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

241–250 of 419 posts

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

#241

Post by curiously »

gorhill wrote: post #177
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…

does this happen only when you click the ublock and it opens a popup window or with any extension popup UI?

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

#242

Post by m_ram »

wukkuan wrote: post #157
dstroot wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flashblock is not needed on Chrome - go to settings/advanced/content settings/plugins and select "click to play". Now flash will not run automatically. But you can decide to click on something and allow it to play if you want. Works great - no plugin needed.

Same in Firefox. https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2012/10/11/click-to-play-p... Though I just never bothered installing Flash. If I need Flash for a site, I use Chrome (which comes with Flash embedded, I believe).

Firefox differs from Chrome in that it will enable Flash for a whole page, rather than per-element. This means you still need an extension for blocking Flash ads on Flash video sites.

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

#243

Post by 3pt14159 »

w1ntermute wrote: post #138
ferrari8608 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having to pay to visit all of the sites out there which are currently using ads would pretty much ruin the internet for most people. Having a big banner at the top asking for donations seems to work rather well, though. See gnu.org and wikipedia.org for examples (though Wikipedia's donation campaign this year is a bit excessive IMO).

FYI, you can hide the Wikipedia donation campaign banners by putting this in a userscript that @matches http://*.wikipedia.org/* : setTimeout(function() { fundraisingBanner.hide(); }, 1000);

Or just sign into your wikipedia account.

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

#244

Post by fragmede »

ianlevesque wrote: post #79
drey08 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could actually be a novel technique against ad blocking. Make the website dysfunctional if the ads can't be displayed.

Yeah, having an option to pay for the site instead would just be crazy.

Google's actually testing this out - http://consumerist.com/2014/11/20/googles-new-contributor-fe...

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

#245

Post by colechristensen »

Nexxxeh wrote: post #44
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…

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…

On Apple keyboards Alt+m prints µ.

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

#246

Post by Steko »

alopecoid wrote: post #176
cozuya wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I use strict pop up blocker on firefox which works great. There's a toggle button in case a site doesn't work properly.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/strict-pop-up...

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

#247

Post by htilonom »

Why does the topic say Firefox when µBlock isn't even for Firefox? Chrome is the problem, not Firefox.

All browsers became huge memory hogs lately, but I'd rather have 100MB+ of RAM just for Adblock than blinded by ads (of which a lot are malicious).

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

#248

Post by mrinterweb »

hurin wrote: post #221

Firefox gets slower with every update - and it's certainly not Addblock plus that's at fault (although yes, addblock plus has a very inefficient implementation.) If you use Chromium I recommend HTTPSwitchboard.

"Firefox gets slower with every update", I don't believe this is still the case. There have been significant performance improvements in recent versions of Firefox. If you haven't tried Firefox in a while, I'd recommend giving it another shot. By what I've seen lately, Firefox might be edging Chrome out in performance.

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

#249

Post by ChrisGranger »

My computer is a Windows Vista-era relic with 2 GB of RAM and I rarely have any trouble browsing unless I've got loads of tabs open (which would undoubtedly gobble all of my memory regardless).

I'm using RequestPolicyContinued. Using a whitelist for third-party requests seems to do a lot of the heavy lifting so that my Adblock Plus filters are limited to a handful of specific things I don't want to see.

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

#250

Post by ChrisGranger »

mmgutz wrote: post #57

Noscript is not an option anymore. Too many sites rely on javascript. I'll take the memory hit every time to use adblock.

NoScript does a lot more than just blocking JavaScript. You can allow all JS by default but continue to use its other tools.
Post reply on HN