Admucher vs Adblock Plus

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by mattdocs12345, Aug 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mattdocs12345

    mattdocs12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Posts:
    1,892
    Location:
    US
    Interesting. Thank you I did not know it. Hopefully next version will come out soon and have https support as well.
     
  2. demoneye

    demoneye Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Posts:
    1,356
    Location:
    ISRHell
    the simple true is this , if u are using AM or ADB , you will never notice any advantages using am over adp on each other ...

    both do same job , and do it well . so my choice will be ADP rather than pay!
     
  3. Techwiz

    Techwiz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Posts:
    541
    Location:
    United States
    @arsenaloyal

    You mean for a-retentive users such as myself :) Unless my desktop starts to spam me with advertisements directly, which I would interpret as an infection; I just couldn't justify installing a full bodied applications as opposed to a light weight add-on. I've not run into any trustworthy freeware that hasn't made it fairly simple to block/filter advertisements from a firewall. So I'm curious to known what you are using these applications for that is not already covered?
     
  4. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    It's basically a thread that can do nothing but go around in circles and is rather pointless. The AM dev will refute that ABP is equally as good and so will AM users, and ABP users will come back with "nuh uh", and AM users will come back with "yuh huh" and so on and so forth. The simple truth is it boils down to preference and how one feels about the development or lack thereof of either solution.
     
  5. chrcol

    chrcol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Posts:
    982
    Location:
    UK
    last time I used I did notice slowdowns but they were not that bad, I havent used it for at least 2 or more years now so obviously if its improved in that time I wouldnt know. Admuncher was defenitly not the worst adblocker I have used so I hope my comment wasnt seen as a dig as it wasnt.

    incidently abp breaks this site, I couldnt use quick reply function, so I excluded this site now, at least the exclude function works on it ;)
     
  6. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    I've never, ever had ABP break Wilders. Breaking usually involves some script being blocked and there really aren't even any scripts on the site to break. All I have to do is allow Wilders in NoScript and the site functions flawlessly.
     
  7. chrcol

    chrcol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Posts:
    982
    Location:
    UK
    It doesnt break in FF, but breaks on IE.
     
  8. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    That could have something to do with ABP for IE being new and buggy. Reports of issues are still ongoing and are to be expected. IE is a different animal.
     
  9. arsenaloyal

    arsenaloyal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    513
    I am no AdMuncher fanatic nor are the AdMuncher devs paying me to type here, I would one of the first people to raise my hands and say that its not perfect.
    I only began using AdMuncher about 3 years ago,infact before AdMuncher I was fairly happy ABP user. I did not want to be tied to a particular browser so as to not get Ads,I also used applications that were not browsers that displayed ads and AdMuncher blocked ads in those applications as well,also as I mentioned in my earlier post ABP is was leaking memory in my systems with lots of tabs open which pushed me towards a dedicated application to block Ads rather than a simple browser based add-on. Now it is safe to say that I wont be going back to browser based add-ons anymore.

    That's precisely the reason why I was reluctant to post in this thread and I questioned the validity of this thread,but if Mods and fine with it then I see no reason not to post.
     
  10. mattdocs12345

    mattdocs12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Posts:
    1,892
    Location:
    US
    As far as I know rules are rules AvsB applies to AVs only. So why would you question validity of this thread? I want to know which one is better and which sets of features are better or worse. I didn't know that AM doesn't block HTTP adds and about the ABP memory leaks. I don't understand why you insist on questioning validity of a thread that is informative to someone.
     
  11. Moore

    Moore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Posts:
    82
    Location:
    land of ?z
    Re: AdmuNcher vs Adblock Plus

    Exactly. There's no way for me or anyone to tell you that X is better for you over Y software. You have to work it out and decide for yourself.

    --

    I'm going to throw a spanner in the mix and say you don't need either.

    I don't use Adblock plus because I think there are much better alternatives, which I'll mention below..

    I've been a licensed user of Admuncher for many years, and in my opinion it really is the best ad blocker you can buy. It's kind of like a pro version of Proxomitron.

    Some of the more recent changes didn't really appeal to me though, and I've continued to look for the perfect ad blocking system.

    I've also been an Outpost Pro user for about ten years now, which also offers decent ad blocking options. I have those options always disabled.

    What I actually use everyday to handle ads in Firefox, is NoScript & Request Policy, which are both free. (well I have a ton of addons, but those two are really all you need for blocking just about anything)

    With Request Policy (don't use the beta 1 version) you never need to worry about blocking ads, updating subscriptions to ad lists or having to deal with other people's issues such as whitelisting ads that may sooner or later infect your computer with malware.

    I also use Karma Blocker as a backup for cases where I like to selectively block something on a site that is allowed in NoScript or Request Policy.

    With one rule in Karma Blocker I can eliminate all google tracking, ads and services, but exclude the url for googles hosted js libraries that a lot of sites use. Karma Blocker is a lot lighter overall than AdBlock.

