Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Browsers
Chrome & Chromium
Here comes the Google Chrome change that worried ad blocker creators
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Deletedmessiah" data-source="post: 918885" data-attributes="member: 58665"><p>I didn't notice performance impact from these extensions. And this goes for my low end laptop of the past which couldn't play 720p videos for more than 2 hours. Whatever the "performance impact" was, wasn't something that was noticed in real life use unless its malicious or poorly designed extensions. This wasn't issue for all those years but now all of a sudden when computers are more powerful than ever, the "performance issue" is more negligible than ever, google cares for performance of poor users. If they cared for performance so much, then why not provide an option of "click to load" for html5 videos? One thing I liked about flash in its last years. </p><p>Its just some excuse. Majority of their income is from ads so of course they'll want to limit it. Its simple logic. </p><p>With that said 300k is sufficient for me for now. If there's some other limitations of types of filters you can use or types of things you can block compared to with manifest v2, can someone tell?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Deletedmessiah, post: 918885, member: 58665"] I didn't notice performance impact from these extensions. And this goes for my low end laptop of the past which couldn't play 720p videos for more than 2 hours. Whatever the "performance impact" was, wasn't something that was noticed in real life use unless its malicious or poorly designed extensions. This wasn't issue for all those years but now all of a sudden when computers are more powerful than ever, the "performance issue" is more negligible than ever, google cares for performance of poor users. If they cared for performance so much, then why not provide an option of "click to load" for html5 videos? One thing I liked about flash in its last years. Its just some excuse. Majority of their income is from ads so of course they'll want to limit it. Its simple logic. With that said 300k is sufficient for me for now. If there's some other limitations of types of filters you can use or types of things you can block compared to with manifest v2, can someone tell? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top