- #ADBLOCK FOR FIREFOX 14.0 PLUS#
- #ADBLOCK FOR FIREFOX 14.0 WINDOWS 7#
- #ADBLOCK FOR FIREFOX 14.0 DOWNLOAD#
In all four cases the test timed out because the browser couldn’t be closed, most likely because of first-run pages.
#ADBLOCK FOR FIREFOX 14.0 PLUS#
Four add-ons were only tested partially (NoScript and Adblock Plus only on Windows 7/XP, BetterPrivacy only on OS X and Fedora, Web of Trust only on Windows 7/XP and Fedora).
#ADBLOCK FOR FIREFOX 14.0 DOWNLOAD#
Out of 100 add-ons, twelve add-ons weren’t tested at all, most likely because the download failed (different download packages for different platforms).
![adblock for firefox 14.0 adblock for firefox 14.0](https://addons.mozilla.org/user-media/previews/thumbs/137/137096.jpg)
I could reproduce his results with my own script, checking the logs for all platforms. Update2: Nils wrote a script to check the standard deviation of the performance measurements, you can see his script and the results here. In case of SimilarWeb these 2% were enough to push it into the list of Top 10 worst offenders.
#ADBLOCK FOR FIREFOX 14.0 WINDOWS 7#
This brought Flagfox 14% more on Windows 7 (4% more in the overall score) and SimilarWeb got 8% more (2% more in the overall score). Both the add-on tested before Read It Later (Flagfox) and the one tested after it (SimilarWeb) show the same irregularities - the individual measurements were first pretty close to the test results from the previous week and became significantly higher towards the end of the test. Update: I looked into the results of the other add-ons tested on the same machine (talos-r3-w7-020). Dear AMO, please clear this up before you start stigmatizing add-ons as “slow”. I am no expert on this, so I can neither agree nor disagree. Nils Maier thinks that such fluctuations have something to do with other jobs running on the same machine, particularly ones doing heavy I/O. In fact, I suspect that this is exactly what happened to the add-on that has been tested right after it. Had this happened at the beginning of the test run, this would have increased the extension’s score on Windows 7 by 35%! Even if the measurements on all other platforms were correct (Fedora’s wasn’t), it would translate into 9% more in the overall score. If you look at the other measurements however- the times were pretty close to the reference value (as expected), and then something changed and the numbers got 200 ms higher. The first measurement is always significantly higher and is ignored for the average, I already mentioned that. Here are the results for the individual measurements that this average consists of: 845 However, on Fedora this extension supposedly caused 3% slowdown during the second run. Most results indeed show something very close to the reference time which makes sense. So digging up the raw numbers for that add-on was definitely a good idea. Does this now mean that each disabled add-on causes a 4% performance impact? Definitely not, disabled add-ons have no measurable effect on performance. Yet this extension was definitely disabled during performance testing due to bug 648229. Later that day I noticed Read It Later, currently #43 on that list, supposedly causing 4% slower Firefox startup times. Yesterday I concluded that (with all bugs fixed) the results of Mozilla’s add-on performance measurements shouldn’t fluctuate by more than 2% of the Firefox startup time. Have questions or proposals? send a message to or use the contact form in the app.Adblock Plus and (a little) more On fluctuations in performance testing results Save your battery power by downloading only the content you need. Enhanced privacy - blocked ad trackers will not collect your data. Safe - Built-in protection will prevent you from going to dangerous sites. Enjoy surfing the net without annoying ads. AdBlock is an application for blocking inappropriate content in Safari.