Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 270 posts

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#241

Post by eropple »

kalleboo wrote: post #232
clarry wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 1 gig of RAM. I'd love to see every program not waste tens or hundreds of megabytes not doing anything useful with it. I don't want programs to cause heavy swapping and slowdowns, I don't want them to crash because they ran out of memory. I want things to be done reasonably efficiently to allow me to do more with the amazing computing power I did not have fifteen years ago, with a better UX. Sadly, a lot of cu…

> I have 1 gig of RAM. Why do you torture yourself like that when another 4 GB costs $15?

You assume his computer is new enough to support more than 1GB.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#242

Post by psykovsky »

andreasvc wrote: post #46
hbbio wrote: post #13

Very interesting. There might be an architecture problem here. Another solution is to use a proxy to block ads, like GlimmerBlocker for OSX. But I didn't investigate memory usage, though I tend to think it will be lower (plus have the added benefit of working simultaneously for all browsers).

A proxy cannot dynamically interact with the DOM, so it cannot do everything a plugin can. I think the solution is to use better datastructures in the plugin and improve the integratation of the plugin with the browser.

Cloudflare can, somehow...

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#243

Post by grrowl »

gorhill wrote: post #20

It's not just memory overhead, it is also CPU overhead. One approach is to write the filtering engine from scratch. It is what I did, without looking at ABP's code beforehand in order to ensure a clean slate mind. I didn't get it right the first time, I did spend quite a large amount of time benchmarking, measuring, prototyping, etc. Once I was satisfied I had finally had a solid code base, I went and benchmarked it…

I think you'd see much greater adoption if you included the core HTTPSB library within an easier user interface, specifically targeted to blocking ads / ensuring privacy. At the moment it's a hacker tool that can block ads if you configure it correctly.

If that's not what you're interested in, more power to you, it's just a suggestion since the use-case isn't obvious especially to a "regular" user.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#244

Post by ak217 »

gorhill wrote: post #150
rane wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. But this is exactly what I meant by micromanagement. Plus I'm afraid that strict settings will break sites I haven't visited before without me knowing they're somehow broken. Is there a way to configure the extension to just block ads?

Ok, I just created a setup file which you can restore from the About page which focus can be said to be "ad blocking": https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/blob/master/stuff... I selected the following preset lists: - hosts-file.net/ad-servers - someonewhocares.org/hosts/hosts - easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/easylist.txt Note though that this will work best with the upcoming v 0.9.2.0 which supports almost…

Thank you for putting in the effort to make this more usable out of the box. I will be all over this once the ability to use these filter lists is easy to access.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#245

Post by ben0x539 »

hollerith wrote: post #237
kalleboo wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a new or changed browser to do any of that. Firefox still renders plain-text HTML that contains nothing more than , and just fine, blazing fast and I bet it doesn't need much RAM either. But someone needs to create that content. And you're not getting it from the New York Times unless they can put flashy ads and interactive graphics that entices the majority of the users on the net (who actually enjoy…

>Firefox still renders plain-text HTML that contains nothing more than , and just fine Not as well as it used to! Specifically, in the browsers of the 1990s you could "scroll while dragging": i.e., if you start dragging to select some text and you reach the bottom of the window, the window would scroll, allowing you to select more text than just what was on the screen when you started dragging. But at least in Firefo…

This works for me right now on firefox 29.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#246

Post by cookiecaper »

mschuster91 wrote: post #68
baby wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point for me is the visual noise, not the memory that ads consume. Actually, normal users are used to the lag, they don't see it as much as we do. You can take a look at consoles that have run games at 30fps for decades and nobody complained.

I don't care about the "visual noise" of normal/banner-type ads - the real problem are those fucking layer ads with confusing icons (the X is the left one, the maximize button the right one), so if you want to read the content, first find out which type of layer ad it is, try to spot the 2x2px hotzone for the close button and THEN read the content. People install adblockers because too many idiots became too fucking…

Completely agree. I'm usually OK without an adblocker until I wander over to Phoronix.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#247

Post by vacri »

crististm wrote: post #201
ionforce wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "modern BS".

What about "tons of JS just for the sake of it"? Ever since google maps, everyone started using JS like there is no tomorrow. And what came out of it? HTML is no longer enough. Firefox doesn't give option of disabling JS (1) (1) about:config doesn't count

When I install firefox, I only have two plugins. Flashblock and NoScript. NoScript is actively maintained and lets you filter js with all sorts of options, defaulting to 'none at all'. Most sites work either perfectly or to some degree, though some fail to provide any content at all without js.

Given how trivial it is to install the plugin, I think that counts as firefox allowing disabling js.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#248

Post by vacri »

eropple wrote: post #241
kalleboo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have 1 gig of RAM. Why do you torture yourself like that when another 4 GB costs $15?

You assume his computer is new enough to support more than 1GB.

If the computer is that old, then the user is an outlier and not the target audience for the modern major browsers. Better off finding a niche browser.

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#249

Post by vacri »

__david__ wrote: post #204
baby wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point for me is the visual noise, not the memory that ads consume. Actually, normal users are used to the lag, they don't see it as much as we do. You can take a look at consoles that have run games at 30fps for decades and nobody complained.

> the point for me is the visual noise… Yes! And the cognitive noise. I find it literally impossible to read text if there's some blinking ad nearby. Before Adblock I'd have to put my had up to the screen to block the animation so that I could read the article text in peace.

You used to be able to hit ESC to stop animated gifs from cycle, but they took that functionality out (it was a benign side-effect that 'wasn't in the spec', so it was removed) :/

Re: AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage

#250

Post by acqq »

Shorel wrote: post #236
mullingitover wrote: post #189

This is like a commercial for forking Firefox to build highly efficient ad blocking into the browser. It's sad that the most-demanded feature on every browser, as evidenced by plugin downloads, is ad blocking. However, all the major browsers are produced by companies with their hands in advertising, and this conflict of interest has resulted in this feature request going unfulfilled for a over a decade. Fork 'em.

Old Opera presto had integrated ad blocking. What it did not have, is an auto updated blacklist. But the actual ad blocking was fast and effective.

Still my preferred desktop browser! It's also almost 3 times faster runs bellard.org/jslinux
Post reply on HN