Web lists-archives.com

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.




On 11/08/2017 11:49 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 11/7/2017 2:27 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
On 11/7/17 7:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 11/6/2017 4:34 PM, Mark12547 wrote:
In article <VJCdnbZ5RKlBUZ3HnZ2dnUU7-IednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, lynnmcguire5
@gmail.com says...
I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has happened.
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137

I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report (comments 14 & 16).

I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker because "rich
content" ads were consuming too many resources and blocking the
rendering of the web page until the "rich content" had finished playing.
It's ironic that today ads are still consuming too many resources, even
when our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well as faster
and larger computer systems.

At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means they haven't
forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get any traction before the
teething problems of the Firefox Quantum 57 rollout is complete.

Gotcha.

One of the resolutions might be to include a minimal ad blocker inside
FireFox.  It is time.

What prevents you from simply installing an ad blocker?
It's not like there's no choice.

Not everyone has the expertise to do so.

That's really hard to believe.

--
Cheers, Bev
  "The problem with homeopathy is that it's so potent that if you
   stop taking it you can overdose."  --AnonymousCoward, slashdot

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general