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

171–180 of 419 posts

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

#171

Post by icelancer »

ins0 wrote: post #165

yeah iframes on every modern webpage... a problem is the adblock injection and it cost of curse. but please don't blame iframes for this...no one use iframes anymore accept for ads

Er, Google? Payment providers who need a secure frame?

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

#174

Post by sup »

gondo wrote: post #39

what about forking chromium and integrating adblock directly in the browser? +removing all the google nonsense (like disabled cross domain security for some google domains)

Check out Iron

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

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

#175

Post by frozenport »

paulhauggis wrote: post #173

So, with all the people here doing Adblock. Should I feel bad when startups go bust because of the lack of advertising dollars?

No because web advertizements are not cost effective for selling products and while being a poor source of money.

Noted in http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/farewell-dr-d...

>> They've come to realize that website ads tend to be less effective than they once were. Given that I've never bought a single item by clicking on an ad on a website, this conclusion seems correct in the small

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

#176

Post by alopecoid »

cozuya wrote: post #154
alopecoid wrote: post #147

A bit off topic, but could someone explain to me why it's so difficult for a browser (or extension) to effectively block 100% of all pop-ups/pop-unders? I realize that these account for only a fraction of ads, but they are really annoying and it seems that these should be the easiest to detect; doesn't this essentially boil down to a few specific API calls? For the few cases that a pop-up/pop-under is legitimate (rea…

Effectively you're asking for all document.createElement calls to be blocked. Those are used for all sorts of things that aren't ads or popups. Blocking that would probably cause a very large percent of pages to be completely broken.

So there's no explicit way to distinguish between "new window" calls from other types of calls? I'm kind of shocked that, with all the effort that's been put into browsers in recent years, that the ability to "create a new window" hasn't been removed entirely from the API without explicit user consent. Again, I can't think of a single site that uses this feature legitimately.

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

#177

Post by gorhill »

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

One thing I would like to point out, is that there is a bug currently in Chromium 39 which causes a new memory leak each time the popup UI of an extension is opened:

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=441500

This affects all extensions.

Just so people are informed memory figures won't be too reliable as soon as you opened even only once the popup UI of an extension. (In all my benchmarks I of course avoided to do this).

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

#178

Post by cheald »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #172

> In Nethercote’s testing, he found that TechCrunch used around 194MB of RAM without ABP enabled 194MB for a single webpage that should mainly be text communicating a message. Does anyone else than me find this crazy?

Ads mean iframes, which mean tons of separate DOMs, which are heavy and expensive.

You also have to consider that images are decompressed for display; that 474x350 image in the lead spot on the Techcrunch homepage is 474 * 359 * 4 = 663,600 bytes in RAM, plus any overhead. When you consider how image-heavy sites have become, that's a lot of memory that can disappear in a hurry.

Post reply on HN