    Code:
    rule=$url=~'(\b(?:plusone|fonts|www)\.)[^ajax]?google(?:\-analytics|syndication|adservices|apis|tagmanager|tagservices)\.'
    
    --

    I use these instead of any software I've paid for, basically because this combination gives me 100% more control than any of the alternatives that I paid for.

    The only annoying thing I can think of with Admuncher for me is the choice I'm forced to make, to either use the whole default filter blocklist or not use it all. ( Last time I looked -> )There is no option to selectively remove or disable any entries added by Admuncher that I don't want enabled. And so I am forced to build my own filter list for Admuncher..

    Not everyone was born an IP Hunter / Ad Hunter, or has time or knowledge to build their own blocklists, so if you prefer that someone else decides for you on what to block, then a paid solution is probably a better and more reliable choice. They know more about blocking ads than you probably do, it's their job.

    In the end I just stopped using Admuncher altogether. After discovering Karma Blocker, I like how it doesn't restrict me from doing (almost) anything.

    If I didn't have Karma Blocker, I'd be using .pac file which also supports javascript regex and is 100 times more powerful than a hosts file.

    Acrylic DNS also offers regex filtering and is free too..

    By the way, the title prob should be admuncher, not admucher ;)
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
  12. JeffreyCole

    JeffreyCole Developer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Posts:
    433
    Re: AdmuNcher vs Adblock Plus

    Thanks for the kind words. :)

    What changes? I can't think of anything we are doing now that could be considered a step backwards from how we used to do it...

    Could you elaborate?


    Ad Muncher removes all google ads and all google tracking from all sites, by default without breaking any sites, since Ad Muncher replaces the missing javascript functions when needed and has done so for years.

    Ad Muncher does this of course for every browser ever made without the end user having to do anything.


    This is simply not true.

    There are only 3 default filtering categories that can't be disabled by the end user, and that's due to their nature and is in no way a negative.

    These 3 categories are.
    Don't Match against keyword
    No Filtering on URL
    Minimal Filtering on URL

    These 3 are used to fix sites only so the end user would have no reason to ever disable or over ride them.

    The remaining filter types listed here CAN be overridden by the end user:

    Add CSS to all pages
    Add javascript to all pages

    For these two you could just add more CSS or JS to replace or override the default one. Alternately a "minimal filtering on URL" or a "no filtering on URL" disables JS/CSS additions on a per site or per page basis.

    Block retrieval of URL
    Remove divs/spans with text
    Remove images/etc with URL
    Remove links to URL
    Remove scripts with text
    Remove forms with text
    Remove tables with text

    Can all be overridden quite easily by either a "Don't Match against Keyword" or "No Filtering on URL" filter.

    With all that being said, the end user shouldn't need to disable a filter.

    if Ad Muncher isn't removing something it should or is allowing something it shouldn't or is causing some form of page damage,
    I am available through out the day and night 7 days a week via e-mail, the forum or the IRC chat room and I give each and
    every person customized support.

    I would love for you to use your existing license and try Ad Muncher again and see If I can solve whatever issues you still may have.

    it's what I do and I love doing it. :)


    The correct spelling and capitalization is, "Ad Muncher" :)

    peace, out!
     
  13. kupo

    kupo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,121
    Not really, AdMuncher can't block ads in https. That's a fact. Adblock Plus needs to have extensions installed to browsers you want to block ads to, another fact. This time, it is obvious that Adblock Plus is better than AdMuncher because of three things.
    1. Adblock Plus can block ads in https.
    2. Adblock Plus is free.
    3. Adblock Plus is still being developed (actively!).
    The only advantage to AdMuncher is that it supports all browser without extensions. But to me that is not really a good advantage as it means that Adblock Plus doesn't need to run a process. And unless the version of AdMuncher that can block https ads, the dev can't come here and say that new version will block https ads to counter the advantage of Adblock Plus, as seeing the development cycle of AdMuncher, I'd say it's pretty much dead. With last release dates back to July 13, 2012, I doubt they are still working on it. The only thing they are doing right now is filter updates. This filter updates doesn't justify in how costly AdMuncher costs, there are different bunch of lists in different formats available which are free. Even the mvps hosts file does a fine job (though not better than Adblock Plus and AdMuncher, but still fine) in blocking ads.
     
  14. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,738
    Re: AdmuNcher vs Adblock Plus

    There are tons of ways to block ads, some of which Moore posted. I have no clue why this AvsB thread even exists, except for a loophole in the rules.

    Anyways, I would personally choose a capable free product over a paid one (without loyalty to) any day. Being an Adblock Plus user, I see virtually no ads by default, plus get to choose from many subscriptions and add my own rules.
    What does Ad Muncher offer other than better resource usage in unlikely scenarios like 100+ of tabs? Is it better than a HOSTS file at that? If I really needed the RAM, I'd just use a DNS service like FoolDNS.

    Seriously, I don't see the hype or need for 1-on-1 comparisons when almost all adblockers have ~98+% detection rate. That's just like AV AvsB, hence I don't see why this thread should continue with the rules as it is, even with less rabid fanboys in place.
     
