Ad Muncher 50% off

I just re-installed Ad Muncher and I have not been able to play with it much "yet"

But first thing on duckduckgo I got this in the process bar "waiting on interceptedby admuncher.com"

the duck icon will not be center in the screen, it will be towards the top untill you click reload or if you wait the "waiting on interceptedby admuncher.com" will leave the screen and at the same time the icon will then drop to the middle where it should be

now with that being said I have not been able to reproduce it on another page, but as I said I just re-installed it,
I will keep playing with it and make notes on pages this happens on and I will get back to you

Critter

 

The interceptedby admuncher.com domain is inside Ad Muncher and never leaves your computer.

It's a normal connection so it would only fail if something was blocking it.

a 3rd party browser add-on for example.

I have Chrome, Opera, Firefox and IE and it works flawlessly in all of them.

 

For those that don't want to pay there is Adfender alternative.

 

Adfender is garbage, go ahead and try it. I tried all of the free alternatives and they either bug pages or drastically slow browsing. Please, try them and then come back and let's discuss the findings. Adguard is powerful and free but watch what it does to your browsing. Ghostery is nice, but wait - did you see who owns ghostery? It's one of the biggest data mining companies around! Bottom line - while there are free alternatives, none of them hold a candle to Admuncher.

FYI I use DuckDuckgo all of the time and have never had a problem. Based on what you are saying I would bet you have something on your system conflicting, or it's time for a fresh install of Windows. I recommend disabling ALL adblock type programs in your browsers and on the PC. Adblock, Ghostery, DNT, etc. They may conflict, and are not needed with AM installed in my opinion.

 

We may be talking about two different things. What I was talking about was current versions (as opposed to "older" versions) no longer able to receive advert updates and in order to receive advert updates a person was forced to upgrade to a beta build. There are plenty of posts and topics in the AM forum that are on point with this issue. Is that forcing someone to upgrade to a beta build to continue receiving advert updates? Yes, I think so. Is it a negative thing in the big picture of things? No, probably not, if the beta releases are stable, which they normally are.
And BTW I have AM installed on every computer I own, probably 5 or 6, as I believe in the product. So it's not like I'm trolling or anything like that. But there are some people who will not install beta versions on their computer, no matter how stable they are claimed to be and (unless I missed it somewhere) I don't remember where during the purchase of AM it's stated that upgrades to beta builds are required in order to continue receiving advert list updates. So I can see where it would ruffle some people's feathers to find out about that later on.

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=597&hilit=beta updates

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17574&p=37125&hilit=beta updates#p37125

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3718&p=34458&hilit=beta updates#p34458

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17152&p=35675&hilit=beta updates#p35675

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16823&p=35738&hilit=beta updates#p35738

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17187&p=35792&hilit=beta updates#p35792

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17209&p=35843&hilit=beta updates#p35843

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4098&p=13081&hilit=beta updates#p13081

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4227&hilit=beta updates

http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3269&p=9759&hilit=beta updates#p9759

 

Ok, I disable all add on's and it still does the same thing

then I "removed" all the add on's and it still did not cure the problem
I even went as far as disabling my firewall and I do not run a real time
antivirus

but remember I did try a old version, I think it was 4.72
and it worked great, just couldn't update the filters
so that shows something has changed in Ad Muncher

I'm just going to re-image my system and go back to adblock
for now and wait till version 5 comes out and hope this problem is solved

 

I wouldn't say it's garbage. It's free and blocks adds. Yes it doesn't block everything but works perfectly fine on IE8 and windows XP SP3. I don't have any slow downs in browsing either.

 

Why would it ruffle anyone's feathers if the update is free and is recommended by the developers?

there is no downside, aside from those who just don't like using things labeled "beta"

When changes are made in the beta that require changes in the filter list or visa versa then obviously older versions can't get the same list updates.

that's all it is.

And since my custom filter list is your default list there's no way to maintain two separate filter lists.

I just don't know what else we could possibly do.

 

Did you try more than one browser?

 

""Did you try more than one browser?""

