do you use adblocking software?

[GUI_Tex]

If so what kind?

I use firefoxs adblock plus 5.10 and pac file, and host file..

[WSFuser]

of course i block ads! my arsenal includese adblock plus 0.5.11.2 with filterset.g updater, mvps hosts files, and proxomitron with grypen's filters.

[sukarof]

Firefox and adblock, no need for external adblocking (or antispyware)

[rdsu]

Ad Muncher...

[Eldar]

None at all with my browsers, although my firewall blocks adds too. 8)

[Osaban]

I certainly do: AdMuncher is very effective.

[The Seeker]

I use Ad Muncher in conjunction with Opera.

[Ailric]

Firefox with Adblock Plus 0.6.1 and Filterset .G Updater. Works perfect.

[manOFpeace]

Don't care either way. With AdShield I don't have a problem.I have SpyBlocker as well.

[betauser2]

AdMuncher & Bluetack HOSTS, Can tolerate standard adds (small) but I can't tolerate pornographic ones and those of a sexual nature.>:( >:( >:(

betauser2

[Brian N]

Yup, adblock extension for FF and my own hosts file for game advertising.

[Rasheed187]

Yes, I use Ad Hunter in Maxthon and AdBlock/FlashBlock in FF. Since Maxthon is my nr 1 browser (use it about 99% of the time) I hope Ad Hunter will become a bit more powerful, but it already is doing quite a good job. ;)

[Rmus]

No.

---

[Nitrox]

Ad Muncher takes care of most ads for me.;D

[Alphalutra1]

What is an ad??? I haven't seen one of those things in, ages ;D 8)

MVPS HOST file, E-Dexter to speed up the thing, and Proxomitron to finish up8)

Alphalutra1

[tansu]

No..
Aggresive ad-blocking will kill the freeware.

[JVM]

I tried AdBlock but gave that up for Ad Muncher Beta that is working great for me.

I use Firefox.

[dylanfan]

Hi

Webwasher when I'm not running on... Oupost firewall. Having said that, my toolbox is now fully complete since Opera now has GUI-adblocking capabilities.

BTW, now giving admuncher a try, out of curiosity. Seems nice...
Cheers

[Brian N]

-{ Quote: "No..
Aggresive ad-blocking will kill the freeware." }-
No, never.

[JVM]

-{ Quote: "Hi

Webwasher when I'm not running on... Oupost firewall. Having said that, my toolbox is now fully complete since Opera now has GUI-adblocking capabilities.

BTW, now giving admuncher a try, out of curiosity. Seems nice...
Cheers" }-

Try the beta version--much better!

[TonyW]

I don't use ad-blocking software, and I don't click on the ads, never have and never will. I don't tear out the ads in newspapers or magazines either. ;)

[JVM]

-{ Quote: "I don't use ad-blocking software, and I don't click on the ads, never have and never will. I don't tear out the ads in newspapers or magazines either. ;)" }-

I don't click on them either, but I do find them a nuisance to see.

I find the pages look much nicer without all those banners, ads, etc.

[dylanfan]

-{ Quote: "Try the beta version--much better!" }-
HI... Which build is it? Mine is 4.6 10270

[JVM]

-{ Quote: "HI... Which build is it? Mine is 4.6 10270" }-

That's the current version but not the beta one. You can get the beta here: http://www.admuncher.com/beta.pl

And the browser extension 0.4 here: http://www.admuncher.com/browserextensions/Ad_Muncher/

I have found the beta version to work better than current v4.6

[dylanfan]

-{ Quote: "That's the current version but not the beta one. You can get the beta here: http://www.admuncher.com/beta.pl" }-
Does it have any new feature or increased filtering power? Why do you think it better?

-{ Quote: "And the browser extension 0.4 here: http://www.admuncher.com/browserextensions/Ad_Muncher/" }- Not sure I understand the use. Does it add some command access in browsers? AM already works with all browser..!?
Thanks

[dylanfan]

Ok, I found answers to my previous post Here (http://www.admuncher.com/betachangelog.txt)
BTW, first time I noticed that AM is shareware. Does it have limited features until registered, or is it fully functional from day 1?
Cheers

[dylanfan]

Just wondering how AM is implemented. Is it like WebWasher and Proxomitron, when the browsers connect to 127.0.0.1 on loopback, with WW and Proxo acting like some local proxy?

