- Jun 21, 2013
- 1,492
Best Ad-Blocker
- Thread starter King Alpha
- Start date
- Status
uBlock is actualy lighter and faster than Adblock plus, adguard or any other AdBlockers on Chrome. Dont know why u say its "amatuer". and the simple interface is a big+ for me+ the list are build in, u just need to activate them instead of extra add them to ur list. for me, uBlock is the best adblocker for Chrome.
- May 19, 2014
- 282
Hello everyone!
For Chromium-based browsers: µBlock, without any doubt, more efficient and much more lightweight!
For Gecko-based browsers: Ghostery, until the day µMatrix and/or µBlock come to these browsers!
For Chromium-based browsers: µBlock, without any doubt, more efficient and much more lightweight!
For Gecko-based browsers: Ghostery, until the day µMatrix and/or µBlock come to these browsers!
... *Activating Facepalm Mode*
For FireFox i would choose Bluhell Firewall.
Sory for quote my own post, dunno why this happens wantet to edit.
Yes please, do say more, as I have no clue what you are referring to.
I see you are using DoNotTrackMe. You don't mind Adguard tracking you?
- Aug 12, 2014
- 112
uBlock's options screen is very unpolished. I never said it lacked options. ABP and Adguard options screen is more professional. As far as tracking. Why are so paranoid. FYI. Adguard has 50% of the vote. Need I say more.
- May 26, 2014
- 1,339
- Jul 25, 2014
- 272
- Aug 9, 2014
- 32
uBlock is very light & quick. Does it's job well. Pair it with it's big brother HTTP SB and the trackers stand no chance 
Memory consumption/CPU and overall system impact for me at least is much better than it's competitors. As for the GUI? Right-click and look at options. As full featured as the others for me.
Oh, yeah and I like Gorhill and his approach so........
YMMV
Cheers
Memory consumption/CPU and overall system impact for me at least is much better than it's competitors. As for the GUI? Right-click and look at options. As full featured as the others for me.
Oh, yeah and I like Gorhill and his approach so........
YMMV
Cheers
MrXidus
Super Moderator (Leave of absence)
- Apr 17, 2011
- 2,503
That's from this feature in AdGuard:
Firefox & Chrome also have a similar feature where by they use Google SafeBrowsing to protect against web forgery / phishing pages.
Check if turning this feature off still sends the sb.adtidy.org GET requests.
- May 13, 2014
- 491
Firefox and Chrome download the list and the check is done client-side -- no information about all the sites a user visit is sent out. That's the sane way to do it. It makes no sense to check every single hostname remotely.
Last edited:
MrXidus
Super Moderator (Leave of absence)
- Apr 17, 2011
- 2,503
Thanks for the heads up, does disabling the Phishing and Malware protection in AdGuard disable the sending of the URLs you're seeing?
Disabling the setting disable the sending of hostnames (not URLs) in real time as far as I tested. I can see the hostnames still logged in the local storage though. Whether this stored info is sent at some point in the future would need further investigation. Each user is also tagged with a unique id as per local storage and used when filters are updated. Now it would be possible for the adtidy.org remote server to create associations of user unique id/user ip(s)/hostnames visited.
Now all this may be acceptable to some users, the bigger problem is the lack of prominent disclosure for such a privacy encroaching feature. The disclosure should be right there aside the button to enable or disable the feature. There is no way for the average user to know his privacy is encroached -- a lot of users could decide to not use the feature if they knew.
- May 19, 2014
- 282
If you think the interface appearance is more important than its features, then you just don't know how much better µBlock and HTTPSB are. There is only one guy to work on it, and he does it on his free time, without demanding any donations, and he doesn't stop working on it to bring important enhancements. In the future 0.4.0.0 version, cosmetic filtering will be significantly enhanced for instance.
Adguard has this amount of votes only because people don't know very much about µBlock and also because they use FF mainly.
Last edited:
Before I used ad muncher for many years and even purchased a license key as I don't like to run a patched soft on my laps. But ad muncher stopped blocking some useful sites for me and missing ads in youtube. So, I decided to replace it with adguard. The adguard is much more better than it was before. The previous versions slow down my laps and internet. Moreover, I have a life-time premium license.
- May 29, 2014
- 20
Hi everyone !
Before, I was a Firefox fanboy.
But that, it was before. (by Krys)
But now, Firefox is unstable... And with Adblock Plus, it's even worse, I'd dozens of freezes (j'ai eu des dizaines de freezes). And all of it occured on a new computer : awesome, isn't it?
So I decided to try Opera with uBlock: I never had any freeze, and I can browse peacefully.
Yes, µBlock is less prettier than other products.
But it works efficiently.
On the other side, Adblock Plus may be pretty.
But it does provoke freezes on Firefox.
An open-source "amateur" addon who works good against a so-called professional one who made my previous main browser to freeze too much...
Is µBlock really the amateur one?
++
Before, I was a Firefox fanboy.
But that, it was before. (by Krys
)But now, Firefox is unstable... And with Adblock Plus, it's even worse, I'd dozens of freezes (j'ai eu des dizaines de freezes). And all of it occured on a new computer : awesome, isn't it?
So I decided to try Opera with uBlock: I never had any freeze, and I can browse peacefully.
Can I Laugh ?
Yes, µBlock is less prettier than other products.
But it works efficiently.
On the other side, Adblock Plus may be pretty.
But it does provoke freezes on Firefox.
So funny :3
An open-source "amateur" addon who works good against a so-called professional one who made my previous main browser to freeze too much...
Is µBlock really the amateur one?
++
- Status