That would not be a fix for the problem and I should not
have to change browser's to fix it

old runs fine
new stalls
something has changed

not trying to get smart, it just needs to be addressed

 

Trying multiple browsers is debugging 101.

If it works in other browsers then there's a 99.9% chance that it's not Ad Muncher.

Of course 4.72 "works" since it doesn't connect to interceptedby admuncher.com.

But that isn't anything special and shouldn't break or cause any problems.

Make sense?

 

""Of course 4.72 "works" since it doesn't connect to interceptedby admuncher.com.""

Well that seems like "interceptedby admuncher.com." needs to be fixed

been using this browser for years, and Ad Muncher worked for years
something has changed, you can either address it or not

 

That's my whole point.

it's not doing anything special or exotic.

it's merely making a connection.

the variable causing it to fail is on your end since I can't duplicate this on any system I have access to nor can anyone I know using Ad Muncher duplicate this.

I know users hate devs saying things like this but in this case it's true.

lastly, did you try another browser?

Ad Muncher may be merely exposing a bug in palemoon.

 

I'll just wait to version 5 and hope this has been resolved
I've been working with system's for a while and this is not in my system
something has changed about Ad Muncher and if I remember right there has
been a few people over on Ad Munchers forums that has been talking
about page stalling problems also, "been awhile" not sure if it relates to this
or not

and if Ad Muncher is supposed to work across many browses then
it should work with palemoon, anyhow I'm done with the subject
for now

we kind of got off base of this thread, I apologize to everyone for
that, this is supposed to be about Ad Muncher 50% off

 

No you didn't, everything you discussed is perfectly on-topic IMO.

 

I can't duplicate your issue. So either something on the system is causing it, or a different browser. I DO NOT recommend the derivative browsers, especially ones compiled with x64 switches. (Pale, Cyber, Waterfox, etc) That's not the proper way to make a 64bit product, it's merely compiling it with x64 switches, which can cause instability. Which is why developers do not use these switches in public builds. Don't you think if there was a realized performance gain with no downsides, developers themselves wouldn't just fire off the X64 switches and ship them? There is a reason they don't do this, and there is a reason people don't run those products. Anyone can grab the source, toss it in a compiler and hit a few switches and call it a 'brand new, faster, 64 bit version!', that doesn't make it right, nor faster. If I was the Admuncher Dev I wouldn't spend a second of my time addressing these ridiculous X64 compiled home brews that a few thousand people run. I give him credit, I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't authorize any of my programmers to do it. So maybe cut him some slack?

Try Chrome, IE, Firefox Proper. Can you duplicate it?

The key here is isolating the problem through the process of elimination. To toss up your hands and walk off won't solve this for you, and potentially someone else. Often times these things can expose problems that help both parties, and many down the road. Here you have a developer talking with you directly, asking for information to help resolve a problem only you are facing. What more can you ask for? I should be throwing pails of money at Admuncher for this kind of tech support. So I would relax, and try to find the issue. I have now tried Admuncher with 6-7 different browsers on snapshots, and cannot duplicate your issue. (but didn't try the X64 hack builds, and I won't) There is nothing more I can do on my end to try and help with this, now it's up to you, and the developer.

 

Another reason why I love Ad Muncher so much the support is top notch!

 

I think you have just explained why people have to use the beta builds. Whereas you stated twice earlier in this thread there is no such thing as a forced beta policy. I suppose it is forced only if people want to continue getting advert updates. The beta builds don't bother me all that much because they have always been stable. But there certainly a contradiction between saying there is no forced beta policy vs. saying you only have to use a beta if you want to continue getting the daily or weekly advert updates which you have paid for already by purchasing a license. I think most people don't believe they'll have to use beta builds when purchasing their license and that's probably what ruffles feathers when they find out differently later on. All that is premised on whether the EULA explains such. Saying that though, I understand your situation with updates and it doesn't really bother me...I just don't agree that there is no forced beta policy.

