Raymond is not just a github user, he is ublock authorIt extends battery life for laptops and makes personal computers to use less power. Github user Gorhill came to that conclusion in regards of benchmark tests.
If laptop battery life is longer then less money is spent for replacing/fixing battery during lifetime.
I know that. I have spoken with him personally.Raymond is not just a github user, he is ublock author
Could you please link these benchmarks?
Ah, so it is "Ignore generic cosmetic filters"! Huh, this is a huge difference, you know.Here are the benchmarks: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/1892#issuecomment-239621969
This thought sounds very good. I have already enabled this option in AG browser extension. If this feature will be enabled in AG for Windows/Mac as well, then all AG users will be equally treated, This will be another bonus to choose AG for Windows/Mac instead of browser extension.@Bushido
I'd like to continue my thought about low performance laptops and such.
We have already faced this low-end devices issue a while ago when we were working on Adguard for Android. Of course, there is a direct link between the number of filter rules applied to a page and the filtering speed. Also low-end Android devices are much slower than even a 10-year old laptop, so performance issues are even more important.
So, back then we have found a solution for this which won't affect filtering quality. If you tried AG browser extension you may have seen an option (disabled by default) to start sending ad filters usage statistics to us. Thanks to users who volunteered and turned that option on, we now know which filter rules are really used and which are either rarely used or completely redundant.
Using this data we have provided special "optimized" filters versions (for instance, the size of an optimized English filter is ~40% of the original). If you use AG browser extension, there is an option to switch to "optimized" filters versions.
So, we may introduce the same switch in AG for Windows/Mac as well. What do you think about this solution?
It's a clear misunderstanding about Adguard. Adguard has an algorithm of determining what to inject in frames to speed up browsing.Gorhill noted that Adguard (what inject unconditionally all generic cosmetic filters into every page and frames on a page) will benefit more than uBlock similar solutions.
This is a statement about ublock origin. Also, memory is not the main point of a GitHub user gorhill's argument, according to the user its purpose was to save some cpu time running its way of injecting generic hiding rules, which exists only in ublock.
.This option is likely most useful for Firefox for Android
So in conclusion - gain of ignoring generic cosmetic filters is very small?If 250 seconds at 100% CPU draws 10-20 mAh, then this would mean in the worst case a 2500 mAh battery can provide 2500 / 20 = 125 chunks of 250 seconds with CPU at 100%, meaning 125 x 250 = 31250 seconds = a CPU at 100% for more than 8 hrs before the battery runs out. Really? (best case would be 4000 / 10 * 250 = 27 hours).
This is true. However I don't think that it is important. CSS filter memory footprint is about 8-9 MB. Without generic CSS rules it is about 5-6MB.
We have introduced this option in AG for iOS a while ago and frankly I am not satisfied with the result.If so, then ignoring generic cosmetic filters is useful mostly with Android mobile phones and Adguard will not benefit this?