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

271–280 of 419 posts

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

#271

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

cnet.com is a particularly egregious offender - I also stopped DLing anything from there because they started bundling things inside a wrapper of crapware.

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

#272

Post by dbbolton »

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…

Couldn't you bind most of the offending domains to 0.0.0.0 in your hosts files and skip the browser extension?

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

#273

Post by milkmiruku »

Houshalter wrote: post #102
briandear wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I put them in a bookmark I'll likely never look at them again.

I use a wiki instead these days. I like tags and social bookmarking, and a wiki is quick and easier to self host.

https://wiki.thingsandstuff.org/Main_Page

Edit:

also https://github.com/343max/TabHibernation great to save resources when processing too many tabs. also, https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/session-buddy/edac... for snapshots in case you do crash

otherwise, Readability

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

#275

Post by anigbrowl »

chimeracoder wrote: post #218
matthewmacleod wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're not asking for any adjustment to the content, but for extra content, eg a feature piece that isn't tied to a particular date. Bear in mind that a full-page ad only covers one side of the paper so you need something for the reverse side, and newspapers are generally printed on folding sheets (ie 4 pages to a sheet), so that means 3 extra pages to be filled. It's not like the advertising department content is suggesting which content to use. Every newspaper has a variable pile of feature material whose exact publication date depends on the size of the print run, which is highly variable.

I'm curious about what you think the ethical breach here is. Advertising and editorial departments have to coordinate on practical matters like page layout.

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

#276

Post by davidy123 »

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…

Use a compose key system, native on Unix (Linux, Mac, etc) and available on Windows. It's very intuitive and will open up your character vocabulary considerably. I use the caps-lock key for compose.

http://fsymbols.com/keyboard/linux/compose/

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

#277

Post by jamesbrownuhh »

jamiek88 wrote: post #166
Encosia wrote: post #161

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.

Adsense could also try enforcing their policies once in a while too. I remember complaining about a series of shady "Download Now" ads earlier in the year, including full URL trails, etc, as required by the complaint process. Needless to say, not one damn was given and the ads continued unchecked.

THAT is why people install Adblock. Content owners crying butthurt because "Adblock hurts the sites you love" ignores that the sites you "love" can often just not be trusted not to accept ads that are shady, scummy, or worse. And there is no excuse for that. If your business revolves around spraying dog mess over people's windows, don't be surprised when people put up fences. You reap what you sow.

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

#279

Post by kolev »

They are memory hogs with or without particular extensions. I leave Chrome with 10 basic tabs open and in 4 hours, it's already "using" 2GB of RAM. The new Firefox Developer Edition with "process per tab" is similar. The best resource-friendly browser on OS X is Safari.

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

#280

Post by garethsaxby »

dbbolton wrote: post #272
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…

Couldn't you bind most of the offending domains to 0.0.0.0 in your hosts files and skip the browser extension?

The issue with that, in Windows at least, is that host lookups become a lot slower with a larger hosts file; a local caching DNS server with a block list is possibly a better solution, and one I think is already adopted by some.
Post reply on HN