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

261–270 of 419 posts

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

#261

Post by atoponce »

MikeKusold wrote: post #130
atoponce wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Curious, I checked out the Task Manager for my Chromium install. Privacy Badger, although based on ABP code, is using substantially less memory than uBlock. Less than 1/2, actually.

https://imgur.com/ScBfmjS

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

#262

Post by stevesearer »

frozenport wrote: post #175
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

Web advertisements work great for advertisers familiar with buying advertising space in magazines where the goal isn't about generating an immediate purchase.

On my website, office furniture manufacturers use the advertising space to display their new products to our readers - the majority of whom design office environments for a living and purchase 0% of the products they use in their projects on the internet.

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

#264

Post by gorhill »

hurin wrote: post #223
Animats wrote: post #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, th…

Loading all content and placing overlays are precisely the reasons Addblock plus hogs so much RAM, as opposed to simply not loading the content.

There are two kind of filters: cosmetic ("element hiding") and network filters.

Network filters = to prevent the fetching of remote resources.

Cosmetic filters = to prevent portion of the DOM to be visible.

Adblock won't load any content when filtered through network filters, the requests to the remote server won't even be made.

The problem the article refers to is related to how cosmetic filters are implemented in Adblock. And that problem has nothing to do with "placing overlays", whatever that means.

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

#265

Post by wutbrodo »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #211
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.

What sites are you encountering those ads on? You could blacklist them, rather than universally denying revenue.

This is what I've never understood about the people claiming that "they have no choice" or that they feel morally justified in denying revenue to authors and other content creators. I don't use ABP, but it's really not that much effort to have to see bad ads on each "bad" domain _once_, and then blacklist and not have to deal with that entire domain and their bad ads ever again. I do something quite similar with a JS blacklist (mostly for poorly-coded newspapers where I can't even scroll until they fetch some non-main-content resources over JS).

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

#266

Post by SwellJoe »

I use AdBlock Plus not because I don't want to see ads...I actually don't mind ads. I use it because I don't want auto-starting audio, ever. I have 30-60 tabs up at any given time. When an ad starts playing audio, it disrupts my entire workflow, possibly disturbs my partner sleeping next to me, etc.

In short, auto-start audio in ads is quite simply so far outside of what I consider acceptable behavior, that I'm willing to burn the whole goddamned business model to the ground to stop it. I disable AdBlock Plus for sites that I know to behave responsibly with regard to their ads (reddit, probably a couple of others). If there were a list of Advertising Good Citizens who never use auto-starting audio ads (such a list would probably need to demand a few other things, like a good privacy policy, no popups/popunders, etc., but audio is the single reason I installed AdBlock Plus), that could be dropped into AdBlock Plus, I would happily use it. I don't mind ads, but the second somebody disrupts my work, my conversation on Skype, my partner's sleep, my music listening, etc. is the second I grow to hate the site and the advertiser.

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

#267

Post by brandon272 »

SwellJoe wrote: post #266

I use AdBlock Plus not because I don't want to see ads...I actually don't mind ads. I use it because I don't want auto-starting audio, ever . I have 30-60 tabs up at any given time. When an ad starts playing audio, it disrupts my entire workflow, possibly disturbs my partner sleeping next to me, etc. In short, auto-start audio in ads is quite simply so far outside of what I consider acceptable behavior, that I'm will…

This is why I usually have my audio muted.

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

#268

Post by niklasni1 »

elvis635 wrote: post #11
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

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…

What was wrong with Firefox?

I've used it every day since starting a new job seven months ago and I've not noticed any issues with it.

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

#269

Post by pwr22 »

m_ram wrote: post #242
wukkuan wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And that extension doesn't work if javascript isn't enabled for that page :(

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

#270

Post by pwr22 »

ghantila wrote: post #76

I uninstalled right after hearing from Mozilla [1] about the effects of AdBlock Plus on Firefox. Since, then I'm blocking things manually. First I was using this [2] hosts file by Dan Pallock. But now I've switched to this Neocities [3] hosted site. I don't know who manages this site, but the entries are uniquely sorted from various sources, which includes entries from Dan Pallock's hosts file. Apart from this, I use…

I switched from ABP to Bluhell Firewall and FF is like a different browser wrt memory
Post reply on HN