Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Built-in Lazy Loading Lands in Google Chrome Canary (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

secwatcher writes: Google has started rolling out support for built-in lazy loading inside Chrome. Currently, support for image and iframe lazy loading is only available in Chrome Canary, the Chrome version that Google uses to test new features. Two flags are now available in the chrome://flags section of Chrome Canary. They are: chrome://flags/#enable-lazy-image-loading, chrome://flags/#enable-lazy-frame-loading. Enabling these two flags will activate a new type of content loading behavior inside the Chrome browser. The two flags have been available in Chrome Canary for a few days, since v70.0.3521.0.

57 comments

  1. Lazy loading is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tells us the exact names of the config flags, doesn't even explain what lazy loading is. More like lazy editing.

    1. Re:Lazy loading is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tells us the exact names of the config flags, doesn't even explain what lazy loading is. More like lazy editing.

      It's in TFS

    2. Re:Lazy loading is what? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Dunno, I don't use Chrome, and this story makes it even less likely that I would do so.

      I don't even know what Chrome canary is. Is it canary in a coal mine, or singing like a canary?

    3. Re:Lazy loading is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean TFA. TFS is the summary, the place the info should have been but wasn't.

    4. Re:Lazy loading is what? by TheStickBoy · · Score: 1

      *THIS*
      If I can take minimal time to write an concise & descriptive email with audience=1, surely a journalist can take the time to write a descriptive summary with an audience of 1,000's +

      I suspect there is copy/pasting going on here.
      I think we should name this "copy/.pasting"

    5. Re:Lazy loading is what? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Lazy loading is a standard part of http/2 standard.
      The idea behind it is that a web site can decide to send you images, code,etc before you have actually requested it or need it. That way when you do request it you will get quicker web page viewing.
      The security issue with it is that an evil web site could decide to sent you evil images, code,etc that then when your computer is being looked at those evil items could show up. Currently, no browsers provide a way for an investigator to see if it is something you actually requested or if it was a lazy load.


      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    6. Re:Lazy loading is what? by halivar · · Score: 1

      No, no, no, no. TFS is not the place to provide details, or context for people unfamiliar with common lingo for the subject. Literally everyone who works in web design/development knows what lazy load/lazy fetch is. Put that shit TFA and keep the summary clean. If you want to know more, click TFL (the fucking link).

    7. Re:Lazy loading is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lazy Loading is supposed to be a user-friendly feature for those of us with toaster computers who use Session Managers for example.
      Instead of the browser opening a session of 100 tabs in a manner where it loads all 100 tabs from the get-go and therefore bricks your computer and itself,
      it loads 100 semi-blank tabs as placeholders with their original titles present but the webpage/content not loaded and then it's up to you to click on whichever tab to load up the content of it.
      It's one of the things that keep Mozilla users on Mozilla instead of moving onto Chromium stuff.

    8. Re:Lazy loading is what? by halivar · · Score: 1

      No, what you are describing is Server Push, which has nothing to do with this. Lazy load, in this context, means the browser does not request elements that would be rendered off screen ("below the fold") until they are needed.

    9. Re:Lazy loading is what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, no, no, no. TFS is not the place to provide details, or context for people unfamiliar with common lingo for the subject. [..] If you want to know more, click TFL (the fucking link).

      The summary was so short, it wouldn't have hurt to copy/paste a little more from the article:

      In current Chrome versions, the browser will load an entire page's code when the user accesses an URL. With the two flags enabled, Chrome Canary will load all the page's elements that are visible on screen (called "above the fold" elements), but will not load images and iframes that are not visible on the page and are "below the fold."

    10. Re:Lazy loading is what? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      So in short, the browser will finally do by itself what idiots used to do using some bloated multi-megabytes javascript library.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    11. Re:Lazy loading is what? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Tells us the exact names of the config flags, doesn't even explain what lazy loading is. "

      I'm a lazy loader. I'm too lazy to load anything anywhere.
      I always feign sciatica or a thrown back.
      Now I can just change a setting.

    12. Re:Lazy loading is what? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      TFS is the place to provide enough reason to click TFL. A brief explanation, or a SFL (second fucking link) to a longer explanation would've sufficed. The target audience seems to be Google Chrome Canary users, current and potential. Not just "everyone who works in web design/development".