If used in conjunction with a rule-firewall, which rules should be implemented for AM to do its job?

And finally, does AM sometimes connect to the AM site to transmit some user's informations? If so, which ones?

Thanks

[JVM]

-{ Quote: "Does it have any new feature or increased filtering power? Why do you think it better?

Not sure I understand the use. Does it add some command access in browsers? AM already works with all browser..!?
Thanks" }-

With build 4.6 I occasionally got a corrupted page, and there were some ads I couldn't completely eliminate no matter what I tried. The beta version has worked perfectly without me doing anything! Even the previous ad that build 4.6 couldn't completely eliminate is now gone without me doing anything!

The extension was recommended to me by the developer. There is a forum for Ad Muncher here: http://www.admuncher.com/forum/

[JVM]

-{ Quote: "Just wondering how AM is implemented. Is it like WebWasher and Proxomitron, when the browsers connect to 127.0.0.1 on loopback, with WW and Proxo acting like some local proxy?

If used in conjunction with a rule-firewall, which rules should be implemented for AM to do its job?

And finally, does AM sometimes connect to the AM site to transmit some user's informations? If so, which ones?

Thanks" }-

I just allowed Ad Muncher to connect via LnS to the Internet. I'm not sure about your other questions and so I refer you to the forum http://www.admuncher.com/forum/

[Randy_Bell]

Voted yes because I use NIS 2006 which has excellent ad filtering .. ;)

[ronjor]

Proxomitron for years and Firefox with Ad Block extension.

[Acadia]

Ad Muncher; works on ALL browsers, and easier to use than Proxomitron (another excellent program).

Acadia

[wildman]

:) Not really sure if I understand this one. I have the pop up blocker set. I use AdAware to check each week, it has identified a few potential problems, and those I deleted very quickly. Should I be doing anything more? Remember I am dependent upon "freeware".

Thanks
Wildman
:blink: :dry: :wacko: :gack:

[WSFuser]

-{ Quote: ":) Not really sure if I understand this one. I have the pop up blocker set. I use AdAware to check each week, it has identified a few potential problems, and those I deleted very quickly. Should I be doing anything more? Remember I am dependent upon "freeware".

Thanks
Wildman
:blink: :dry: :wacko: :gack:" }-
if u want to block ads, banners, etc u can use adblock(plus) for firefox and for opera u can try operaadfilter (http://www.monroeworld.com/operafilter/). or for a browser independent solution try proxomitron with a good filterset like grypen's.

[NAMOR]

Another vote for AdMucher. ;)

[broken]

Opera's new content filter in their new technical preview (link (http://labs.opera.com)) works just like AdBlock and I'm loving it.

[yahoo]

Another vote to Ad Muncher.

I have tried quite some Ad filters.

1) Proxomitron - It is very powerful. However, it is a dead project because the author passed away. The filter rule making is not that easy: one has to study the 'grammers' for the rules - I have a headache with it.

2) Proximodo - Kind of a successor of Proxomitron. Well, the same filter rule making as Proxomitron.

3) Privoxy - A nice adblocking software. I used it for quite a while. It is included as a package in many Linux distros. There is a version for Windows OS too. The problem is that it seems not under active development now.

4) WebWasher - It is easy to use. But it can only get rid of certain Ads.

5) Ad Muncher - My choice. It is very easy to use, and also powerful. It can get rid of almost all of the annoying web ads. The only drawback is that it is NOT free. But I believe that it really worth the money - $25.

[Acadia]

-{ Quote: "The only drawback is that it is NOT free. But I believe that it really worth the money - $25." }-
True, however you only pay for it once; all future upgrades and new versions are free forever.

Acadia

[JVM]

-{ Quote: "True, however you only pay for it once; all future upgrades and new versions are free forever.

Acadia" }-

I just wish they changed the icon from a bull to something more, err, high tech :dry:

[dylanfan]

-{ Quote: "I just wish they changed the icon from a bull to something more, err, high tech :dry:" }-
Actually, my guess would be it's a cow ;)

Don't you like it when it literally chews ads up in the systray? :)

[JVM]

-{ Quote: "Actually, my guess would be it's a cow ;)

Don't you like it when it literally chews ads up in the systray? :)" }-

A cow with horns?

I've got all these really high-tech icons in my systray like NOD32, LnS, Ewido (this one is real cool), ATI and this wacky-looking bull :(

[Acadia]

I like that cow! You can see it chewing its cud, er, I mean ads!! 8)

Acadia

[JVM]

It is not a cow!

