Vivaldi need to have in-built Ad Blocker, Multi threaded Download Manager and Internet Speed up



  • Vivaldi need to have in-built Ad Blocker, Multi threaded Download Manager and Internet Speed up. i want everybody opinion about this issue.



  • Ad Blocker - why not use adblock plus from chrome store? From V's task manager, it only uses 80mb or ram, and I don't see why V's developers should waste time on something that's already available as extension and works fine.
    Multi threaded Download Manager - meh. Too much trouble implementing it from scratch and fixing bugs in it. Free accounts on file hosting sites do not get multidownloading, paid accounts can use their own branded file downloaders.
    Internet speed up - I'll take two! Speed up my internet so instead of 10mbit/s line I'd have 20mbit/s or maybe 50 if devs could manage it… Jokes aside, you have to be more descriptive about this



  • [ol]

    • Opera 37 has a built-in Ad-blocker, so Vivaldi probably needs one too
    • Downloads should have a resume feature at least
    • Opera 12.17 had something called Opera Turbo. It helped those on slow connections by compressing data. Like sync, it needs a server and costs real money, so it might not come for a while.
      [/ol]


  • @Pesala:

    • Downloads should have a resume feature at least

    chrome://flags/#enable-download-resumption



  • you are right bro, at least they should have resume feature in download.
    UC Browser [PC Browser] has built in ad blocker, download manager and cloud boost for internet speed up



  • you are right for the first point.
    but Vivaldi needs to have resume feature in download manager.
    i live in India where internet speed is low, so the internet speed can be made by blocking ads and unwanted trackers.
    just like, opera had turbo mode using proxy servers.

    Currently a new browser is coming up, Which is Brave Browser
    Have a look at UC PC Browser they have in built Ad Blocker,multi threaded download manager and has a cloud boost for internet speed up.



  • Opera has some wonderful plugins better than chrome extensions.
    i find chrome extensions occupy more ram than opera extensions.



  • @den_po said in Vivaldi need to have in-built Ad Blocker, Multi threaded Download Manager and Internet Speed up:

    @Pesala:

    • Downloads should have a resume feature at least

    chrome://flags/#enable-download-resumption

    That has been removed (it's not even in Chrome). I guess that's what happens with "experimental" features.

    Any other possibilities then? Resume is pretty big.



  • I've gotten used to using an external downloader. Since I'm using Linux, I use aria2 or wget. Both have the resume feature. I admit that sometimes it can be difficult to identify the actual url for downloading but mostly it isn't an issue.



  • @aesouza Yeah, that's what I'll do, most likely with FDM. It's also probably the most likely one that someone will figure out how to make work with Vivaldi in a way beyond copying and pasting URLs.

    It's not every download that needs a manager, but when you need it, you really need it. Resume certainly, but multithreading is big as well, though I realize Vivaldi may not want to take that on (but it must be a lot easier than a torrent client, and old Opera once took that on).


  • Moderator

    Jon has said he will not build in an ad blocker at this time. Vivaldi is only free because of internet advertising, and because of Jon's personal generosity (were it not for his personal wealth, there would be no Vivaldi). For now, people will have to live with extensions, if they must have ad-free browsing, and deny revenue to those who provide the web to them for free.



  • Adding features to browser which could be done by a extension will lead to more work and patches and testing and more bugs.

    When Vivaldi will be as big and wealthy as Opera or Mozilla or Micorsoft is, there may be a change ... i don't know.


  • Vivaldi Translator

    In some cases, resume of the download could be done on a stock Chromium download page:
    chrome://downloads/

    It's not much reliable, but there is at least small chance to resume the download compared to Vivaldi Downloads panel.
    I hope that Vivaldi sometimes introduce better downlod manager (like Opera 12 had), because the Vivaldi Downloads panel is a bad joke. No download speed, no possibility to resume download, just files that are currently downloading.



  • Everyone has a preference when it comes to certain extensions. Personally I prefer it that Vivaldi does not have built-in
    extensions. I have Adguard AdBlocker installed. Adguard AdBlocker does the best job when it comes to handling ads, imho.
    Just because Opera has something doesn't mean Vivaldi should.

