Just use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
Just use Firefox. uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/import-data-another-bro...
It does not do what I asked for. I believe it works from a fixed list of extensions.
Here's a pair it doesn't find:
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/better-pathofexile-...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/better-pathof...
It's not hard to not use them. I don't use either one.
That kind of extraneous functionality just shouldn't be bundled with Firefox to begin with.
If a user does want such functionality, then an extension could be voluntarily installed to provide it.
The other browser tried to push for Web Integrity API and is now degrading adblock experience, I feel that there's really no comparison.
Mozilla may have missteps but the browser still clearly seem to be siding with the user.
The defaults are almost always not what I want.
For me, currently, my setup is the best browser I've ever used.
Some forks have clear advantages, are well maintained and trustworthy.
There are numerous reasons to maintain a user.js file also, not just performance reasons.
Indeed, report issues to Mozilla directly, but that isn't inconsistent with using a fork and maintaining a user.js
That is of course not the case.
With more effective ad blocking in Firefox you'll process less and load less. And since Firefox lets uBlock Origin use WebAssembly the blocking runs faster and more efficiently too.
It isn't. Chrome and Firefox have similar memory usage these days.
Actual measurements are better than anecdotes. Here are some actual measurements:
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/chrome-firefox-edge-ram-compa...
I've had Chrome open for some number of days and when I check Activity Monitor, the most RAM-expensive process is currently sitting at <500MB, a few others at 100-300MB, and the rest at under 100MB. The "energy impact" of it is at 160-ish. Whereas, again, Firefox was taking up 1GB+ of RAM in multiple processes and the energy impact was more like 260-ish, my battery was dying way faster, I would see CPU usage of double Chrome regularly, and macOS was always saying that Firefox was using a lot of power. The RAM usage is something I've seen on Windows as well, along with issues with the browser just behaving poorly over time. I just don't see these issues on Chrome or (most of) its derivative browsers. (I've used Brave a lot as well)
Guess I'm just objectively wrong though, because Toms Guide disagrees with what I'm seeing.
I've had Firefox 120 running for days and it's not doing what your strange set up is doing.
E.g, my boring Chevy starts to looks pretty performant next to your Ferrari once you have to tote around 2 tons of bricks and I don't :)
I held on to a 2012 4 GB MacBook Air until fairly recently as my casual web browsing machine. With such low system memory, I had to be extremely economical with my open tabs; no more than 3 or 4 at a time. The great suspender plugin helped until it became malware infested, and with that no longer an option, I moved to Firefox. The resource utlization improvement was immediately apparent and I haven't looked back, even after I finally updated my machine.