Live data from Hacker News

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

extremetech.com

211–220 of 419 posts

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

#211
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 sites are you encountering those ads on?

You could blacklist them, rather than universally denying revenue.

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

#213
post #24

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)

Every iDevice other than the iPad Air 2 has only 1GB of ram, and that's an issue for them (source: search every mention of the iPad Air and RAM, especially since the Air 2 came out).

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

#214
post #205
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It works exactly like AdBlockPlus in terms of user experience. There's no way that you could have been using ABP and suddenly are flummoxed by uBlock. If you have things being blocked you don't want, either whitelist the element or find the block rule in your rule list. YouTube and Facebook definitely both work 'out of the box' with the recommended lists.

Yes, it seems to work well for YouTube and Facebook now that I've had a chance to try it.

Still, I don't think everyone out there who has ABP installed necessarily understands how to use it, or how it works. I have installed it for my wife, and for friends, (the kind of people who spend 90% of their time on a handful of popular sites) and if Facebook or YouTube was broken they wouldn't know why or what to do about it.

EDIT: Spelling

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

#215
Maybe I should write one.

I wrote AdLimiter, (adlimiter.com) which eliminates certain ads from Google search result pages. It's really a demo for our site rating service, SiteTruth,but it has the internal machinery to find and remove ads. The basic idea is that it finds links to sites in the DOM, and works outward in the DOM to find the ad boundary. Then, if analysis of the link indicates the ad should be deleted, the offending section is deleted from the DOM. It takes one linear pass through the DOM to find ads. If the page changes, five seconds after the changes quiet down, another pass is made. This approach is reasonably general and requires little maintenance.

I once looked at AdBlock's code. Internally, AdBlock makes heavy use of regular expressions and does a lot of searching. It seems to be doing more work per page than should be necessary.

In some ways, Ghostery is more useful than AdBlock. It blocks most trackers, which reduces network I/O. Some ads disappear once their tracker is disabled. (CBS TV shows play without commercials if Ghostery is running.)

I've been toying with the idea of an ad blocker that uses simple machine learning. All content coming from off-site links gets a light grey overlay. If you click on the grey overlay, it disappears so you can view the content, and the off-site link is rated as less spammy. If you ignore the overlay, the off-site link is viewed as more spammy. The grey overlays gradually get more opaque over areas where you never remove them, and when they go fully opaque, the covered content is deleted completely.

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

#216
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.

Thankfully whitelists are a thing.

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

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be tricky to balance between going broke and accidentally showing ads that some users dislike when you're using a large network like AdSense. As someone with a browsing profile that isn't targeted by those kind of ads, I've found out second-hand that I've been running ads like that a few times. Trying to prune specific ads is an endless game of whack-a-mole that I've never been able to win, and disabling an en…

That really is a problem and it took me a while to figure out that sites weren't actually/necessarily endorsing those ads. There should be an easier way of black/white listing certain types of ads when setting up adsense.

Is actually very easy to solve. When someone wants to run an ad on your ad network. The vetting process should be more than "how much money you got?" If not for their own sakes anyway.

Ad block needs to continue to run rampant over this "internet economy" because advertisers need to come to terms with the fact that now a days users get to choose what they see and how they see it. Maybe one day it will occur to someone in the industry that aggressively hostile ads are ruining their industry rather than being a staple of it.

If they don't... Then I don't mind seeing that industry die.

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?" Perhaps at a student paper, though that's considered a pretty huge ethical breach. I can attest that the New York Times definitely does not do that; they tak…

That's bollocks - it's not in the slightest an ethical breach to do that. It's just advertising working with production to make the product. We're not talking about running advertorial or anything. The papers I've worked on usually had a little flexibility in terms of extra copy or advertising to populate pages as required.

> it's not in the slightest an ethical breach to do that. It's just advertising working with production to make the product.

Well, that by definition would be considered an ethical violation at a paper like the Times. Not at a student paper, no, but at the New York Times, definitely.

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

#219
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should migrate to umatrix ( https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/%C2%B5matrix/ogfcm... ), http switchboard is not maintained anymore

uMatrix is new and improved, and I use it sometimes, but it is still rough around the edges. Some websites don't work and there's no work-around. Edit: To clarify, the above is in comparison to HTTPSB.

Example of a site that you can't get working?

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

#220
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always character map which has this and like all others you can ever think of. A bit cumbersome, but at least one doesn't have to remember character codes and can search for characters by name.

"Let me google that" pulls out character map pretty poor UX if you ask me. Almost as bad for search ability as calling your product "go" or "cloud" or "driver" or any other one-word generic, hard to find even with contextual terms around it.

pretty poor UX if you ask me

yup. Has been around since NT or maybe even longer..

Post reply on HN