This is from the developer posted on the Ad Muncher forum:

Nope.

Ad Muncher is the bull.

He eats the ads for you.

[JVM]

Like I said, it's a wacky-looking bull :P

[Nick Rhodes]

As long as they are not obtrusive, that includes popup ads of anykind. I use a popup blocker and a put adverts into restricted zone via spyware blaster.

I used to own/run a forum that required £600uk a year to host... I can understand the need for advertising, I had to use advertising to get funding.

[Acadia]

Oh, then I like the bull!!

Acadia

[sweater]

I just use and turn on the pop-up blocker in my Firefox browser, and also the Popup Blocker in my Earthlink toolbar and nothing else to block ads. :dry:

Anyway, I just want to see some ads. ;D but with my SpywareBlaster, IE-SpyAd2 and Spybot S&D immunizer...I think I don't have to worry much bout dangerous ads. :blink:

[JVM]

I have been trying out Adblock Plus with the Fliter Set G Updater and I'm so impressed that I uninstalled Ad Muncher and got rid of that wacky bull :P

[Ailric]

-{ Quote: "I have been trying out Adblock Plus with the Fliter Set G Updater and I'm so impressed that I uninstalled Ad Muncher and got rid of that wacky bull :P" }-

I love the cow but I also don't need it anymore.:shifty:

[JVM]

-{ Quote: "I love the cow but I also don't need it anymore.:shifty:" }-

It's really a bull as per the developer, but I don't care because there is no more bull on my computer ;D

[sweater]

for firefox user... you can also try adding or using the ImgLikeOpera extension. It gives you the choice not to load or show those images/pictures on the web and only words if you want to. It acts maybe similar to ads blocker. It really can speed up your browsing. :o

[Ga1tar]

Admuncher looks after I.E, for my regular sufing habits the latest Opera just makes me purr like a cheshire cat ;D

[operafox]

Editing the block url list in WebWasher is actually very easy. Go to the WW file in your Programs file, right-click wwblock.ini, open with any text editor, and there you are. Just add any block list you trust or like.

Rgds

[betauser2]

-{ Quote: "It is not a cow!

This is from the developer posted on the Ad Muncher forum:

Nope.

Ad Muncher is the bull.

He eats the ads for you." }-

well even their not sure this is from their site

-{ Quote: "Left-click the Ad Muncher icon on your system tray (looks like a small cow face)." }-

to add to the confusion i always thought it was a GOAT and still do.

betauser2

[Infinity]

admuncher here too! fantastic program

[dog]

I use the free options for adblocking - Proxomitron (http://www.proxomitron.info/) and Privoxy (http://www.privoxy.org/) on several different boxes and OSs - I love them both - but I prefer Proxomitron, there are many good filter sets available.

[JVM]

-{ Quote: "well even their not sure this is from their site



to add to the confusion i always thought it was a GOAT and still do.

betauser2" }-

I can only tell you the developer says it's a bull.

Personally, I don't care anymore because I'm now using Adblock Plus :)

[bigbuck]

Admuncher.

[crackman]

No. If you don't like ads, don't look at them, but let the websites show their content.

CrackMan

[Tonia]

I use Firefox Adblock, and I can tell you.
It works perfect. Almost no ads to see :)


Greets Toni :)

[Sonap]

Yes, and I never want to see an ad, never want to click an ad.

[Acadia]

-{ Quote: "No. If you don't like ads, don't look at them, but let the websites show their content.

CrackMan" }-
I have no problem with regular ads, and certainly no issue with "Google" like ads, but ads that flash or are obnoxious and try to get my attention ... I have a hard time concentrating as it is, and anything that tries to break my concentration, goes bye-bye. 8)

Acadia

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "Yes, and I never want to see an ad, never want to click an ad. " }-I see the ads, I just don't click on 'em. It's immaterial now especially being on DSL. If I was still on dial-up, that might be a different story.

[Dazza]

Adblock 0.6.1.2 and Filterset.G here and have no problems whatsoever with ads...:thumb:

[ErikAlbert]

I use Firefox with AdBlock, NoScript and no cookies. After that I didn't see much ads, I don't even remember seeing them and my AS scanners don't report any threat either.
I know its boring, only bad stuff is exciting. ;)

[faterider]

Proxomitron with Grypen's filterset is enough for me. And if something pass through and irritate me too much, I normally block it with Opera's new ad-blocking feature.

