Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 419 posts

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#21

Post by deanclatworthy »

zo1 wrote: post #16

From the article: >"* The main problem, though, is the process by which ABP actually blocks ads. Basically, ABP inserts a massive CSS stylesheet — occupying around 4MB of RAM — into every single webpage that you visit, stripping out the ads.*" Isn't then the actual problem the way that Adblock+ removes the ads? Why not simply allow an API for a plugin to easily strip content from a site. If there is one already, then…

In chrome at least it's not in Google's interest to block their customers ads, or make it any easier to do so.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#22

Post by vacri »

neals wrote: post #14

I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.

Flashblock is my middleground. The advertisers can have images, but the worst offenders are the Flash ads, and they get blocked.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#24

Post by rtpg »

ddorian43 wrote: post #6

Isn't using 200MB for a webpage(techcrunch) actually bad in the first place ? Do all designers work on their iExpensiveMachine and don't care about other peoples lower-end machines/phones/tables/whatever?

this is mainly due to having many images on your website (memory can store uncompressed images to save CPU cycles when rendering)

Also, last I checked, most phones have 1 to 2 gigs of RAM, and they're not keeping many tabs in memory. If the RAM is there, using it is not really an issue (until you start getting into the whole virtual memory stuff I guess)

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#25

Post by lostcolony »

neals wrote: post #14

I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.

What pushed me into using it was when comics.com (now gocomics.com; the official online source of a number of syndicated newspaper comics) had ads that would -minimize my browser-, display a pop up designed to look like a Windows system warning, that advised me to download some malware masquerading as a virus scanner.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#26

Post by Squarex »

aluhut wrote: post #19
shpx wrote: post #2

People are using µBlock now for precisely this reason. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/%C2%B5Block-vs.-ABP:-... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%C2%B5block/cjpalh... https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Too bad its's not for Firefox

Someone is working on it there https://github.com/Deathamns/uBlock. There is also experimental xpi https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/27.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#27

Post by rtpg »

neals wrote: post #14

I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.

Honestly, I've only seen the "tricky" Download Now buttons on shady video websites (read: those that have all the episodes of Seinfeld on them).

Though I've had more and more invasive ads in newspaper sites (the fact that I get so many ads on NYT's site despite being a subscriber is frustrating to say the least), I do like keeping free websites running. I find using ABP to be somew immoral , violating the contract with which you're looking at someone's content. I have less sympathy for people who are basically showing stolen content (not technically stolen , but still), though...

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#28

Post by thegeomaster »

I can completely agree with this. I have a shitty machine with 2GB RAM and it's more often than not that it freezes almost completely when I compile bigg(ish) projects because it hits swap. I keep my Firefox open all the time (who doesn't?) and since I disabled AdBlock Plus this wasn't an issue anymore, and from 1.2GB Firefox's resident set size has plummeted to 500MB for me.

Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs

#30

Post by tdsamardzhiev »

neals wrote: post #14

I used to not do Adblock, because you know, ads make the internet go round and all that. But with the "download here"-button ads, there is no way to know what button to press anymore. Now installing Adblock is a requirement.

AdBlock+ is bad, but intrusive e-marketing is worse.
Post reply on HN