Best (CPU light) Adblocker? Topic is solved
Moderators: FranklinDM, Lootyhoof
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 556
- Joined: 2018-04-20, 20:31
Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Lately the times when Pale Moon would hang on me and CPU usage would go above 100% became too frequent to ignore. So, I decided to do something, and that something was disabling uBlock Origin and see what happens. Interestingly enough, things improved very quickly after a restart, everything got snappier. Unfortunately, uMatrix just does not know how to combat the smart YT ads no matter which scripts I block, so I begrudgingly put uBlock back on. For some reason, for the last hour, CPU has been at the respectable level of 50% even though uBlock is back on.
So, provided turning an add-on off and on was not a permanent solution, what other good adblockers are there? I am specifically talking about CPU light and working well with PM.
So, provided turning an add-on off and on was not a permanent solution, what other good adblockers are there? I am specifically talking about CPU light and working well with PM.
- Pentium4User
- Board Warrior
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 2019-04-24, 09:38
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Why don't try ABL: https://addons.palemoon.org/addon/adblock-latitude/
The profile picture shows my Maico EC30 E ceiling fan.
- back2themoon
- Moon Magic practitioner
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: 2012-08-19, 20:32
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
No adblocker should cause 100% CPU usage under normal conditions. You need to find the underlying issue (extension clashes, incompatible extensions, filter list issues, security software, corrupt profile etc.)
Safe Mode / clean profile info: Help/Restart in Safe Mode
Information to include when asking for support - How to apply user agent overrides
How to auto-fill passwords
Windows 10 Pro x64
Information to include when asking for support - How to apply user agent overrides
How to auto-fill passwords
Windows 10 Pro x64
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Also are you still using uMatrix? It has been discontinued, and there's already the fork eMatrix for Pale Moon maintained by vannilla.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
I use uBo and do not have the problems the OP is having. Are you using the newest version 1.16.4.26?
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Maybe you have too many extensions and too many unnecessarily selected lists in the adblock.
My adblock has now:
54.811 network filters + 26.658 cosmetic filters
My adblock has now:
54.811 network filters + 26.658 cosmetic filters
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 556
- Joined: 2018-04-20, 20:31
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
I believe I was using the fork all this time.
By the way, to the user who brought up extension clashes, you might be right on the money, since I also disabled a few extensions I was not actively using anyway. That must have contributed and brought the average CPU usage to a below 100% number. Regardless, things are less sluggish and PM crashes way less when I quit.
THIS is my nMatrix version, it has the be the fork, right?
P.S. To whoever moved my thread here, much thanks.
- Attachments
-
- Screenshot 2020-11-28 at 09.17.00.png (7.83 KiB) Viewed 1485 times
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Yup, this is the one. Also you're right about extension clashes, as far as possible avoid having more than one extension for doing the same thing that requires monitoring your system or browser resources. Applies to adblockers and anti virus solutions, they can conflict with each other. For example, Clean Links has been forked for Pale Moon now, and it does the same as Pure URL. Both of them hook into outgoing http requests to modify them as well as injecting resources into web pages to get rid of parameters, so choose between one or the other or it could lead to unexpected behavior.KlarkKentThe3rd wrote: ↑2020-11-28, 14:19THIS is my nMatrix version, it has the be the fork, right?
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 556
- Joined: 2018-04-20, 20:31
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Problem is, nMatrix is not enough to defeat the beast that is YouTube Ads.
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Oh it combined with uBlock Origin is more than enough. I have never got any ads on Youtube ever. And like I've said before, adblockers aren't magic that you install them and forget about them and they do their business. You have to configure them properly, especially eMatrix since it will break all sites due to being blacklist by default.
You have to use common sense to figure out when a 3rd party server is just a CDN for the site in question and is required to load images/scripts for the site to work - and when it is an entirely different analytics/tracking/advertising site that can be blocked globally everywhere without losing anything. Doubleclick is the biggest culprit and serves up Youtube ads as well.
You have to use common sense to figure out when a 3rd party server is just a CDN for the site in question and is required to load images/scripts for the site to work - and when it is an entirely different analytics/tracking/advertising site that can be blocked globally everywhere without losing anything. Doubleclick is the biggest culprit and serves up Youtube ads as well.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
- jobbautista9
- Keeps coming back
- Posts: 784
- Joined: 2020-11-03, 06:47
- Location: Philippines
- Contact:
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Don't you mean whitelist by default?
merry mimas
XUL add-ons developer. You can find a list of add-ons I manage at http://rw.rs/~job/software.html.
Mima avatar by 絵虎. Pixiv post: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/15431817
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
As in it blacklists everything by default, not about you having to create a whitelist by default.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 556
- Joined: 2018-04-20, 20:31
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Anyway, I looked at uBlock Origin's description again, took notice of the "legacy" and "not really built for Pale Moon" parts, and deleted it. Replaced with Latitude, seeing it is a PM fork. Just to be extra sure and minimize the dreaded rainbow wheel of death.
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
What do you mean? It's listed on Pale Moon's extension page.KlarkKentThe3rd wrote: ↑2020-11-30, 15:20Anyway, I looked at uBlock Origin's description again, took notice of the "legacy" and "not really built for Pale Moon" parts, and deleted it.
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 556
- Joined: 2018-04-20, 20:31
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
To me, someone who is not knowledgeable, it looks like something less reliable than a direct fork.ron_1 wrote: ↑2020-11-30, 15:28What do you mean? It's listed on Pale Moon's extension page.KlarkKentThe3rd wrote: ↑2020-11-30, 15:20Anyway, I looked at uBlock Origin's description again, took notice of the "legacy" and "not really built for Pale Moon" parts, and deleted it.
Anyway, Latitude failed amazingly at removing a YT ad. What a great add-on.
- Pentium4User
- Board Warrior
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: 2019-04-24, 09:38
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
I now checked it, the video ads (that are the most annoying ads I know) are history with Latitude.
The profile picture shows my Maico EC30 E ceiling fan.
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 556
- Joined: 2018-04-20, 20:31
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Well, did NOT work on my machine.
EDIT: I don't care if having both nMatrix and UBO might cause some extra slowdowns, reinstalled UBO because it ACTUALLY WORKS. Interestingly enough, UBO remembers my per-domain preferences. Guess removing an add-on does not remove its preferences.
EDIT: I don't care if having both nMatrix and UBO might cause some extra slowdowns, reinstalled UBO because it ACTUALLY WORKS. Interestingly enough, UBO remembers my per-domain preferences. Guess removing an add-on does not remove its preferences.
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Adblock Latitude, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER ADBLOCKER OUT THERE, needs you to select filter list subscriptions. The default settings may not work for your use. Don't blame the tool for the filters.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 556
- Joined: 2018-04-20, 20:31
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
Darn, didn't know. Will reinstall and tinker with.
Still I am weirded out by UBO remembering my setting after I uninstalled it.
Re: Best (CPU light) Adblocker?
KlarkKentThe3rd wrote: ↑2020-11-30, 19:32Still I am weirded out by UBO remembering my setting after I uninstalled it.
Off-topic:
It saves its settings in a file unrelated to the browser's default preferences system, i.e. it does not use about:config.
Of course that file is not deleted on uninstall, so that's why the settings are still there.
It saves its settings in a file unrelated to the browser's default preferences system, i.e. it does not use about:config.
Of course that file is not deleted on uninstall, so that's why the settings are still there.