From 195afffcc48490603c85a2784408915db5f473cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:09:08 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?Updated=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 --- ...is-just-slightly-less-resource-intensive-than-Adblock-Plus.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) 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 index 06e8546..277aa13 100644 --- 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 @@ -8,6 +8,6 @@ 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 +- Using memory footprint figures while option pages for one of 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