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  2. Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the web platform, lazy loading means don't download anything until the user scrolls to it.

    A lot of websites have implemented their own lazy loading in JavaScript for two reasons. One is improving perceived page load time by prioritizing the first screenful of the document. The other is saving server bandwidth (and client bandwidth for users on metered cellular Internet) by not serving large images that the user is not likely to view. But two drawbacks of this sort of lazy loading are 1. incompatibility with clients that do not use JavaScript and 2. incompatibility with clients that download a page over unmetered home Internet for later reading while offline or while on metered cellular Internet (such as while riding the bus).

    1. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh, that is the worst!

      instead of one time waiting a little longer, not when I scroll it stops every couple of seconds.

      I HATE it when sites do that.

      Especially if it's a shopping site, I can scroll quite quick deciding what I want to buy or not, and whenever I hit back after adding to cart, the place is lost.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re: Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The third drawback is very noticeable lag as these images load while you scroll, though in fairness I have not tried Canary to see if its implementation is lag free.

    3. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had lazy loading in Opera over 20 years ago in 1998 when internet was still over a modem. Heck, even netscape at the time had lazy loading, or rather it would render to what was downloaded. It woudn't wait for the entire page and all the scripts to load before rendering the page

    4. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by tepples · · Score: 1

      And back then you had more chance of flash of unstyled content (FOUC) when the no-CSS, no-script version of a document would appear and then abruptly change to the version modified by CSS and progressive enhancement. A lot of the loading delay you see on sites is due to FOUC prevention measures.

    5. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that I want FOUC. But I guess the same DBs from Google introduced these preventions mechanisms that nobody asked for.

    6. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by tepples · · Score: 1

      Even if you want what you're trying to read or click on to move out from under you, I don't think the majority do. In addition, repeating layout and paint every time a subresource loads can become taxing on a CPU, especially since Moore's law switched from speed to cores.

    7. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      instead of one time waiting a little longer, not when I scroll it stops every couple of seconds.
      I HATE it when sites do that.

      You think you hate it? I'm on satellite. For every request needed to accomplish the lazy load, I get another second or more of latency added on just for round trip time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      3. You have to wait for things to load when you go to actually look at the content

    9. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      I hate it, too. I have super fast internet that can load the whole page in the blink of an eye. Just load the damned page so I can scroll past your ads and headlines and shit, and get to the content I went there to see.

      The other pet peeve I have is a menu that drops down whenever the mouse passes over it. If I want to see the drop-down menu, I WILL CLICK ON IT! Stop with the crap already.

    10. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially if it's a shopping site, I can scroll quite quick deciding what I want to buy or not, and whenever I hit back after adding to cart, the place is lost.

      If that's due to the images lazy-loading, the problem is usually a poor implementation by the developer. For lazy-loaded images you're *supposed* to have the dimensions pre-allocated in the page so that content doesn't jump around and you instead have an empty correctly-sized box. Once the user has scrolled enough to be near the image it should load so that by the time they reach it, it's already loaded and ready with the user being none-the-wiser (though some platforms cause issues here).

      The plus is that people on slow connections and with small data caps don't have to download 10 megs of images if they decide not to read the whole page. A few downsides are more work to implement correctly, extra javascript eating CPU cycles onscroll (though it can be throttled many devs don't care enough to bother), and if you're on a slow enough connection and *will* want to see that 2MB image at the bottom of the page you'll have to wait for it to load when you get there.

      If it's not image-related, you could be seeing effects of infinite-scroll which is a whole other mess.

    11. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Worst is that every site out there combines lazy loading with infinite scrolling. These two things alone have basically destroyed surfing the Internet and should die in a fire immediately.

      Also, I hate how lazy loading screws up my scrollbars and makes me constantly lose my reading position. I have a tendency to hold down the mouse button to scroll, and lazy loading makes that scrolling method impossible. If anything else, could web browser developers try to (optionally) implement dynamic scroll bars that don't jump around when new page content is loaded?

    12. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      It's for items lazy loading.

      Instead of paying through items, I get a couple dozen every time I approach the bottom.

      I can evaluate a couple dozen clearance suits, or shoes, or jackets, or whatever in far less time than it takes to load.

