Adblock Plus 3.4 promises 50% memory use reduction
Eyeo GmbH, the company behind the widely used adblocking browser extension Adblock Plus, released Adblock Plus 3.4 today.
Adblock Plus 3.4 features a number of changes, most notable a promised reduction of the extension's memory use by 50%. The new version includes changes to the user interface as well.
Existing users should receive the update to the new version automatically in Firefox, Chrome and Opera; those who prefer to download updates manually can do so from the browser's extensions store on the Internet or by visiting the Adblock Plus download page.
The new version of the extension is available for Firefox, Chrome and Opera currently and not other supported browsers such as Safari, Microsoft Edge, or Internet Explorer.
Adblock Plus 3.4
The user interface has changed quite a bit in Adblock Plus. The extension icon highlights the number of blocked ads on the activate site. Existing users may notice that the frontend interface has changed significantly in the new version of the extension.
The extension displays a toggle in the new version that you may activate to enable or disable ad blocking on the site. It highlights the number of blocked items and the total number of items on the page, and lists options to block elements or report issues.
Several elements of previous versions of Adblock Plus have been removed. The social media icons are gone and so is the number of ads blocked in total.
The blocking functionality that is accessible on the frontend has not changed functionality-wise. Adblock Plus never offered the same level of depth that extensions such as uBlock Origin or NoScript offered; it is for instance not possible to get information about the content that was blocked on the site.
The options page looks identical, nothing appears to have changed on the page.
Eyeo GMBH claims that Adblock Plus 3.4 uses 50% less memory than previous versions of the extension. The release notes of the Firefox version of the extension state the following:
Reduced the initial memory footprint by ~16%, base memory usage by ~28%, and memory used per frame by ~660 KB.
Users of the extension should notice a reduction in memory usage when they use Adblock Plus 3.4 but it seems likely that the experience will be somewhat different considering that it depends on several factors such as the number of frames opened in the browser.
A quick, unscientific test in the latest Chrome Stable version, showed that Adblock Plus does use more memory than uBlock Origin even if the latest version is installed. I installed both extensions and started Chrome to see how much they would use with just one page open. It is possible that there are incompatibilities or issues that distort the result.
Closing Words
Adblock Plus using less memory than before is definitely a welcome change. Let us know in the comments if you are a user of the extension and noticed an improvement in the memory use of the extension.
Now You: which blocking solution do you use?
So some are complaining AdBocker Plus snooping on their users, how about AdBlocker Ultimate or other variants of AdBlocker, could someone please advise us less browser tech savvy?
There’s only one extension I trust: Raymond Hill’s uBlock Origin. Ray is one of the good guys, who in ‘modern’ society, are becoming harder and harder to find.
PS: For those using MVPS hosts entries, uBO has mvps hosts entries disabled but built: look under Multipurpose in the Filters tab. Check it to enable the filters. I would suggest it would be much quicker blocking those MVPS entires in the browser instead of the host file.
I use the HOSTS + NoScript to block stuff online:
No Coin List : https://github.com/hoshsadiq/adblock-nocoin-list/blob/master/hosts.txt
1hosts (66 000+ blocks) : https://1hosts.cf
MVPS Hosts : http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt
pfBlockerNG all the way :)
i used all of the ad blockers for a long time there is only 1 worth to use and i tell you from experience AD GUARD the best and the only .
You see, the problem with ABP is that it’s not uBlock Origin.
r. hill himself has something to say about this:
https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1057752327292157952
even worse than martin’s short “unscientific test”.
One of the problem I see with Martin’s quick test is that as per process id, uBO was launched earlier than ABP — which means uBO is likely more affected by memory fragmentation and realized lazy-loading as a result of visiting web pages: the longer a content blocker runs, the higher the base memory. In all my memory tests, I ensure that both uBO and ABP go through exactly the same steps — including the amount of time they have been up and running, that no option pages were opened, no lists were updated, etc.
I never encountered performance problem with ABP. I switched to uBO because ABP couldn’t block many instrusive ads I encountered. Some sites(layout) also broke when ABP was enabled but not with UBO.
Please, create a article about CleanBrowsing DNS. Site: https://www.cleanbrowsing.org
ublock origin in the browsers, and the mvps hosts file on the system, both nix and winders. Very low overhead and works great.
Anybody remember proxomitron?
Ublock in Waterfox, Firefox, and edge. Adblock 1.6 in IE11. NoScript in Waterfox and Firefox. Umatrix in Google Chrome 70.
