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

121–130 of 419 posts

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

#121

Post by a3n »

rtpg wrote: post #27
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 wi…

I recall having bad experience with these things on (or via?) sourceforge. It's probably the main reason why sourceforge dropped to last resort for me.

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

#122

Post by kyriakos »

gorhill wrote: post #83
kyriakos wrote: post #70

Earlier 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…

Seems to be working well on my second attempt. I am still not sure what was wrong before.

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

#123

Post by driax »

xenophonf wrote: post #52
Nexxxeh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As my paranoia ramps up year on year, I now use Opera with µBlock. For me, it has the polish of Chrome with some nice extras, but without the increasingly creepy Googality. It works fine, although I've not tried µMatrix. (I have my defaults changed to DuckDuckGo. Usually connecting via a VPN.) I've whitelisted a few sites I like to support (a couple of webcomics, HaD etc). I have a lot of filters: "62,501 network fil…

http://www.howtotype.net/symbol/Micro/ Sadly, the US-International keyboard on Windows does not implement a shortcut for the "micro" character ( http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306560 ).

In addition, I pretty sure many European keywords can type µ by alt-gr+m, at least in Windows on my Danish keyword. Only know that because once I had a keyword were they actually had printed it on the key, just like they always do with € on E.

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

#124

Post by voyou »

frostmatthew wrote: post #63
rtpg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

> the fact that I get so many ads on NYT's site despite being a subscriber is frustrating to say the least Have you never seen the print edition of the NYT (or any other newspaper)? Since they just use news to fill in the otherwise blank areas between ads the motto really should be all the news that fits, we print .

"they just use news to fill in the otherwise blank areas between ads"

That is pretty much literally true. When I worked on a student newspaper, it was pretty common for the advertising manager to rush in to the editorial offices and say things like "I've just sold another full-page ad, so we're going to be printing extra pages - do you have any copy to fill them?"

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

#126

Post by Walkman »

There was a very good discussion [1] about this 8 months ago when I realized the same [2].

I suggest try HTTP Switchboard instead (see the previous thread).

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7765758

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7765904

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

#127

Post by barrkel »

briandear wrote: post #66
jacquesm wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I'm a 'normal' user, having a 100 or so tabs open is actually idle time for me. When I'm busy it can be three times as much.

Three hundred tabs! Perhaps you might enjoy a cool feature called bookmarking. How do you keep track of them all? I get to 10 tabs before my Sheldon Cooper kicks in.

If you use both tree style tabs (which, apart from stacking tabs vertically, lets you collapse tab trees if you desire, and the trees are naturally topic-oriented) and tab groups (a built-in feature, good for splitting tabs by topic), you can easily have hundreds of tabs on the go.

Tabs are sort of a halfway house to bookmarks for me. They persist across browser restarts, but the fact that they are still open increases the chances that I'll consume the information in them.

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

#128

Post by ugexe »

_asummers wrote: post #110
elvis635 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Together with umatrix ( https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/ ) are the best chrome extensions Since I went back to firefox those are the only extensions I really miss, there is policeman ( https://github.com/futpib/policeman/ ) but it's not as good as them yet To whoever develop extensions, please don't focus only on chrome, firefox during the last months has become must better that it was before, if developers only c…

How does uMatrix compare to something like Ghostery? Would it be redundant to have both?

Isn't ghostery owned by an ad company?

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

#129

Post by wander_homer »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #100
yourad_io wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> learn how to respect the native operating system UI guidelines Your comment is almost worthwhile just for the irony in this. Tabbed browsing basically hijacks window management away from the OS. Tabs are always implemented customly in-app (UI break) - and break the UX of window finding, switching, etc. (doubly annoying in a tiling WM, btw). That's all browsers. > Personally, I hope Mozilla goes away and some other…

Tabs are fine and I didn't even mention them. MDI (multiple document interface) have been around forever and no ...they do not take window management away from the OS because tabs are not windows until you want them to be, at which point the OS takes over. Mozilla's problem has more to do with the fact that by using non-standard chrome around their HTML engine, they cause many little breakages like improper keyboard…

So what's exactly your point? How does Mozilla interfere with your life and worsen it, so that wishing them to "die" would be justified?

Why don't you just ignore them? Why do you want thousands of people to lose their job and why do you want to take away an open source software that's liked by millions of users?

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

#130

Post by MikeKusold »

atoponce wrote: post #88
legulere wrote: post #49

I don't even use an adblocker. I simply use ghostery to block trackers and almost no ads being there anymore is a nice side-effect.

Ghostery is proprietary software, and it's reporting your usage back to trackers if you enable Ghostrank. You would be better protected running Privacy Badger by the EFF. It's Free Software, and it doesn't track you. https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

> Although we like Disconnect, Adblock Plus, Ghostery and similar products (in fact Privacy Badger is based on the ABP code!)

Privacy Badger most likely has the same issue that this article is talking about.

Post reply on HN