      And when I hit back and need to reload the couple hundred I've scrolled though (25 at a time), it is painful.

      I'm sure a lot of it is bad developers, but will the Chrome method fix that?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    13. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like it might be dynamically generating that stuff (similar to lazy-loading an ad or infinite scroll), though hard to know for sure without seeing the implementation.

      In any case, it's doubtful that Chrome will fix that. I can't see them parsing the bad javascript and trying to decide whether the intention was to lazy-load and then overriding that behavior. That would be madness.

      Chrome may have a better implementation when Chrome is left to do lazy-loading on its own though. Reading any tagged dimensions and ensuring the container is pre-allocated, as well as storing/caching the post-lazy-loaded container size when possible (to help with 'back') are a couple things they could do. Developers should be doing the former anyway (many don't). The latter wouldn't be necessary if everyone did the former, but it's something they can do from the web browser end so that stuff Chrome lazy-loads without knowing the dimensions before-hand can at least maintain the discovered container size afterwards.

    14. Re:Don't DL anything until the user scrolls to it by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Infinite scrolling sounds like a more accurate description of the disaster I'm thinking of.

      Except it's short bursts of very finite scrolling. They really just need to load the 500 or so various clearance items, and let me shop.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  3. Canary == Nightly by tepples · · Score: 2

    Chrome Canary is the unstable nightly build of the Google Chrome web browser, akin to Firefox Nightly.

  4. I thought this was standard ages ago ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, it might just have been lines being slow, but developers ordered websites to set loading order since the dawn of the web.

    Or is this for users? (Ok, good joke. What browser is *for* users nowadays?)
    In that case, ad blockers and the noscript placebo already take care of pretty much all of that.

    Then again, having an OS ... running on ... an OS ... is already pretty stupid.

    1. Re:I thought this was standard ages ago ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is setting if the assets load at all. If I'm viewing a page, and never scroll down (instead go to a different page) why should it download stuff I don't see?

    2. Re:I thought this was standard ages ago ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      1. So how does Print / Save to PDF work?

      2. The browser does not know if I am going to view the page offline later.

  5. This could have easily been implemented in XUL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But we know what happened to XUL.

  6. Does Lazy Loading break Ctrl + F/"find in page"? by SB5407 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd like to know if the Lazy Loading function of deferring loading images and third-party iframes on the page until the user scrolls near them breaks Ctrl+F/"find in page".

    Google had to re-do "Print" and "Save Page As" in order to support Lazy Loading. Did they also make Ctrl+F work or not?

  7. Re:Does Lazy Loading break Ctrl + F/"find in page" by mrbester · · Score: 2

    Unless it is dynamically loaded content Ctrl-F will work just fine as the text of the document has still been fully download, just not necessarily all the images it describes.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  8. Thank god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For god's sake, whatever you do, don't tell us what lazy loading is anywhere in the summary.

    1. Re:Thank god by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Look at a bunch of immigrants loading an 18-wheeler. THAT is what lazy loading is! /joke - yeah I know, politically incorrect, well guess what I'm Romanian so it doesn't apply.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  9. Re:Does Lazy Loading break Ctrl + F/"find in page" by SB5407 · · Score: 1

    Ah, but what about text in third party iframes?

  10. If you use 100 tabs, you’re a hoarder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's precisely what bookmark folders are for! They already do "lazy loading". By only loading when you actually click them! All you do is duplicate bookmark functionality yet another time, with another UI. Badly!

    And don't tell me you can find anything in that mess. You are not a superhuman. You can only keep an overview over 6-9 non-groupable things at the same time in your brain's active memory anyway. Everything beyond that, and you are wasting time and resources because of your laziness.

    1. Re:If you use 100 tabs, you’re a hoarder. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Having a document loaded in a tab, as opposed to a bookmark, makes it more likely that you will remain able to read the document while your user agent is offline. It also saves the state of the document beyond what the developer chose to incorporate in the URL, such as the POST data that led to a particular view or the changes made by script to the DOM.

  11. Has good and bad effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some web sites do this already, the problem is the initial loading is faster, but sometimes scrolling is badly affected while the rest of the page is loaded. I would rather wait once and have the whole page load. I suppose most at Google have really fast internet so they could care less how it affects the average user.

