Adguard for Chrome/Firefox/Opera 1.0.3.1 released

[Petrovic]

Adguard for Chrome/Opera 1.0.3.1 has been published to the Chrome store and to addons.opera.com.

Changelog:

What's new in version 1.0.3.1:
+ Added capability to use known ABP filter subscriptions.

Links to our extensions:
Adguard for Chrome
Adguard for Firefox
Adguard for Opera
Adguard for Safari

Source

 

[Oxygen]

I tried adguard in firefox and restarted the browser and adguard uninstalled itself.

 

[software182]

How about memory consumption ?

 

[MrXidus]

How about memory consumption ?

I'm going to perform the same test I did here. I'm assuming that AdGuard will be the lighter option.

 

[MrXidus]

Test done, not surprised at all similar to the test I did with Firefox.

Note: AdGuard advertises they use less memory atleast it's true.

---

Chrome Version:

Spoiler

1] Memory usage for this MalwareTips thread no other tabs or webpages open.

2] VIM Color Scheme Test website with No AdBlock Plus or AdGuard installed.

3] VIM Color Scheme Test website with AdBlock Plus For Chrome ENABLED.

4] VIM Color Scheme Test website with AdGuard ENABLED.

If I were a Chrome user, I'd be using either AdGuard or uBlock, not AdBlock Plus.

If you want to test this for yourself here's the VIM Color Scheme Test website with plenty of iframes.

Enjoy. ​

 

[RevolutionSphere]

I like Adguard better than ABP but I could never get it to block pop-ups.

 

[gorhill]

1] Memory usage for this MalwareTips thread no other tabs or webpages open.

2] VIM Color Scheme Test website with No AdBlock Plus or AdGuard installed.

3] VIM Color Scheme Test website with AdBlock Plus For Chrome ENABLED.

4] VIM Color Scheme Test website with AdGuard ENABLED.

If I were a Chrome user, I'd be using either AdGuard or uBlock, not AdBlock Plus.

If you want to test this for yourself here's the VIM Color Scheme Test website with plenty of iframes.​

The problem with this test is that AdGuard comes with a filter to make it look good on this particular site:

! Fixing memory issues with lots of frames
@@||vimcolorschemetest.googlecode.com^$document​

So essentially AdGuard disables itself on that site, hence it looks good.

It never occurred to me to do such trick with uBlock, because it's fundamentally dishonest: it is expected some people will submit their blocker to the Vim Color Scheme Test after the spotlight was put on ABP, and thus it is cheating to silently prevent your blocker from being tested fairly against ABP. Is short, AdGuard fooled you here.

 

[Kent]

The problem with this test is that AdGuard comes with a filter to make it look good on this particular site:

! Fixing memory issues with lots of frames
@@||vimcolorschemetest.googlecode.com^$document​

So essentially AdGuard disables itself on that site, hence it looks good.

It never occurred to me to do such trick with uBlock, because it's fundamentally dishonest: it is expected some people will submit their blocker to the Vim Color Scheme Test after the spotlight was put on ABP, and thus it is cheating to silently prevent your blocker from being tested fairly against ABP. Is short, AdGuard fooled you here.

@gorhill currently using your extension;it works fine! I suggest you should add a right click element-hiding helper(I know that it a element hiding helper is present in the popup of your extension),so it would be useful for novices..............
Regards,
Kent

 

[gorhill]

@gorhill currently using your extension;it works fine! I suggest you should add a right click element-hiding helper(I know that it a element hiding helper is present in the popup of your extension),so it would be useful for novices..............
Regards,
Kent

It's in version 0.6.5.0.

 

[Kent]

It's in version 0.6.5.0.

Thanks!! I noticed it in the settings...........

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/0.6.5.0

 

[avatar]

The problem with this test is that AdGuard comes with a filter to make it look good on this particular site:

! Fixing memory issues with lots of frames
@@||vimcolorschemetest.googlecode.com^$document​

So essentially AdGuard disables itself on that site, hence it looks good.

@gorhill, add this rule to ABP for Firefox and look at the memory usage.

The problem is that ABP for Firefox cannot control whether it injects CSS or not because of the way they do it (registering browser-wide stylesheet). Adguard does not use this way by default (it is used if "Send statistics for ad filters usage" is enabled).

So Adguard can control the CSS/JS injections. We do not inject CSS/JS into small frames thus we can optimize memory usage.

It never occurred to me to do such trick with uBlock, because it's fundamentally dishonest: it is expected some people will submit their blocker to the Vim Color Scheme Test after the spotlight was put on ABP, and thus it is cheating to silently prevent your blocker from being tested fairly against ABP. Is short, AdGuard fooled you here.

Vim Color Scheme Test is for Firefox only to show the problem of browser-wide stylesheets (as you can read in the original post in mozilla devs blog). Testing Chrome extensions with it is simply wrong.

 

[Sr. Normal]

hi
I have Ghostery , Adblock and DoNotTrackMe in Chrome . I see also speak of ublock .
Do You recommend me some change?
Thank you. A greeting to all and have a good day

 

[avatar]

hi
I have Ghostery , Adblock and DoNotTrackMe in Chrome . I see also speak of ublock .
Do You recommend me some change?

All three are great extensions.

If you are looking for something new or better you could try our extension (Adguard) or uBlock or AdBlock Plus and see what's better for you.

 

[101001]

I'm trying μBlock and see that it is much lighter than Adblock Plus, loads websites faster, less ram and cpu consumption.

 

[Sr. Normal]

Mr Xidus thanks for your work and time, enlightening

RevolutionSphere thanks, between your comment and the MrXidus I are removing the desire to try.

I also use Adblock Kent , did simultaneous with Adguard ?

Gorhill thanks know who cheat lessens their credibility to try . Good thing that you share .

Avatar , thanks, I'll go about enabling and disabling others to find the best configuration will be the best way to see how they work together .

101001 Thanks , I like to control the resources .

Greetings to all who have a good day

 

[gorhill]

So Adguard can control the CSS/JS injections. We do not inject CSS/JS into small frames thus we can optimize memory usage.

Ok, then I expect you would not suffer the same memory problem as ABP does.

Vim Color Scheme Test is for Firefox only to show the problem of browser-wide stylesheets (as you can read in the original post in mozilla devs blog). Testing Chrome extensions with it is simply wrong.

ABP's problem affects other browsers as well. Vim Color Test is just a web page which is good to stress-test blockers, regardless of browser. On Chromium 64-bit, ABP will reach almost 2GB, as seen in the picture at https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus-memory-consumption#. It's a stress-test useful to figure where to improve blocker code, and it's actually W. Palant's response (unduly putting the responsibility on Firefox devs) to the results of this stress-test which motivated me to write uBlock.

 

[avatar]

ABP's problem affects other browsers as well.

It does but you can easily fix it by adding necessary exceptions in ad filters and in my opinion it is enough.

The point is that if you use ABP for Firefox it's impossible to fix. If your computer is not fast enough Vim Color Test with ABP is not just slow but unusable.

It's a stress-test useful to figure where to improve blocker code, and it's actually W. Palant's response (unduly putting the responsibility on Firefox devs) to the results of this stress-test which motivated me to write uBlock.

Trying to inject only those CSS rules which are needed is very interesting solution indeed.