But I must say I don't despise anything. I just want to have control over my perceptions.

[TOMxEU]

I really do not care about ADs, but since Outpost blockes them (AD, EXT), I like it.

[progress]

Yes, and I never want to see an ad, never want to click an ad :gack:

[vizhip]

Firefox and Adblock Plus...

(except this forum and Tallemu when I am surfing with IE)

Regards -
-Bob

[Minimax2000]

I hate being distracted by ads. Outpost's Webcontrol blocks them very well.
In rare cases I use Opera's "Block content" function as well.

[Neoxellos]

Ad Muncher.

[AKAJohnDoe]

-{ Quote: "Firefox with Adblock Plus 0.6.1 and Filterset .G Updater. Works perfect." }-
It is recommended to not use filterset.g with AdBlockPlus. From the source (http://adblockplus.org/en/faq_project#filterset.g)

On Vista and Ubuntu I run AdBlockPlus (1.02) with the EasyList (USA) and EasyPrivacy filter subscriptions, as well as a few of my own additions.

Also, IE 8 has InPrivate Filtering turned on.

I have not found an acceptable solution for Opera.

[Eice]

Using the InPrivate Filtering feature in IE8, with imported rules. Works like a charm.

[demonon]

Proxomitron with sidki's config on XP.
Ad muncher on Vista.
Adblock plus on Ubuntu, but I am looking for a better alternative.
Adblock plus needs too much tweaking to work properly IMO.

[Creer]

Opera with Proxomitron + Sidki ruleset on Windows 7

[LoneWolf]

Ad Muncher ;D

[TOMxEU]

Well, this is an old topic. Now I use OpenDNS to block porno, adware and other, since it does not slow down PC, along with it AD and Flash blocking in IE7Pro.

[AKAJohnDoe]

-{ Quote: "Well, this is an old topic." }-
Yes, ance is a strong contender for this month's necromancer award.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Can't stand running without Adblock Plus in Firefox.

Some UTM distros have Privoxy built in...the IPCop add-on for Copfilter, and Untangle 6.2 to be released soon, includes it. So adblocking done at the gateway level!

[tipstir]

Ad muncher was great for years then I found it not the same as it use to be. The Firefox Ad blocker plus and the Flash Block work well on those stubborn ads. Still yahoo has those ones that ad muncher and zero ad stopper did stop.

[Boost]

Adblock Plus :thumb:

[progress]

-{ Quote: "Yes, ance is a strong contender for this month's necromancer award." }-

:D

The topics from 2005 are closed :)

[ASM]

Admuncher...

[arran]

Yes Admuncher

[Warlockz]

AdBlock Plus for Firefox, and if theirs an ad or an annoying pick ect on the page im visiting or always visit, I just right click and auto add it to my adblock list, and wala no more ads or annoying picks!

[noone_particular]

Proxomitron handles all of the ad-blocking and web content filtering duties for me. Being a free-standing application, it works with all browsers. Unlike some FireFox extensions, it doesn't include a whitelist for certain (their own) ads or sites.

[Rmus]

No.

----
rich

[chrisretusn]

Adblock Plus. w/EasyPrivacy + EasyList subscription.

[mercurie]

Only as part of Out Post FW.

[icr]

Firefox addons only(AdBlock (Plus)

[suliman]

I have used Hostsman to block ads for years. When switching to Ubuntu (64bit) I put the adservers in hosts file there too.
But then I decided to make a clean install of Ubuntu 32 instead since it was easier compability wise, suddenly I dont have to use any sort of adblocking measures in firefox. Ads are just gone ???

I have no clue why. I have not put any adservers in hosts file and do not have adblock installed (although I have had adblock installed in 64bit for a short time but I uninstalled it) I exported my firefox profile with FEBE extension to my 32bit ubuntu, maybe adblock has remains hidden in that somehow....

Very strange anyhow

[chrisretusn]

-{ Quote: "Adblock Plus. w/EasyPrivacy + EasyList subscription." }-
I forgot to add I also use Outpost Web Control. That is the only part I use in Ad blocking.

[RSpanky]

AdBlockPlus 8)

[jrmhng]

I use adblockplus and hostsman

[donaddams]

Ad Muncher...

