fastest method for blocking ads in Firefox

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by WSFuser, Oct 26, 2006.

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

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    1) adblock (plus)

    2) using a CSS file (like this one)

    or

    3) using a 3rd party program (like Ad Muncher)

    Im wondering which has the least impact on the time for loading sites. any opinions?
     
  2. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,699
    Hello,
    The CSS hides the ads. They are loaded but not shown.
    AdBlock actually blocks them. They are not loaded.
    Did not try AdMuncher but did try Proxo - does a solid job, although Adblock is simpler and faster.
    My vote goes for Adblock - haven't felt any deterioration in speed or quality of displayed content. Au contraire.
    Mrk
     
  3. King FN Kong

    King FN Kong Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    134
    admuncher would do a very good job. once you have it on, you dont have to configure any of your other browsers to block any ads. saved me a lot of time.
     
  4. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    Ad blocking is a must when your average download speed is 2.5kb/s. (The best dialup in the world! :eek: )

    I've tried Proxomitron, AdBlock and Ad Muncher. I chose Ad Muncher because it blocked the most ads without breaking things. AdBlock works but it's not nearly as aggresive as Ad Muncher (not to mention FF only.) And while I believe that the Proxomitron may potentially be the strongest of the 3, I did not have the time to learn how to make it work like I needed it to. And none of the filters I tried worked as well for me as Ad Muncher.

    So I bought 2 Ad Muncher licenses. :D
     
  5. sukarof

    sukarof Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Posts:
    1,714
    Location:
    Stockholm Sweden
    I only use adblock plus for Firefox. Adblock was the main reason I started to look at Firefox in the first place a couple of years ago. I havent seen any ads since then :)
    I have never tried third party ad blocking tools (well I did have proxomitron installed way back when IE clones was my browser).
    Adblock doesnt have any negative impact at all IME regarding loading times.
    I have learned that there is no use of external adblockers (or antispyware, with noscript installed, for that matter) with Firefox.

    For a while I did have Hostsman installed and it took care of all the ads in IE and Opera. Hostsman filters blocks every ad server in the hosts file. But since I dont use those browsers anymore it is redundant.
     
  6. iceni60

    iceni60 ( ^o^)

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    5,116
    adblock might be better than adblock plus because i think adblock plus has a memory problem. i'd diffinately switch them if you use adblock plus
     
  7. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    im trialing ad muncher atm, and so far i like the new version (tho i wish memory usage was as small as the installer :D).

    its hard to say if its faster than adblock plus tho.
     
  8. Alphalutra1

    Alphalutra1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Posts:
    1,160
    Location:
    127.0.0.0/255.0.0.0
    HOST file would definately be one of the fastest since it will block the DNS request from traveling beyond your computer. However, I think admuncher or adblock would be pretty fast too. I just use Opera with Proxomitron (not the fastest, but definately the most powerful) though, so sorry I can't help anymore.

    Alphalutra1
     
  9. nadirah

    nadirah Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    3,647
    BEST methods:
    1) HOSTS File ( Use a reputable one such as MVPS Hosts file.)
    2) Adblock plus ( almost everything is automated with no noticeable impact on performance.)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.