View Full Version : Internet explorer user? Block ads with this HOSTS file.
Well, since firefox 3 has adblock plus, I figured it's only fair I search for something that would block IE's ads, and look what I found. All you have to do is copy and paste the following into your C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\HOSTS file and it automagically blocks most ads that adblock plus blocks.
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt
Open your hosts file in notepad, delete everything, then copy and paste everything in the hosts.txt file into your hosts file.
Planky
06-30-2008, 11:52 PM
The hosts file will block the advertisers websites, regardless of browser used. Last time I used Kazaa, it came with a hosts file that prevented riaa/mpaa from screwing up the downloads.
Hunnter
07-01-2008, 1:19 PM
Yeah, HOSTS will work with any network request.
It is really meant to be used in case your ISPs DNS went down. (but sadly, things like aren't known much outside of sysadmins and the like)
Your computer will always check the HOSTS first, then your ISPs DNS.
Although it is useful for a bunch of other things, like routing "router" to your routers setup page, or in this case, blocking websites by redirecting to localhost.
There is a bunch of programs out there to help with this, HOSTSman is a really good program, small and simple.
Although using it for blocking ads is a bit stupid, you are only hurting said website by blocking their ads, they are what makes it free.
Why block them? What harm are they doing other than using a TINY bit more bandwidth and TINY bit more time to load?
The only ads worth blocking are stupid Flash ads (specifically sound) and annoying flashy gifs, more so the Flash ones because I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING UNLESS I TELL YOU TO!
Myspace is the worst for Flash ads...
Step2
07-02-2008, 10:37 PM
Yeah, HOSTS will work with any network request.
Although using it for blocking ads is a bit stupid, you are only hurting said website by blocking their ads, they are what makes it free.
Why block them? What harm are they doing other than using a TINY bit more bandwidth and TINY bit more time to load?
The only ads worth blocking are stupid Flash ads (specifically sound) and annoying flashy gifs, more so the Flash ones because I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING UNLESS I TELL YOU TO!
Myspace is the worst for Flash ads...
Why would I be hurting said websites by blocking their ads if I never clicked on them in the first place?
MistyTehMoose
07-02-2008, 10:39 PM
Yes, they get paid per load, and get paid more if someone follows the link.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.