[BladeRunner]

I use Outpost Firewall Pro...it has OFP Quick Tune ( Web Control ). With this feature I use ads on my trusted sites and no ads on untrusted sites.;D

[deanmartin]

I use Adblock Plus (URL's block list) in IE8 InPrivate Filtering. Works like a charm.

[Manide]

Opera - Built-in Block Content feature with Fanboy's List (http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/)
Firefox - Adblock Plus (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865)/Adblock plus:Element Hiding Helper (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4364)
Chrome - AdSweep (http://www.adsweep.org/)

[rdsu]

AdSweep was discontinued...

[progress]

-{ Quote: "AdSweep was discontinued..." }-

Rest in peace AdSweep :ouch:

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "AdSweep was discontinued..." }-
This looks really interesting: http://textpad.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B49C34BD7DE98E2D!509.entry

[SirPeterPan]

Yes and I absolutely hate ads.

On my Win7 Ultimate x86, I got Ad Muncher Pro. I also installed JavaCool SpywareBlaster. And for Firefox, there is the AdBlock Plus/Element Hiding Helper with EasyList subscriptions.

[Noob]

I've always wondered what's so bad about ads.
Just close it or ignore it ;D
I don't care about them

[TOMxEU]

ADs slow down browsing, bother eyes concetration and they can infect a computer, especially flash. I use ADblock, flashblock, OpenDNS to block ADs in Chrome.

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "I've always wondered what's so bad about ads.
Just close it or ignore it ;D
I don't care about them" }-
Ads take browser's screen space and transform a nice webpage into a colorful monster that take your attention away, some flash based ads are very hard to close and can bring up malwares, some ads slow down the entire webpage loading, there are ads that come with tracking cookies and spy your browser habits only to show more directed publicity... ads are all of bad.

[Narxis]

-{ Quote: "I don't use ad-blocking software, and I don't click on the ads, never have and never will. I don't tear out the ads in newspapers or magazines either. ;)" }-

I don't buy newspapers and magazines. You can find everything on the internet.;)

I use Firefox with AdBlock Plus and Element Hiding Helper + NoScript.

[nikanthpromod]

ABP (FF extension)

[subhrobhandari]

Guess my siggy will explain.

[dw426]

Yep, I use AdBlockPlus.

[steve161]

I use adblock plus with the easylist and easyprivacy subscriptions. I'm really not that bothered by ads, but I like to keep third party scripts and objects to a minimum. While I know Noscript is best for this, I just found it too obtrusive after a while. Adblock plus is pretty much invisible while browsing.

[mike21]

I usee adblock plus, subscribed to easylist and easy element hider. I surf the web without ads and this pleases me.

[acuariano]

i use privoxy.to me is just fine,it blocks well,works in firefox too.
the only problem i have is that their forum is alike unreachable..i'd like to ask some questions.i use the stable version 12...
there is a beta 3015 for long time..
give it a try.

[WSFuser]

Firefox: AdBlock Plus with Fanboy's AdBlock List

Chromium: AdBlock (https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom)

[Rules]

Ad-Muncher Premium


Rules

[siberianwolf]

nah. cuz w/ today's security sw's, u don't need to use a 3rd party ad blocker sw, since most of the security sw's got internal blockers and/or ip blockers.

[Threedog]

I just use adblock plus with Firefox for ads. Most don't bother me but there is a few sites I go to that throw quite a few up and ABP takes care of them for me.

[YanK33]

Ad Block for Chrome and Flash Block, the same when im using FF

[Noob]

-{ Quote: "I don't buy newspapers and magazines. You can find everything on the internet.;)

I use Firefox with AdBlock Plus and Element Hiding Helper + NoScript." }-

Sometimes reading from newspapers and magazines feels better.
At least i DO LIKE more reading articles etc. from newspapers or magazines. :D

[acr1965]

With Chrome- Ad Thwart. Tried other Chrome ad blockers but none seem to do as well as AT.

[Windchild]

Generally, I would rather avoid sites with offensive ads than use ad-blockers to block them. There are decent sites that depend on ad revenue to operate. Blocking ads on such sites would be a bad idea.