    1. Re:Has good and bad effects by war4peace · · Score: 1

      How about them endless scrolling PoS websites?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  12. Re:Does Lazy Loading break Ctrl + F/"find in page" by war4peace · · Score: 1

    Fuck third party iFrames.
    (my opinion as a regular user)

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  13. Does this fix ... by gander666 · · Score: 1

    So, does this fix the "soak up every goddamn CPU cycle and peg all 4 cores" problem?

    Asking for a friend

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
  14. Too bad it doesn't work for ADS by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    They should be THE LAST thing that loads, if you aren't using a blocker.

    1. Re:Too bad it doesn't work for ADS by tepples · · Score: 1

      If a website's sponsors can't get their message through, would you prefer a paywall on the document you are trying to read, as well as paywalls on the next three or four comparable search results?

  15. Some sites don't want you to print by tepples · · Score: 1

    Some websites' operators may not want non-subscribers to print documents or read them offline. The following assumes the point of view of such websites:

    1. So how does Print / Save to PDF work?

    First you sign up for a recurring monthly payment on each website whose documents you want to print. Then you can download the document in PDF form from the website. If you try to print without first subscribing, the site may put garbage all over the printed version to make it less desirable, as the ads served along with the document are targeted to your interests, not to those of subsequent readers. Ars Technica is like this.

    2. The browser does not know if I am going to view the page offline later.

    The website treats offline reading as a perk for subscribers. If you don't want to subscribe to a website, you can avoid going offline in the first place by paying a cellular ISP for a subscription to cellular Internet access. Bores DSP is like this.

  16. It's a very useful feature for webapps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lazy loading is a very useful feature for webapps if done correctly, especially for mobile.

    Here is a real world example of something I'm working on right now...
    We have a very large app.
    The target users are Doctors and medical providers. Smartphones and low end tablets are basically ubiquitous now, so it makes sense to build our app as a webapp and since we are dealing with live patient data sometimes in life or death scenarios, caching the data isn't wise.
    This app is composed of about 900 different task specific "widgets" configured into about 20 different workflow based "views".

    This app needs to be able to load quickly even over dialup speed connections where there maybe costs of up to $0.50 per KB (imagine satellite internet in a remote hospital).

    If we were to deliver this as a traditional webpage with forms and a normal client/server model, we would be forced to resort to a single thread to update the whole page and the code quickly gets messy server side. Furthermore, the bandwidth costs would be horrific with a lot of waste.

    Instead we deliver the "views", which are static HTML webpages and update the content by subscribing to websockets and then posting requests in the background. Each view has a collection of widgets. The widgets each manage their own state, and handle subscribing to the correct feeds to update themselves.

    This is a great way of doing it because different roles have different workflows and thus they need to have different views into the same data in order to do their job. Example a Pharmacist would need access to a patient's prescriptions, but not the ability to write prescriptions. So prescription write and prescription read are different widgets. A doctor needs access to both reading and writing prescriptions, so the doctor's workflow contains both a prescription write and a prescription read widget in the prescriptions views. A pharmacist would only have the prescription read widget in their view.

    To save on bandwidth and also to avoid cluttering the UI with a lot of widgets they won't be using anyways, we use lazy loading to ensure only the widgets and views that a particular role can use are delivered. This saves time for pageloads and it saves money because it lowers the sheer number of KB transferred. Current lazy loading solutions require a JS shim. The less shim code we have to deliver, the tinier the app.

  17. Ad/script/tracker/malware blocker = better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ad/script/tracker/malware blocker via hosts = better + FASTER: APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux & BSD h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces between characters & download).

    Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any SINGLE solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP addresses most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

    (Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" competitors slowing you, hosts speed you up 2 ways (adblocks + hardcodes u spend most time @) vs. competition loaded w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads (messagepass ('souled-out' to advertiser addons) + filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploitation) + protects vs. script trackers & ads + DNS requestlog tracking

    * ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI on Linux!

    APK

    P.S.=> Protects vs. trackers/ads/DNS reques tracking/botnets/malware downloads/email malcious payloads... apk

    1. Re:Ad/script/tracker/malware blocker = better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK is a twat. His software is terrible.