 

First of all the Palemoon that I am running is not 64 bit it is 32 bit
and palemoon is a respected browser not a cheap ripoff derivative
of firefox, actually "in my opinion" way better than firefox

You can either believe something has change about Ad Muncher
or not, even the developer said version 4.72 didn't have
"interceptedby admuncher.com", this is most likely where the
real problem is. I "think" there has been "some complaints"
about this very subject over on the Ad Muncher forums

Anyhow I'm going back "already have" to AdBlock for now"
and when version 5 comes out "we will see"

 

Now we are getting somewhere. What's the point of Palemoon32? Nevertheless, now we know you are running perhaps the oddest, and least run browser out there. Maybe we can install that and test it. I will try if I get a change to do that on a snapshot, then roll back. If I get the bug, I will report it to Jeff. Palemoon is several versions behind standard, which isn't a good thing as it is loaded with exploits from those incarnations of the Mozilla source. Why run it?

I don't understand why you guys are giving him beef. He's here to answer questions but the answers don't seem to placate you. Remember, the vast majority of folks are running Admuncher perfectly fine. I bought the thing last week because it ran so good, and made browsing so much quicker. That was AFTER trying it for a couple days with 6-7 browsers, and ensuring compatibility with over 1000 websites in some rapid fire 'attempt to break' sessions before buying it.

Arguing over old betas, and niche browsers seems .. Odd.

 

Palemoon 64 is faster than Firefox. The only reason I don't use it is because third party apps such as Admuncher, Outpost, etc don't support it yet. So the fault is no of the Palemoon side but the applications that don't support it.

 

I would benchmark it then, and see. So far none of the derivatives seem to be any faster in my marks. But keep in mind a few things;

You are running code that is full of exploits because newer codebase has them patched. Running X15 Mozilla means you have a few dozen unpatched exploits. I often find it better to run more bleeding edge, not behind the curve, which is why I would run Chromium, Canary, of Chrome-Dev, you get exploit fixes sometimes weeks, or even months ahead of the pack. That provides additional protection for most systems. Derivative browsers are almost always well behind the curve, Waterfox didn't release an X17 build because Visual Studio 2011 wouldn't compile it properly, so Waterfox users are stuck until X18, exploits and all. Not to mention the compile switches they use can make these browsers more unstable, and incompatible. Is a few ounces of speed worth that?

You guys need to understand, adding support, or fixing things always requires allocation of man hours. Which are expensive in the development field. Larger companies, this stuff has to pass through different departments, even legal. We are talking more man hours. Even working for small to mid level corporations, we'd have to pass changes through the pyramid, and many wouldn't make it. Allocating resources for a browser that maybe a few hundred people run, probably isn't a good allocation of resources. Which is why I am shocked Jeff is here - trying to help. I would put on his website a list of browsers supported, with the usual "Chrome, Firefox, IE, Maxthon" or whatever, so people don't waste his time on these home-brew compiles. But that's me...

Just my opinion.

 

I see your point. I do not use Palemoon and others anymore. But I do go with ESR.

 

I've got good news for you and bad news.

The good news is I downloaded the portable version of palemoon and tested it.

I did indeed see what you described.

The bad news is this is a bug in that browser.

Anything that makes a connection last when a page is loading or done loading has the potential to "remain" visible on the status bar.

I've seen it now with other domains and 3rd party scripts while browsing with palemoon.

There is bug in the browser where the status bar isn't always cleared properly after a connection has completed.

With that being said, it's merely a cosmetic issue.

it doesn't actually impact performance or the ability to browse.

This issue will be there when v5.x is released because sometimes the admuncher.com domain is the last domain a connection is sent to.

Connecting to that domain is essential for the proper operation of Ad Muncher.

Whether you can live with that is of course up to you but from our end there's nothing we can do.

 

One quick clarification.

Ad Muncher doesn't need to be updated for new browsers or applications.

The way Ad Muncher works is universal and generic and it will filter any application that you, the end user, direct it to via the Filter Targets tab.

So never let the lack of "official" support from Ad Muncher stop any of you from using a new browser or application.

just add the process name to the Filter Targets tab and you're all set.