[YanK33]

-{ Quote: "With Chrome- Ad Thwart. Tried other Chrome ad blockers but none seem to do as well as AT." }-


hi i want to know how good is this Ad Thwart? is similar to Ad Block im using Chrome with Ad Block and works fine but if something better can help and willing to try it. thanks in advance.:thumb:

[YanK33]

Ad Block with Flash Block i disable No Scripts, too obstructive for me

[ProrokX]

Hmm...I have Ad Muncher. Could you explain me what does "ads" mean?;D

[YanK33]

-{ Quote: "Hmm...I have Ad Muncher. Could you explain me what does "ads" mean?;D" }-mmmmm my Ad Block dont let me explain you what ads mean :D

[Daveski17]

I am a little ambivalent about ads. They are important for financing the Net but many ads are hugely annoying & just plain unnecessary in my opinion. Is there any real need for many of the flash adverts? I have nothing against advertising but many of the adverts make it difficult to read a news (or other) article on a webpage!

So, when it is important to me I content block in Opera & K-Meleon has an inbuilt adblocker with a 'Kill Flash' function in the Privacy Bar.

[ameyap]

only whitelisted sites in my browser get thru

[acuariano]

i see a new update for privoxy v. 3016 but no for win32 yet?

[acuariano]

today i tested the new version 3016 from privoxy,for windows.
everything was ok,but after loging out from my msn mail.it took over 2 minutes to do it.,an after that i'm experiencing slow browsing in IE8.
think i'm going back to version 3012-stable

[CiX]

I hate Ads! I use adblock plus

[Kees1958]

Yes: Adsweep with Iron

[leofelix]

Firefox + Adblock Plus + Adblock element hide helper + no script add on here.

I dream a web without ads/banner

[acuariano]

just changed today to simple adblock for IE8...and is doing a great job.

[dansorin]

I use AdMuncher.

[linuxforall]

Fanboyz Ad block for my Opera.

[ALiasEX]

I rarely notice an ad even though I don't use an ad-blocking software. I have NoScript for malware concerns which obviously stops all pop-ups, redirects, etc.

[bellgamin]

I use MVP HOSTS file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm). It works great.

[Mr.PC]

Adblock Plus of Firefox.

[vasa1]

Chrome with Privoxy; Firefox with AdBlock Plus.

[Dermot7]

Trying this at the moment:
Diagnostics for Adblock Plus 1.1.3a
"Adblock Plus Watcher updated for Adblock Plus 1.3a and renamed":

http://adblockplus.org/development-builds/adblock-plus-watcher-updated-for-adblock-plus-13a-and-renamed

[SIR****TMG]

Ad Muncher...

[Konata Izumi]

Spywareblaster.

Just enough adblocking ;D

[culla]

adblock plus, leechblock, flashblock and ghostery no more google ads rip off scams woohoo

[adik1337]

AdMuncher FTW!

[AvinashR]

Adblock Plus...with MVP Host file ...:)

[J_L]

Personally, I despise them, they serve almost no use to the end user.

[progress]

Yes, and I never want to see an ad - thank you Adblock Plus :)

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "Yes and I absolutely hate ads.

On my Win7 Ultimate x86, I got Ad Muncher Pro. I also installed JavaCool SpywareBlaster. And for Firefox, there is the AdBlock Plus/Element Hiding Helper with EasyList subscriptions." }-

;D Since this thread is still active, I'll make some corrections because pretty much nothing there is valid now:

# I don't use Ad Muncher Pro anymore - questionable effectiveness.

# I don't use JavaCool SpywareBlaster anymore - questionable effectiveness.

# I tried to use Simple Adblock on IE, but it proved to be inferior than the one it is based on - AdBlock Plus/Element Hiding Helper with EasyList subscriptions, which I stopped using because I don't use Firefox anymore.

# I don't hate all ads anymore, only the very annoying ones. If I face an annoying ad in an interesting webpage (still didn't happen), I can always set inPrivate Filtering to block it.

-{ Quote: "I use MVP HOSTS file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm). It works great." }-

# I tried this solution after seeing your post, but even if I don't use Network Discovery, the DNS client service always start up automatically when I modify it to Manual.

All in all, I found this solution to be problematic:

- caused script errors on Garena (a gamer app that I use);
- surprisingly blocked OneStat.com - a legitimate site;
- noticeably slowed down browsing speed - even with the DNS client disabled.

I now find this old criticism still very valid:

-{ Quote: "

Hosts File

Myth - "Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files are necessary to prevent Spyware infections."

