Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 400488
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Well, the verdict is clear: there is no comparison, especially with the *one Firefox extension that everyone uses* that you wonder how users of other browsers can do without.
You mean this one?
http://tinyurl.com/yfbarc4
Well, the verdict is clear: there is no comparison, especially with the *one Firefox extension that everyone uses* that you wonder how users of other browsers can do without.
Could you please be specific on what that one extension is? The people that I know personally that use FF, myself included, don't use any extensions at all.
RE[2]: chrome vs firefox
by sbergman27 on Sun 20th Dec 2009 18:41
in reply to "RE: chrome vs firefox"
I decided to give Chrome a chance since it now supports extensions. Has firefox finally met its match?
Well, the verdict is clear: there is no comparison, especially with the *one Firefox extension that everyone uses* that you wonder how users of other browsers can do without.
I don't care how fast or how many other features other browsers have. I refuse to use an internet that's full of junk that I'm not interested in.
Well, the verdict is clear: there is no comparison, especially with the *one Firefox extension that everyone uses* that you wonder how users of other browsers can do without.
I don't care how fast or how many other features other browsers have. I refuse to use an internet that's full of junk that I'm not interested in.
If you are talking about Adblock, be aware that the ad-blocking extensions for Chrome don't really block ads so much as hide them from view. Your bandwidth and page-loading time will still be consumed for someone to send you advertising content, even if that content is not displayed to you.
http://www.chromeplugins.org/google/chrome-plugins/blocking-ads-hid...
Edited 2009-12-21 11:53 UTC
If you are talking about Adblock, be aware that the ad-blocking extensions for Chrome don't really block ads so much as hide them from view. Your bandwidth will still be consumed for someone to send you advertising content, even if that content is not displayed to you.
Plus, they can still feed you with all those crunchy cookies to track you across the net. There's currently no match for Adblock Plus on Chrome simply because AFAIK Chrome does not have an API for content filtering (yet). Probably for good reason as advertisement is Google's bread and butter business and it shouldn't be *too* easy (that is: impossible) to write an efficient and effective advertisement blocker.
RE[2]: chrome vs firefox
by sbergman27 on Mon 21st Dec 2009 16:49
in reply to "RE: chrome vs firefox"
If you are talking about Adblock, be aware that the ad-blocking extensions for Chrome don't really block ads so much as hide them from view. Your bandwidth and page-loading time will still be consumed for someone to send you advertising content, even if that content is not displayed to you.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Which is exactly what people need for supporting sites they care about (like OSNews) while sparing themselves the pain of the seething, gyrating ads.
All AdBlocking software should have that option.
And I'm wondering comments googleninja might have about this, since his view on the topic of ad blockers differs from that of many of us.
Edited 2009-12-21 16:52 UTC





Member since:
2007-01-22
I decided to give Chrome a chance since it now supports extensions. Has firefox finally met its match?
Well, the verdict is clear: there is no comparison, especially with the *one Firefox extension that everyone uses* that you wonder how users of other browsers can do without.
I don't care how fast or how many other features other browsers have. I refuse to use an internet that's full of junk that I'm not interested in.