    2. Re:Ad/script/tracker/malware blocker = better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Host File Engine performs exactly as promised - by mmell (832646) on Thursday February 16, 2017

      (APK) is still right a hosts file really does work. It even blocked a some of the video ads that were inserted into a stream OrangeTide February 10 2016

      I do use APK's host file on all my systems at home by OrangeTide December 01 2017

      I've never tried to belittle (APK's work), I've flat out said it's good - by BronsCon (927697) on Thursday February 11, 2016 @06:48PM (#51491263)

      APK

      P.S.=> YOU ARE OUTNUMBERED DOZENS TO 1 (you)... apk

  18. Registered /.ers review of the Win64 model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your software is just fine - well written, functional... I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine by mmell February 17, 2017

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising and malvertising is quite valid - by JazzLad April 20, 2016

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant August 10 2015

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg September 25 2015

    I like your host file system by Karmashock September 09 2015

    that APK guy, I use his host file by rogoshen1 Tuesday March 03, 2015

    I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK by 110010001000 October 27 2017

    * Linux model = faster/more efficient

    APK

    P.S.=> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://www.google.com/search?...

  19. More registered /.ers disagree w/ you #1/6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apk has the answer for that - really... kill automatic updates by adding a hosts file entry setting updates.steam.com or whatever to 127.0.0.1. You have to find the right hostname for each software you want to block updates on by raymorris (2726007) on Friday July 06, 2018

    APK your posts on this and the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error and/or bad advice by BlueStrat (756137) on Wednesday June 21, 2017

    I support APK's stand on the hosts file and can't see why it's not used more than it is. My hosts file is 144247 lines long (4,332 Kb) it & a firewall serves me very well - by Trax3001BBS (2368736)

    ABP is insufficient as a solid hosts file does everything APK reminds us about fast turtle September 17 2013

    You need APK's hosts file - by Teun (17872) on Wednesday August 06, 2014

    APK

    P.S.=> 5 more like it coming - EAT YOUR WORDS... apk

  20. More registered /.ers disagree w/ you #2/6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK solution STILL relevant Thud457 June 11 2015

    Actually, APK is totally right on this count. Adblock Plus on Firefox mobile is a dog on older, or lower end, phones. A hostfile based adblocker makes for a much better experience in this context. Of course, your phone has to be rooted, which isn't the case with Firefox + adblock." - by chihowa on Saturday May 16, 2015

    In a footnote, I would like to note that I find your hosts file admirable - by vel-ex-tech (4337079) on Tuesday November 24, 2015

    APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment - by Culture20 on Thursday November 17

    you're right about hosts files - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26

    APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop - by nasredin (958927) on Friday June 12, 2015 @03:34PM

    APK

    P.S.=> More coming... apk

  21. More registered /.ers disagree w/ you #3/6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say the following as a caring human being who agrees with how useful HOSTS files are: Your zeal is to be respected - by dave420 (699308) on Monday September 08, 2014

    But I love APK!The power of the hostfile compels you! by ratboy666 (104074) on Friday January 29, 2016

    APK was right all along! C:\WINDOWS\HOSTS is the solution ;) - by sabri (584428) on Friday October 21, 2016

    No complaints from me, I like APK's spam. Reminds me to use a host file. Also, his stuff is free. - by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

    APK was right! Is it time for us to point Sourceforge to a non-address in our hosts files, and let Sourceforge know we have done same? - by wonkey_monkey

    I'm a fan of apk. Yes he trolls, but he only trolls where it's contextually appropriate. I respect that - by Noah Haders (3621429) on Wednesday July 29, 2015

    APK

    P.S.=> MORE coming... apk

  22. More registered /.ers disagree w/ you #4/6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works. - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015

    get around to 'installing' a hosts file list, not sure which one, likely the one from someonewhocares.org. If it works as well as what I used for a while about ten years ago, I'll be happy. And grateful to APK for the lesson and the reminder. - by kermidge (2221646) on Wednesday March 27

    I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster. - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17

    dammit MS, you proved APK right about something by lgw

    "host file shit works for the plebs that don't know how to protect them self." by Highdude702 (4456913)on Sunday July 15, 2018

    APK