Reality - "Using Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files are a waste of time and leads to a false sense of security. Any Malware/Spyware can easily modify the Hosts File at will, even if it is set to Read-only. It is impossible to "lock-down" a Hosts File unless you are running as a limited user which makes using it in this case irrelevant anyway. Various Malware/Spyware uses the Hosts File to redirect your Web Browser to other sites. They can also redirect Windows to use a Hosts File that has nothing to do with the one you keep updating. The Hosts file is an archaic part of networking setups that was originally meant to be used on a LAN and was the legacy way to look up Domain Names on the ARPANET. It tells a PC the fixed numeric address of the internal server(s) so the PC doesn't have to go looking for them through all possible addresses. It can save time when "discovering" a LAN. I don't consider 1970's ARPANET technology useful against modern Malware/Spyware. When cleaning Malware/Spyware from a PC, it is much easier to check a clean Hosts File then one filled with thousands of lines of addresses. Considering how easily a Hosts File can be exploited, redirected and potentially block good sites, it is strongly recommended NOT to waste time using Special Hosts Files."

- ARPANET - The First Internet (http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_arpanet.htm) (Living Internet)
- Domain Name System (DNS) History (http://www.livinginternet.com/i/iw_dns_history.htm) (Living Internet)
- How to troubleshoot Internet Explorer 7 issues (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/936215) (Microsoft)
- How to troubleshoot network connectivity problems in Internet Explorer (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/936211) (Microsoft)
- Problems Using Internet Explorer with Incorrect Hosts File (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/219843) (Microsoft)

127.0.0.1
"Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files attempt to associate a known safe, numeric address (127.0.0.1) with the names of sites or IP addresses you want to block. When the user or any process on the PC then tries to access a blocked site, it is instead directed to the safe location. It is simply impossible to update a Hosts file frequently enough since it is cheap and easy to purchase new domain names and move to new IP addresses. You also run into problems in accidentally blocking good sites since many sites share the same IP addresses with other sites using Shared IP Hosting. Also once a malicious site is shutdown, that IP Address then becomes free and can easily be acquired by another non-malicious site."

Large Hosts Files
"Large Hosts Files cause Internet related slowdowns due to DNS Client Server Caching. This negatively effects your browsing speed. AntiSpyware Hosts File authors irresponsibly recommend disabling the DNS Client Service to solve this problem. This is not a solution. The overall performance of the client computer decreases and the network traffic for DNS queries increases if the DNS resolver cache is deactivated. This effectively reduces Internet Performance for sites you have previously visited and puts an unnecessary load on your ISP's DNS server."

- How to Disable Client-Side DNS Caching in Windows XP (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;318803) (Microsoft)

Notes - There is a much better solution for bad site blocking using SpywareBlaster which more intelligently use's Internet Explorer's built-in Zone Security settings and the registry. Mozilla/Firefox protection is also provided.

- Notes on DNS Pinning (http://blogs.msdn.com/dross/archive/2007/07/09/notes-on-dns-pinning.aspx) (David Ross, Microsoft Security Engineer)
- SpywareBlaster (http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html) (Javacool Software)
" }-

[vasa1]

How come Privoxy isn't that popular? Works across browsers.

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "How come Privoxy isn't that popular? Works across browsers." }-

The Privoxy's proxy approach has its advantages but I know about a potential issue that may make users avoid it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that, with Privoxy, ads are usually blocked but not hidden. I'm sure the same applies to the HOSTS approach. The best approach is problably block and also hide ads - only possible if the adblocker also has element hiding features. Otherwise, the page will end up frankenstein-like, with lots of white spaces where ads used to stay.

As for me, the several errors I usually find with maintained filters lower my trust on them. I don't really think Privoxy's filter is gonna be very different from other popular ones, so I'm now only blocking really annoying ads on interesting pages that are worth the effort. I'm an IE8 user, so I can use the built-in InPrivate Filtering feature for this boring task.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "The Privoxy's proxy approach has its advantages, but one potential issue that may make users avoid it is that ads are usually blocked but not hidden. The best approach is problably block and hide ads - only possible if the adblocker also has element hiding features. Otherwise, the page will end up franskestein-like, with lots of white spaces where ads used to stay.