  15. JeffreyCole

    JeffreyCole Developer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Posts:
    433
    Ad Muncher development is not dead.

    The next version of Ad Muncher will filter SSL sites.

    And "just filter updates" isn't nothing, it's everything.

    If ABP had no filter list to subscribe to it wouldn't filter anything...

    There is a new Ad Muncher filter list update every 12 hours, fixing sites and removing new ads. I don't see how that isn't just awesome.

    Ad Muncher in its CURRENT form doesn't need binary updates. it's fast and reliable and never crashes.

    v5.x which will be an entirely different and more powerful beast, WILL be getting updates. v5.x is a complete rewrite, taking all of the knowledge we've acquired from our past mistakes and successes during our 14 years and putting it into a new product. That's not something you just slap together.

    As for free...

    If something is free, you are the product, not the customer.

    This has been shown by the recent actions of and revelations about ABP.

    Frankly this is just the beginning in my opinion.

    With Ad Muncher, you are the customer, we have ZERO incentive to ever spy on you or lie to you.

    We care about each and every one of our customers, without which we'd have failed as a company many many years ago.

    In my opinion, free does not always equal better.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
  16. kupo

    kupo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,121
    I know that filter list is everything in an ad blocker. But again, for me, IMO, it still doesn't justify in how costly AdMuncher is, the premium version that is. 12 hours is awesome and so is the maintainers of ABP filters. ;)
     
  17. JeffreyCole

    JeffreyCole Developer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Posts:
    433

    The cost is a separate issue.

    What is the BEST ad blocker is the question.

    As for the specific price, we offer a range of price points so it isn't just one price.

    There are also many things that Ad Muncher can do that no other ad blocker on the planet can do.

    If I listed them all specifically it would be a small novella.

    Two quick ones. hulu and adfly.

    ABP can't deal with these.
     
  18. kupo

    kupo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,121
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
  19. JeffreyCole

    JeffreyCole Developer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Posts:
    433
    I just clearly stated they are blocked and have been since march of this year.

    Don't believe anyone but me since my information will be current. ;p

    his comment is from january.

    and I said march.

    Also, nothing will stop us for long.

    this is our destiny.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
  20. kupo

    kupo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,121
    If you say so. :D
     
  21. mattdocs12345

    mattdocs12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    Posts:
    1,892
    Location:
    US
    Thank you Jeffery for your input. Any idea on when version 5 will be ready?
     
  22. chrcol

    chrcol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Posts:
    982
    Location:
    UK
    Re: AdmuNcher vs Adblock Plus

    thanks for this info, I agree ABP is defenitly heavy for firefox and may try your alternatives.

    noscript I already use, its more a security filter than ad filter, if I use noscript without ABP ads do still appear.

    The issue I have with noscript however is on sites eg. where submit payments, the script has often blocked the payment page from working properly and as a result I have to do things like submit payments twice or have submitted a payment without it registering with the company, so noscript sadly does have its issues. I feel noscript needs some kind of whitelist for payment processor sites.
     
  23. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,639
    Re: AdmuNcher vs Adblock Plus

    You could just tell NoScript to temporarily allow all scripts when you are on such sites.
     
  24. chrcol

    chrcol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Posts:
    982
    Location:
    UK
    Re: AdmuNcher vs Adblock Plus

    I been experimenting with a new firefox config mainly because ABP (or any clone of it) is ram hungry.

    Since javascript only exploits are rare in patched browsers, I set noscript to auto temp whitelist the domain I am visiting (considering whitelisting globally but that allows too much bloat to load on sites so probably wont), I installed request policy, which seems a bit buggy but works ok and blocks pretty much all ads. But now youtube.

    So on noscript I unticked the apply embeddings restrictions to whitelist. The main reason been the click to play flash breaks the youtube hd plugin, seems that requires the video to play right away without interaction, I could have just excempted flash and left rest of embeddings restricted on whitelisted sites but the fine tuning of ABE had me curious plus this config was making firefox behave like IE with youtube videos hanging before playing as they half trying to load ads.

    So I applied a default deny config on ABE (which makes up for unticking the whitelist restrictions) and added exceptions for sites as I need, but my youtube looks like this, this allows youtube to work without click to play and no pauses/ads. at start of videos. I believe those Deny lines arent needed so will likely remove them to tidy up as is a deny at end.

    Site .youtube.com
    Accept from .youtube.com .ytimg.com
    Deny

    Site .i1.ytimg.com
    Accept from .youtube.com
    Deny

    the i1.ytimg.com is needed to allow the video preview icon to work when hovering over the timeline, when I set to .ytimg.com it had the pause at start of videos because of .s.ytimg.com which should be blocked for a good experience.

    Currently my firefox memory usage is about 40% down now.
     
  25. AVusah

    AVusah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2012
    Posts:
    274
    The chrome extension "Adblock" works extremely well, and it's very easy to add items to the blocklist as well.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.