From 4be79ed4ef2320237c0284ac0da75f8558ca8dca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:07:33 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Created=20Myth:=20=C2=B5Block=20is=20just=20sli?= =?UTF-8?q?ghtly=20less=20resource=20intensive=20than=20Adblock=20Plus=20(?= =?UTF-8?q?markdown)?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- ...tly-less-resource-intensive-than-Adblock-Plus.md | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Myth:-µBlock-is-just-slightly-less-resource-intensive-than-Adblock-Plus.md diff --git a/Myth:-µBlock-is-just-slightly-less-resource-intensive-than-Adblock-Plus.md b/Myth:-µBlock-is-just-slightly-less-resource-intensive-than-Adblock-Plus.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..06e8546 --- /dev/null +++ b/Myth:-µBlock-is-just-slightly-less-resource-intensive-than-Adblock-Plus.md @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +No: it is significantly less resource intensive than Adblock Plus ("ABP"). + +Sloppy benchmarks can lead to the myth that µBlock is just a tad less resource intensive than ABP. + +Rigorous benchmarks demonstrate that µBlock is significantly more efficient than ABP. + +Examples of sloppiness: + +- Using memory footprint figures **before** the browser's garbage collector kicks in +- Not taking measures to avoid tainting memory footprint with [Chromium bug 441500](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=441500) +- Using memory footprint figures while option pages for the extension are opened +- Disregarding the [contributed memory footprint to web pages](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Contributed-memory-usage:-benchmarks-over-time) +- Comparing memory footprint after extensions have run for a significantly different amount of time