I find its a hog and I don't run those.
Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
111–120 of 419 posts
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have data on Ghostery memory/CPU usage, but I would offer this warning: Ghostery is proprietary software, and is "calling home" on your usage when you enable Ghostrank. Ghostrank is used to build profiles on who is blocking what, and when, so they can sell this data to advertisers and trackers. Which just seems hypocritical to me. To be fair, Ghostrank is disabled, and opt-in by default. Instead, I think you…
It is not "calling home" if you enable the collection... Privacy Badger isn't nearly as effective as Ghostery. Regarding Ghostrank -- isn't it better that ad companies learn to create non-intrusive, acceptable ads so that we don't have to rely on adblockers everywhere and can actually give sites their ad-revenue?
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#113Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#114Isn't there a way for adblock+ to insert just the right set of css rules based on the page it is inserted to? It's not like every site displays ads from every possible ad network. I don't know the internals of AB+ so correct me if this is impossible for some reason.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Youtube front page doesn't show any videos I see videos all fine on Youtube front-page, using out-of-the-box filter lists. That kind of issue was never reported for uBlock. I would need to know exactly what filter lists you were using, including custom filters. uBlock relies on 3rd-party filter lists to do the job, specifically, out of the box: - EasyList - EasyPrivacy - Fanboy's Social Blocking List - Peter Lowe's…
I haven't tried ublock yet, is it obvious how to work back from a broken page to figure out which blacklists need adjusting? I'd also recommend that the defaults should have YouTube and Facebook (at least) working out of the box. Otherwise I think people will just uninstall the plugin, rather than trying to figure out how to fix it, which would be a shame.
Having just tried uBlock, the defaults do allow both Youtube and Facebook to work out of the box (and exactly the same as with adblock, as far as I can tell). I think the poster must've had some other problem. (or maybe some of the filter lists changed in between his problem and my trying it, which is equally possible)
EDIT: ( Chrome 39.0.2171.95 (64-bit), linux )
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#11632gb says not.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not "calling home" if you enable the collection... Privacy Badger isn't nearly as effective as Ghostery. Regarding Ghostrank -- isn't it better that ad companies learn to create non-intrusive, acceptable ads so that we don't have to rely on adblockers everywhere and can actually give sites their ad-revenue?
Oh, also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostery#Criticism
That's literally a rehash of the FUD in your parent post.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried µBlock but it seems to be extremely trigger happy. For example Youtube front page doesn't show any videos and Facebook doesn't load at all (basically it blocks everything other than its side bar). I can obviously white list those sites but my concern is that next time I visit some site for the first time I will not know if its broken or just µBlock acting up. ----- EDIT I reinstalled the plugin and the proble…
> Youtube front page doesn't show any videos I see videos all fine on Youtube front-page, using out-of-the-box filter lists. That kind of issue was never reported for uBlock. I would need to know exactly what filter lists you were using, including custom filters. uBlock relies on 3rd-party filter lists to do the job, specifically, out of the box: - EasyList - EasyPrivacy - Fanboy's Social Blocking List - Peter Lowe's…
That's odd. I actually unselected some lists and white-listed some sites and the problem persisted. I disabled the extension and all sites started working as usual again. I am running Chrome 39 on Windows. I'll give it another try now - will uninstall / reinstall to make sure the default lists are being used.
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#119People aren't using Adblock to conserve resources. They're using it to block ads and most are willing to take a performance hit to do so.
That's not why I started using Adblock. I started because the web became unusable on an older machine (5 years). The content wasn't any more sophisticated but it soaked up all the resources (CPU, RAM etc.) available. Imagine if you had a PDF reader that ran at 100% CPU and swapped all the time!
Re: Adblock Plus is probably the reason Firefox and Chrome are such memory hogs
#120I see nobody has posted it, so here is a very lightweight alternative - it redirects all known ad-hosting sites to 127.0.0.1 http://someonewhocares.org/hosts
Isn't it better to use something invalid (like 0.0.0.0) instead of 127.0.0.1? If you have a development server on your machine, rerouting ads to 127.0.0.1 means lots of useless requests...
The author briefly discusses this and has made a 0.0.0.0 version available here: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/