    My computer. My Vivaldi. My choice.



  • There is a choice of excellent adblockers and multithreaded download managers already available, so I would not want Vivaldi dev team waste their limited resources duplicating something that works well as it is.
    If by Internet speed up you mean something like Opera Turbo, it's nice to have, but it's of limited appeal and I could think of many other things I'd rather have them work on first.



  • @Briarned Agreed about ad blocking (can't believe anyone would seriously think Vivaldi should have one when things like uBlock Origin exist), but there are exactly zero multithreaded download managers that work with Vivaldi, so after Vivaldi devs knock off the ability to resume downloads (surely you agree that's worthwhile) then multiple threads would definitely be a value-add. Of course, it doesn't have to be a full-blown manager.



  • From what I've seen in built-in adblockers, they are so bare bone, they are practically useless. The one in current Opera leaves so many ads behind, so it's better to just install uBlock Origin.
    I'd say stick with uBlock Origin, unless an equally powerful and versatile built-in adblocker can be conceived.

    As for the multi-threaded download, I agree, that's really handy to have.



  • @Ayespy I don't think that anyone actively wants to deny revenue to content creators on the web, but people block ads because:

    1. They present a potential security risk: ads can and do serve up malware (AKA, 'malvertising') and redirect the user to phishing/scam sites, or, at the very least, sites that the user had no intention of visiting in the first place. Even mainstream/legitimate sites can inadvertently serve up ads containing malicious components:

    In April 2015, malware was served through a Hugo Boss ad on Huffingtonpost.com and other sites, such as Zillow.com. The malware used a Flash exploit and installed the Cryptowall ransomware on victims’ computers. Ransomware encrypts files on the computer’s hard drive and prompts the user to pay a ransom to decrypt it, hence the term “ransomware.”
    -Source

    1. They chew up bandwidth (a serious concern for users consuming mobile data, or browsing on slow connections) and can drastically reduce performance and stability.
    2. They can be annoying and intrusive. This was probably the main reason that ad-blockers took off in the first place, as there used to be an abundance of ads—even from legitimate advertisers—that really got in user's faces. However, I think that this concern takes a backseat to the first two in today's web environment.

    I have ad blocking software running on all the computers on my home network as a security measure more than anything else. (And that's why built-in ad blocking wouldn't personally be useful for me, as blocking at a 'lower' level than the browser is actually much more effective. If Opera and Maxthon's marketing is to be believed, however, a 'baked in' ad blocker performs better than an equivalent third-party extension.)

    --

    @rseiler Internet Download Manager works with Vivaldi (at least for me). Is that not multi-threaded?


  • Moderator

    @purgatori - It's irrelevant whether anyone actively wants to deny revenue to content creators on the web, (or to web browser creators, for that matter, which are also funded by advertising). The reason Jon is not doing ad blocking right now is because ad blockers DO deny revenue to those who depend on it, including himself. I don't judge this as good or bad, right or wrong. I'm merely reporting what he said. If you can think of a way for him to get ad revenue for blocked ads, then more power to you.

    My solution is to engage in smart browsing practices rather than to block ads and further, to inform sites which have driven me away by abuse of obtrusive advertising that I'm boycotting their site because of abuse of obtrusive advertising.

    So - I don't use blockers (or extensions in general) and I'm not oppressed by ads.



  • I can't speak for other users, but the only reason I use ad-blocking is to insert a key layer of security against the occasional drive-by ads that are linked to or contain malware. Because website operators too often won't require their partner advertising firms to effectively assure that their second-tier ad clients' ads are legitimate and clean (particularly for rotating ad placements), even seemingly legitimate sites too often host once-in-a-while malware in their ads. The infection stories are out there for anyone who looks, even happening at sites like: Yahoo, New York Times, etc, etc.

    Until the advertising that appears on websites is genuinely cleaned up by both website operators and their partnered advertising firms, the ad-supported website revenue model will continue to encounter solid and determined resistance by ad-blocking from users who are simply trying to protect themselves and their systems.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.