definitely broken somewhere..........