5 ms·
Yes, AdBlock is more efficient because it doesn't load the ads at all while Chrome/greasemonkey load and hide them. No, I don't think it can be more efficient b
by ntoshev 17y ago
Yes, AdBlock is more efficient because it doesn't load the ads at all while Chrome/greasemonkey load and hide them. No, I don't think it can be more efficient because chrome extensions like greasemonkey scripts cannot modify the page before it is loaded.
I may be wrong, I had only a cursory look at the technology.
- johnnybgoode 17y agoDamn, that's what I was afraid of. Thanks.
- quoderat 17y ago"No, I don't think it can be more efficient because chrome extensions like greasemonkey scripts cannot modify the page before it is loaded." Thus guaranteeing I will never use Chrome.
- ntoshev 17y agoPlain Chrome feels faster than FF with AdBlock even on relatively ad-heavy sites.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- thesethings 17y agoI agree. Chrome is just incredibly fast, and Firefox, on the three major OS's in my life, feels slow after a couple hours of use. In practice, I always have at least 2 different browsers open, one of them usually Firefox, but Chrome is the fastest one, used for surfing, while FF for web-dev/management-y stuff.
- mcav 17y agoWhat about "@run-at document-start"? http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=4478#c5 http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=4478#c5
- ntoshev 17y agoYou're right, I don't know if this is enough (do you get hooks upon loading each resource, etc) but they are definitely working to implement this properly.