Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 21:36 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Internet & Networking Now this is a subject sure to cause some discussion among all of you. LifeHacker's Adam Pash is arguing that Chrome has overtaken Firefox as the browser of choice for what he calls 'power users'; polls among LifeHacker's readership indeed seem to confirm just that. He also gives a number of reasons as to why this is the case.
Thread beginning with comment 442360
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I need NoScript
by WorknMan on Fri 24th Sep 2010 00:08 UTC in reply to "I need NoScript"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Without NoScript, I won't switch to anything. NoScript can offer added security on top of Chrome's current security. I just need the flexibility and added security of NoScript. The web is not as innocent was it was 10 years ago.


I don't use NoScript, but I do use adblock and flashblock. If Chrome has these, I might consider switching. I hear the adblock implementation in Chrome isn't quite full-featured, but not sure why? Does it update automatically with filter subscriptions like FF's adblock plus?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Sep 2010 00:46 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Without NoScript, I won't switch to anything. NoScript can offer added security on top of Chrome's current security. I just need the flexibility and added security of NoScript. The web is not as innocent was it was 10 years ago.
I don't use NoScript, but I do use adblock and flashblock. If Chrome has these, I might consider switching. I hear the adblock implementation in Chrome isn't quite full-featured, but not sure why? Does it update automatically with filter subscriptions like FF's adblock plus? "

For a long while, because of the design of Chrome not Adblock, Adblock couldn't actually block ads on Chrome. Adblock on Chrome was only an "ad hider", and ads would still be downloaded but not actually shown. What was the purpose of that I might ask ... why download the ad and use up the users bandwidth if it wasn't going to be displayed anyway?

However, for a few months now, this has been partially fixed. Now Chrome implements a mechanism whereby Adblock can actually mostly prevent the ads from being downloaded ... mostly. Adblock under Chrome still can't do this for every ad.

Adblock under Firefox has no such limitation.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: I need NoScript
by Liquidator on Fri 24th Sep 2010 03:45 in reply to "RE[2]: I need NoScript"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Adblock actually has an equivalent in Chrome: Install HostsMan and it will prevent you from downloading these ads. Then install Adblock to hide ad placeholders. Problem solved.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I need NoScript
by flanque on Fri 24th Sep 2010 12:14 in reply to "RE[2]: I need NoScript"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

So what you're saying is, there are limitations on the hooks into Chrome which would impact other "Firefox Add-ins"?

Is this just an AdBlock issue or a general extensibility issue with Chrome?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by Morph on Fri 24th Sep 2010 00:50 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
Morph Member since:
2007-08-20

I hear the adblock implementation in Chrome isn't quite full-featured, but not sure why?


The reason is that Chrome doesn't have the equivalent of Firefox's 'content policies'. Firefox allows extensions to install a hook which is called whenever a url is about to be accessed. The extension can then cancel the url request if it is an ad, before any connection is made to the ad server. Chrome doesn't provide this level of control to extensions yet. Chrome adblock extensions have to wait until after the page is fully loaded (including all ads) and then hide the ads from the page using DOM methods. This is why the ads usually appear for a second or two before the blocker nabs them.

http://www.mail-archive.com/chromium-discuss@googlegroups.com/msg04...

Edit: lemur2, do you have a reference to any info about the new mechanism? Thanks!

Edited 2010-09-24 00:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I need NoScript
by lemur2 on Fri 24th Sep 2010 01:05 in reply to "RE[2]: I need NoScript"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Edit: lemur2, do you have a reference to any info about the new mechanism? Thanks!


http://www.webupd8.org/2010/07/chrome-adblock-can-now-block-ads-bef...

It is apparently something that Apple (not Google) added to webkit relatively recently. I don't know any technical specifics, but I'm sure that you can "Google it" to find out. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by bitwelder on Fri 24th Sep 2010 06:29 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

[I hear the adblock implementation in Chrome isn't quite full-featured, but not sure why?

Perhaps because it doesn't play well with Google core interests?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I need NoScript
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 24th Sep 2010 06:46 in reply to "RE[2]: I need NoScript"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

AdBlock on Chrome works just like the one on Firefox, and blocks every ad - it doesn't download them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I need NoScript
by bnolsen on Mon 27th Sep 2010 03:58 in reply to "RE: I need NoScript"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

I don't use adblock at all anymore, just flashblock and noscript. Those two plus disabling animated gifs makes browsing pretty acceptable. I only get annoyed when the overloaded ad servers actually keep my page content from loading as fast as it should.

Reply Parent Score: 2