This Adblock 3.4 update seems to be not yet available for internet explorer 11.345.17340.0 (update version 11.0.90), there is still version 1.6 offered?
I only use this Adblock (version 1.6.0.0 up to now) because there is no uBlock Origin and NoScript offered for IE11?
Or did I miss the uBlock Origin or NoScript possibility for IE11?
It baffles me that still so many sheeple use Adblock Plus instead of uBlock Origin!
Bah!
So happy that there are so many choices to use for ad blocking. It keeps competition healthy, and prevents any of them from enacting mandatory user hostile policies.
I’ll keep using uBlockOrigin and uMatrix, and a hosts file, tyvm <3
Nothing can replace my Adguard with lifetime license on both PC and Android.
> Adblock Plus 3.4 promises 50% memory use reduction
They probably do this by letting 50% more ads through. lol
I don’t use any of the blockers anymore, but uBlock did appear more effective and used less resources then Ad Blocker. I stop using any of them because I went from the annoyances of ads to the annoyances of sites blocking my access with a blocker enabled. If I am required to disable it to visit site, it sort of defeated its usefulness to use a blocker. Maybe someday sites can find a better way to provide a free site to users, with less intrusive but effective ads.
You could just use uBO with Nano Defender – it’s a slight pain to enable, but comes with a guide to add the relevant lists. Once enabled, it bypasses anti-adblocking scripts on 99% of the sites you use and even skips the timed element of those shortened ad-links used by some sites. Also using Anti-tracking and Privacy lists removes the need for Ghostery or Noscript ^^ Point is – if you’re not using the software effectively, it’s not the failing of the software, but your own
“Maybe someday sites can find a better way to provide a free site to users, with less intrusive but effective ads.”
If those ads come with tracking, then it doesn’t matter how unobtrusive they are. I don’t block ads, but I do block Javascript in order to avoid the tracking, and that has the side-effect of stopping almost all ads. If advertisers want me to see them, they can serve them up without Javascript.
@John: if, with uBO enabled, you cannot get to a site you have to adjust the uBO settings for that site a bit. It takes a bit of experimenting at 1st, but you can soon get the hang of it when you start to learn what content can be adjusted.
Having said that, I also disable uBO sometimes if it is a site I don’t visit regularly, really want to access but don’t have the time to experiment for. I figure that, on balance, uBO is a gain.
“Maybe someday sites can find a better way to provide a free site to users, with less intrusive but effective ads.”
Nope, those kinds of sites don’t care about that. If they could get away with it they’d charge you subscription fees too.
It’s interesting how there is an entire team and lots of money behind ABP but they are not capable of doing what a single dev (uBO) does alone. ABP has a long history of memory problems, as well as a lack of protection against scripts that block adblockers.
Due to their business model they are forced to hide all the functionality in the settings, which makes the Addon a bit bland.
It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and most other extensions have way better speed and functionality: Ghostery, AdGuard, and especially uBlock Origin.
@user17843
Ghostery too is a wolf in sheep’s clothing: from
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ghostery/privacy/
———————————————————-
VIII. Offers
Offers, also known as Ghostery Rewards, is turned on by default and allows companies to show relevant marketing offers to users based upon an algorithm we created that anonymously determines intent and therefore particular commercial offers that may be of interest to you.
[…]
IX. Human Web
We developed a technology called Human Web, which is turned on by default, and creates anonymous group models that power the private quick-search, anti-tracking and anti-phishing technologies featured in Cliqz and Ghostery products.
Data Collection: In order for Human Web to function we automatically collect non-private URLs, search queries along with search engine results pages, suspicious URLs that could potentially be phishing websites, information related to safe and unsafe trackers, and information related to the prevalence and performance of Trackers.
——————————————————————–
The funny thing is that Cliqz, the company that makes Ghostery, is partly Mozilla’s property. But this is consistent with their current state of mind.
“which blocking solution do you use?”
NoScript, because I’m not actually concerned about blocking ads. I am concerned about blocking scripts, with a special emphasis on scripts that are used for tracking purposes.
this version comes with 50% less users too?
So does this version come with more or less behind the scenes snooping? ;)
I guess no one cares because we all use the superior ad block extension: uBlock Origin.
I bond with James over a clear preference for ‘uBlock Origin’ (“Origin” : beware, fakes available). Nothing competes with uBO.
Exactly.
It doesn’t matter what percentage they reduce its memory use if I have zero percent trust in THEM.
uBlock Origin all the way.