This is good but do not use Adblock Plus. Use µBlock. Adblock Plus let's through some 'kosher' ads. If that's acceptable to you, all good. If you want no ads whatsoever, use µBlock.<p>It works out of the box and blocks everything. Uses even less resources that any other alternative.<p>Chrome: <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...</a><p>Firefox: <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/" rel="nofollow">https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...</a>
<a href="http://vimcolorschemetest.googlecode.com/svn/html/index-c.html" rel="nofollow">http://vimcolorschemetest.googlecode.com/svn/html/index-c.ht...</a> - the page referenced in the article that shows extreme AdBlock overhead - Chrome just chokes on it for a long time - the tab uses 1.7GB of memory while it is still loading!<p>With uBlock and FF 38 - the page load completes faster and only about 850MB memory is used in total!<p>Chrome people should <i>really</i> be doing something about the memory and battery usage on the desktop. It's getting ridiculous.<p>Also I wonder how things such as OS X's Compressed Memory feature affect this in real life. I mean without the fix, the OS will notice the duplicated, in-memory style sheets and compress them to reduce memory usage and you should not see much of an improvement due to this patch on platforms like OS X that implement memory compression.<p>(Looking at activity monitor with FF loading the vim color scheme test shows 0MB Compressed Mem for FF - not sure if FF opts out or if there simply isn't enough memory pressure for the OS to start compressing FF's mem.)
I would love to have a way to accept kosher ads with ublock origin (but not ads that have been whitelisted by paying ABP). It would be great if there was a transparent community driven ad whitelist.<p>I want to support content creators but I also do not want to have to deal with the more obnoxious ads (or flash ads or animated ads and so on). I currently support a few creators with patreon but that's only limited to a few.
I'm a convert to using "the great suspender" in chrome and the amount of memory it consumes for me has dropped dramatically. The tradeoff is waiting for a page to reload when I focus the tab, but it let's me keep dozens of tabs "open" at once, for long periods of time, without annihilating my system memory.<p>Combined with µBlock and click to activate plugins etc. Chrome almost behaves now.
I'm always shocked at the age of some really important bugs. Large optimization potentials of many public / well used / open source systems have been noted for many years.
I can finally go back to ABP!<p>Firefox used to crash a lot, and freeze a lot back when I was using ABP.
ublock has never worked as well for me, I also dislike the element selector. Sometimes I want more than blocked something being displayed, like blocking a script. And ABP allowed that easier, that's something I miss.
Anyone here prefer uBlock over UBlock Origin? I tried both and stuck with Origin since something like this should be relatively easy to reach "feature complete" status, thus go into pure maintenance mode.
Either are a big step up from ABP.
First, I believe everyone should be using uBlock (Origin) [1] anyways. Second, I'm looking forward to seeing how Firefox's built-in tracking protection will evolve[2]. Also, should be interesting to see how Safari's new blocking framework changes the game.<p>[1] <a href="https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock</a><p>[2] <a href="https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-firefox" rel="nofollow">https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-fir...</a>
Safari's new approach of using a built in (natively compiled) rules engine to block content seems more and more to be the best option. But it's also the kind of option you'd only see from a vendor who doesn't make any money from ads (Apple... and possibly MS).
Is there a Chrome or Firefox equivalent to IE's "Personalized Tracking Protection List"? In short it tracks the resources loaded by sites you visit and if they show up on more than a configurable number of sites they get blocked. Basically, it only blocks what actually could be tracking you. I would love to have that functionality in Chrome or Firefox, especially if the tracking list could survive a reinstall (IE's cannot).
It's not clear to me from reading the article, if the headline is correct. From what I understand (non-native speaker) with the mentioned fix ABP uses less memory than last year without that fix. But does it make FF use less RAM in general, compared with FF with fix but without ABP? That's how I understand the headline, ABP makes you save RAM compared to using FF without ABP. But that's not how I understand the article.
Fastmail web interface users + ABP|ABE|uBlock users:<p>When I have any of these three blockers installed, and then use mail composition on the Fastmail tab, the page jumps around while I type. Eventually the line that I'm typing has scrolled itself down to the bottom of the window, and sometimes even jumps between below the window and just enough above the bottom.<p>Anyone seen that?
1. Why not start with 1 or 2 decent host files?
<a href="http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm" rel="nofollow">http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm</a><p>2. What is bad about ghostery?