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

391–400 of 419 posts

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

#391

Post by insertnickname »

aboodman wrote: post #338
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they may render in iframes; iframes are certainly not a requirement for any of those features, and some (the original commenter included, I suspect) might consider them a heavy-handed approach to the problem.

iframes are the only unit of isolation on the web. Unless you want the like button you're hosting to have complete unrestricted access to your application's private data, then yeah, the like button needs to be in an iframe.

I don't want any "like" buttons.

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

#392

Post by Logmix »

crishoj wrote: post #237
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

For those using Safari, there is a preliminary version of µBlock here: http://chrisly.me/0B0s2Y2Y3b0R Note: No automatic updates with this unofficial build.

Impressive, it's already much much faster than AdBlock.

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

#393

Post by aboodman »

insertnickname wrote: post #391
aboodman wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iframes are the only unit of isolation on the web. Unless you want the like button you're hosting to have complete unrestricted access to your application's private data, then yeah, the like button needs to be in an iframe.

I don't want any "like" buttons.

I don't particularly care for them either, but sadly, the market has spoken.

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

#394

Post by scholia »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #361
cbsmith wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? No, the multi-process tab feature is all about one process per tab.

Maybe someday. Not today. You get one tab process that crashes often. And I wouldn't say that's the 'point'. Chrome groups tabs into fewer processes most of the time. Personally I'm much more excited about the possibility of a compacting GC.

You get one process that crashes about as often as Chrome, though it consumes fewer resources and is much faster to restart (by not loading tabs unless you go to them).

The increasing crashiness of Chrome was one of the reasons I stopped using it.

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

#395

Post by naner »

jordanpg wrote: post #350
naner wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I use it (and I assume most people use it) because I don't want to see ads. Advertising on the web is largely just obnoxious, ugly, and crude. Also the relentless tracking is a little creepy, so there is another small benefit to using an ad blocker. I know there are some small groups trying to do good advertising on the web but it is so insignificant it doesn't even register. Large and important websites don't c…

Glad to see this point of view represented. I have never found the indignant reaction to the use of ad blockers very believable. Advertising is predicated on lies, by definition, and I am only interested in making consumer decisions as far from the influence of marketing departments as is practicable. Advertising is the very worst that capitalism has to offer. Moreover, I am not interested in being distracted by ads,…

I'm not against advertising. I just think most of it is done badly and in poor taste. If you want to sell me something in an entertaining or classy way I am more receptive than I would be from you just shouting at me. I think "shouting" is much more effective however, so companies that advertise generally DGAF.

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

#396

Post by Dylan16807 »

scholia wrote: post #394
Dylan16807 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe someday. Not today. You get one tab process that crashes often. And I wouldn't say that's the 'point'. Chrome groups tabs into fewer processes most of the time. Personally I'm much more excited about the possibility of a compacting GC.

You get one process that crashes about as often as Chrome, though it consumes fewer resources and is much faster to restart (by not loading tabs unless you go to them). The increasing crashiness of Chrome was one of the reasons I stopped using it.

You're a lot luckier than I am.

Also it still takes a nontrivial amount of time to not-load a lot of tabs.

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

#397

Post by webwanderings »

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

I desperately need ublock for mobile.

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

#398

Post by zem »

frik wrote: post #184

It's a chicken egg problem. 1) Website owners use ads to earn money (server and employee costs, revenue). 2) Several Ad networks create ads that influence and annoy users and track their browser habits. e.g. blinking buggy video ads with sound that sometimes even crash the flash plugin 3) Visitors install Adblock+ because they dislike intrusive ads that don't adhere to the browser privacy settings. Some websites are…

"red queen's race" or "arms race" would be closer analogies than "chicken and egg"

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

#399

Post by pjlegato »

pjlegato wrote: post #254
gorhill wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I frankly don't know how to improve on clicking the big fat green button in the popup to whitelist a site (Ctrl-click for a specific page).

It's not at all obvious what that button does. The icon is typically associated with "power on/off." While I can see how this is supposed to suggest whitelisting in an abstract and metaphoric sense, making that connection is a bit of a stretch, particularly for casual users. I suggest removing the icon and just putting a plain old checkbox with a label that says "Whitelist Site".

Addendum: The apparent scope of the icon is browser-wide, not limited to the current page. Since the "power on/off" icon is unqualified, it seems like clicking it will turn the entire plugin on and off, not merely whitelist the current site.

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

#400

Post by redwall_hp »

njloof wrote: post #119
MicroBerto wrote: post #20

People aren't using Adblock to conserve resources. They're using it to block ads and most are willing to take a performance hit to do so.

That's not why I started using Adblock. I started because the web became unusable on an older machine (5 years). The content wasn't any more sophisticated but it soaked up all the resources (CPU, RAM etc.) available. Imagine if you had a PDF reader that ran at 100% CPU and swapped all the time!

>Imagine if you had a PDF reader that ran at 100% CPU and swapped all the time!

So...Acrobat Reader?

Post reply on HN