Why should I use Safari AdBlocker?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by jon08, Dec 19, 2009.

  1. jon08 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    #1
    I installed it today hoping it would eliminate ads and whatnot, and while it seems to integrate with Safari nicely and is unobtrusive, it doesn't really do a great job at blocking ads.

    I can still see ads on various sites that I for example wouldn't see on Firefox using AdBlockPlus. I'm pretty disappointed. Do GlimmerBlocker, Safari AdBlock or SafariBlock do any better job??
     
  2. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #2
    I use SafariBlock and Safari AdBlock. Of the two, I think SafariBlock does a much better job.
     
  3. jon08 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
  4. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #4
    What difference would that make?
     
  5. fishmoose macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    #5
    It means you need to run Safari in 32-bit, which most people don't want to do. I think Apple has done such a good job with there 64-bit talk that people are afraid of 32-bit apps.
     
  6. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #6
    It works fine. It doesn't have to be 64-bit to work effectively. A great many apps that run on SL are still 32-bit.
     
  7. fanchee macrumors 6502a

    fanchee

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    #7
    I'm running it and Safari is still running in 64 bit mode, and I also notice SIMBL Agent which is also 64 bit.
     
  8. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #8
    It's quite common to run a mix of 64-bit and 32-bit applications simultaneously on SL:

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
     
  9. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #10
  10. Keleko macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    #11
    I use Safari AdBlocker that allows me to urn Safari in 64 bit. I used to use ClickToFlash, but it got annoying on sites that have Flash as the main basis for how the site works. If that isn't a problem, then ClickToFlash gets rid of the most annoying ads. I wouldn't mind ads so much if they didn't pop out in front of the content or made noise.
     
  11. fishmoose macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    #12
    Yes, hence the tiny bit of sarcasm in my previous post.
     
  12. HellDiverUK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Location:
    Belfast, UK
    #13
    Glimmer Blocker for the win. Blocks ads on all browsers, as it's a little proxy server.
     
  13. Mumford macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Location:
    Altadena, CA
    #14
    Yes, it's possible for separate applications to have different bit-ness. But if a single application is loading shared libraries, they must have the same bit-ness as the parent application.
     
  14. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #15
    And your point is? My point is that Safari AdBlock runs just fine in 32-bit mode on Snow Leopard.
     
  15. jon08 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    #16
    ^^ Interesting. I might give it a try sometimes...
     
  16. chill. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    #17
    just a heads up, by ad blocking you are denying revenue to the websites you visit. if the ads are unobtrusive then you should really consider not using an ad-blocker to support these sites
     
  17. fishmoose macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    #18
    But they only get money if you click on the ads, right? I never click on an ad so I can just block them anyway.
     
  18. Surely Guest

    Surely

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #19
    Millions of non-flash ads? I rarely see an ad, and all I use is Click2Flash. Sure, I see a non-flash ad every once in a while, but it is so rare for me that I hardly notice.

    Exactly. I think the last time I clicked on a banner ad was in 2002.:p
     
  19. chill. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2008
    #20
    depends on the ad. there are some ads that are CPC (cost per click) but also CPV (cost per view) or (cost per visitor). macrumors uses ads too! i am willing to bet that they get parts of a penny from every time this HP/Sony banner is viewed
     
  20. fishmoose macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Sweden
    #21
    Okay. But if I don't allow tracking cookies, CPV ads cannot work anyway since they can't track if I loaded the ad?
     
  21. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #22
    Click2Flash alone isn't as clean as using SafariBlock/Safari AdBlock. Here are just two examples. In all cases, Click2Flash is active:

    Without SafariBlock:
    Picture 1.jpg
    With SafariBlock:
    Picture 2.jpg
    Without SafariBlock:
    Picture 3.jpg
    With SafariBlock:
    Picture 4.jpg

    I'll keep both, since it's much cleaner.
     
  22. Surely Guest

    Surely

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #23
    Nice screenshots.

    However, SafariBlock doesn't work for me. I would need to run Safari in 32-bit mode.

    Probably has something to do with the last update being from September 2008.

    Are you still running Leopard?
     
  23. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #24
    SafariBlock runs fine in 32-bit mode on Snow Leopard.
     
  24. Surely Guest

    Surely

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #25
    Yes, I said that I would need to run 32-bit mode for it to work.

    TBH, I don't really mind the "Flash" boxes that Click2Flash creates on my screen.
     

Share This Page