It was not far more than uBO until lately; seems to have memory leak issues with the latest versions.it's also light and doesn't consume a lot of ram
Regarding its effeciency, it is more effecient than uBO; its filters are more optimized.
It was not far more than uBO until lately; seems to have memory leak issues with the latest versions.it's also light and doesn't consume a lot of ram
Yes, it was him indeed. I said that you gave me the tip to install it on my hard drive as a portable version, remember? Wasn't it you? I even asked how to install Vivaldi so that the cache would be on the hard drive, which would save writing on the SSD, as I recall. If I remember correctly, I even sent a screenshot showing the installation path.I was guided to use Vivaldi by @lokamoka820 before recommending it to you; MT is a kind forum and we are all here a one big family.
Yes, it's true that uBO can be considered the king of blockers. It seems that developer gorhill has returned and taken control of uBo. Unfortunately, MV3 has significantly impaired blocking capabilities. If the API that Google claims is more secure, then that is another topic for discussion. However, when it was MV2, it blocked everything, even manually blocking things you did not like. Now, in uBo Lite, it has become limited. But it's not the developer's fault. The filters have also been reduced precisely because of the limitations of MV3.It was not far more than uBO until lately; seems to have memory leak issues with the latest versions.
I believe so, although it's difficult to compare. AG is a company and has many employees, which may explain it somewhat. uBo depends on the developer and contributors.Regarding its effeciency, it is more effecient than uBO; its filters are more optimized.
Why wouldn't you inform others here on the forum, in case they have it installed?I recently had an experience with an extension that had malware, and I didn't even know it. EDGE warned me with a pop-up that an extension had malware, and I removed it immediately, even though it was disabled, knowing what it was collecting or doing in my browser. I didn't even mention it here on MT. I'm not going to say the name because it's active in other stores.
Maybe it's a developer or vendor here, is the only thing I could think of as far as it not being disclosed? But if that isn't the case, why not give us a heads up on the extension name?Why wouldn't you inform others here on the forum, in case they have it installed?![]()
![]()
But that shouldn't make any difference. If the extension is tainted with shady practices or malware, users should know.Maybe it's a developer or vendor here, is the only thing I could think of as far as it not being disclosed?
You're absolutely rightBut that shouldn't make any difference. If the extension is tainted with shady practices or malware, users should know.
In my experience, it makes Chrome much slower than uBlock Origin Lite or Ghostery. So I find AdGuard a bit cumbersome.Used AdGuard for Windows again for a couple of weeks or so after a hiatus & quite happy again, on the test sites I don't care for much I got a 1,000,000% so pretty good![]()
AG filter lists are the best; AG extension is not the lightest; to get the best of two you may use its lists through uBO regular version or Vivaldi/Brave adblocker.I feel it can be much depending on your system, maybe a system that has a fast processor & plenty of fast memory (which we all don't have) can function fine with AdGuard almost invisibly as it does on this system, though as in all things it seems there is no arbitrary rule as all systems are different with different outcomes - At the moment it works well for me - Some users will find extensions work better for them?