As for me, the several errors I usually find with maintained filters lower my trust on them. I don't really think Privoxy's filter is gonna be very different from other popular ones, so I'm now only blocking really annoying ads on interesting pages that are worth the effort. I'm an IE8 user, so I can use the built-in InPrivate Filtering feature for this boring task." }-

1. The ads are not downloaded. That's a point because there are a few pseudo-blockers that only prevent display but not download.
2. In place of the blocked ad (or various images so freely used) is a checkerboard pattern to let you know that an ad (or image) has been blocked here. Some people don't like it, some do as an indication of just how effective the block has been.
3. I have used Palant's AdBlock Plus (the ideal blocker, IMO) but the problem is that he refuses to recode for the Webkit engine, which is fair enough. He has made a version for Gecko (K-Meleon) but I haven't tried it.
4. I don't use the various filter lists. I make up mine as I go along, as you do for sites that matter.
5. The main plus of the proxy route is that it's just the one blocker needed for whichever browser for those pesky sites.

[SirPeterPan]

-{ Quote: "1. The ads are not downloaded. That's a point because there are a few pseudo-blockers that only prevent display but not download." }-
I know there are better ways to define these actions, but anyways, what I personally meant with "block ads" is just this: forbidden ad download. With "hide ads" I meant not show the ad, including the element of the page that it occupied.

-{ Quote: "2. In place of the blocked ad (or various images so freely used) is a checkerboard pattern to let you know that an ad (or image) has been blocked here. Some people don't like it, some do as an indication of just how effective the block has been." }-
I agree that not blocking the element can be an indication of a partial success, but only all ads out with their elements, no relative problems and faster page loading together can be an indication of full success.

-{ Quote: "5. The main plus of the proxy route is that it's just the one blocker needed for whichever browser for those pesky sites." }-
Another plus is that it probably blocks ads on all apps, not only browsers. But I don't find ads on Garena or WLM (the only 2 apps I use that display ads) to be annoying to the point that Privoxy should be considered here.

[hugsy]

Firefox with adblockplus and noscript

[mrgigabyte]

Ad Muncher

[Tiago Lopes 11]

I use the firefox antipopup and the antibanner from KIS 2011

[ExtremeGamerBR]

I use Opera with Fanboy AdBlock.

[noone_particular]

I don't have a problem with the idea of having ads on a page or site to help pay for it. When the ads are trying to track you, dropping their own cookies, flashing or being obnoxious, it's another story. If advertizers would exercize a little common sense, a lot of people who block all ads might view things differently, but they never seem to know when to stop. Their stinking greed overrides any sense they might have had. I don't need ads in the middle of what I'm trying to read. I don't want flashing distractions or ads with audio blasting at me while I have music playing. As long as advertizers keep using "in your face" methods, I'll keep blocking them.

[safeguy]

I do block ads for various personal reasons and am aware of both sides of the story - pros and cons of doing so. It's an individual choice made after considerable thinking.

Basically, I just use an ad-block add-on or filter with each browser I use...the popular ones that has been mentioned countless times here.

Morals? Ethics? Money-making for sites? That's a space to be argued upon at a later time...

[Ibrad]

After trying to stay away from Ad blockers as long as possible I am finally putting one on each of my machines. Its not because I dislike the ads but I keep having malware attempts to come through them, and I have slow net and when ad's load it really slows down my speed. I will be allowing ads on sites I want to support but for the rest I have Adblock Plus and Ghostery protecting me.

[mrpink]

Adblock for Chrome and urlfilter.ini for Opera. It doesn't block the text ads though

[ESQ_ERRANT]

AdMuncher.

[Oremina]

Hosts file and Firefox with Adblock Plus.

[Rampastein]

Adblock Plus and KIS' Anti-Banner. A very effective combo.

[halcyon]

I consider tracking to be part of the net ad issue, so I lump them together:

ALL
- HostsMan with hpHosts (Ad and tracking servers only) + Peter Lowe's AdServers List
- If you just blindly click "all lists" you will get a huge HOSTS file that will kill your DNS reliability at least in Windows 7

Firefox
- Adblock Plus with EasyList + EasyPrivacy + Fanboy Annoyances + Fanbooy Tracking/Stats + Malware Domains
- Adblock Element Hiding Helper for my own personal blockings
- SpywareBlaster for blocked cookies (tracking)
- Allow only Session cookies

Opera
- Fanboy's urlfilter.ini With Stat/Tracking Sites
- Fanboy's Optimised Eelment Filter

Chrome
- Used SRWare iron, but it is not updated fast enough for me, now back to Google Chrome build
- Adblock with lists from above
- Click&Clean for removing LSO and other cookies
- Ghostery

IE - not used at all