diff --git a/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md b/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
index 0528451..3076a26 100644
--- a/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
+++ b/uBlock-vs.-ABP:-efficiency-compared.md
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-Here is a quick illustrated comparison of efficiency using various angles. Each extension were tested alone, as the only extension present. Benchmarking was performed with Chromium on Linux Mint 64-bit.
+Here is a quick illustrated comparison of efficiency using various angles. The extensions were tested alone as the only extension present. Benchmarks were performed on Linux Mint 64-bit using Chromium.
- [Own memory footprint](#own-memory-footprint)
- [Added CPU overhead to each net request](#added-cpu-overhead-to-each-net-request)
@@ -7,12 +7,12 @@ Here is a quick illustrated comparison of efficiency using various angles. Each
### Own memory footprint
-These screenshots show the memory footprint of ABP and uBO _after_ they have gone through this rather [demanding benchmark](./Reference-benchmark). Once the benchmark was completed, I forced the browser to garbage collect the memory in each extension by clicking the trash icon (in dev console) a couple of times -- this is an _important step_, or else the shown memory footprint is not too reliable.
+These screenshots show the memory footprint of Adblock Plus (ABP) and uBlock Origin (uBO) _after_ they have gone through this [demanding benchmark](./Reference-benchmark). Once benchmarking was complete, I forced the browser to garbage collect the memory in each extension by clicking the trash icon (in the dev console) a couple of times. (This is an _important step_, or else the shown memory footprint is not too reliable.)
-##### Adblock Plus
+##### ABP
-##### uBlock Origin (uBO)
+##### uBO
Both extensions had _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's Ad Server_ list, and malware protection (there are more filters in uBO for this last one).
@@ -21,11 +21,11 @@ Both extensions had _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _Peter Lowe's Ad Server_ list, an
Last updated on: 30 January 2015.
-ABP and uBO need to evaluate the URL of each net request against their dictionary of filters, and eventually tell the waiting browser whether the request should be cancelled or not. Since the browser is waiting for an answer, this is a time critical part and determining whether the request should be allowed or not must be done as fast as possible.
+ABP and uBO need to evaluate the URL of each net request against their dictionary of filters and tell the waiting browser Since the browser is waiting for an answer, this is a time-critical part, and determining whether to allow the request must be done immediately.
-Below are the average time it takes for each extension to handle a net request in their respective `chrome.webRequest.onBeforeRequest` handler, using the same [benchmark](./Reference-benchmark).
+Below is the average time for each extension to handle a net request in their respective `chrome.webRequest.onBeforeRequest` handler, using the same [benchmark](./Reference-benchmark).
-##### Adblock Plus 1.8.10
+##### ABP 1.8.10
ABP> onBeforeRequest: 0.425 ms (9141 samples)
ABP> onBeforeRequest: 0.423 ms (9230 samples)
@@ -53,51 +53,53 @@ Below are the average time it takes for each extension to handle a net request i
##### Methodology
-Note that the results above are the tail end of running the [reference benchmark](./Reference-benchmark), except `wait` set to 15, and `repeat` set to 1. Both ABP and uBO set to use _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _"Peter Lowe’s Ad server list"_, _"Malware domains"_. ABP-specific: _"Acceptable ads"_ disabled. uBO-specific: default settings.
+Note that the results above are the tail end of running the [reference benchmark](./Reference-benchmark), except `wait` set to 15 and `repeat` set to 1. ABP and uBO both use _EasyList_, _EasyPrivacy_, _"Peter Lowe’s Ad server list"_ and _"Malware domains"_. ABP-specific: _"Acceptable ads"_ disabled. uBO-specific: default settings.
The results depend heavily on the processor: I benchmarked on an i5-3xxxK CPU @ 3.4 GHz x 4.
### Added memory footprint to web pages
-Extensions have their own memory footprint, but they also cause increased memory footprint in web pages. Below you can see the added memory footprint in a very simple web page, [Hacker News](https://news.ycombinator.com/). First screenshot is when no extension at all is used, so consider it as the reference memory footprint for this web page, other screenshots show the increased memory footprint caused by each extension. The browser was left on idle after loading the page in order to allow the garbage collector to kick in.
+Extensions have their memory footprint, but they also cause an increased memory footprint in web pages. Below you can see the added memory footprint in a simple web page like [Hacker News](https://news.ycombinator.com/). The first screenshot is when there is no extension used. Therefore, consider it as the reference memory footprint for this web page. Other screenshots show the increased memory footprint caused by each extension. The browser was idle after loading the page to allow the garbage collector to kick in.
**No extension:**
-**Adblock Plus:**
+**ABP:**
**uBO:**
-Now keep in mind this is the added footprint for a very simple web page which has no embedded frames. You can multiply the added footprint on the main page by the number of frames embedded on a page, so page with frames can end up consuming a _lot_ more memory than they would have otherwise. For instance, a very simple web page with a couple of `iframe` in it, [The Acid3 Test](http://acid3.acidtests.org/):
+Now keep in mind this is the added footprint for a simple web page that has no embedded frames. You can multiply the added footprint on the main page by the number of frames embedded, so pages with frames can consume a _lot_ more memory than they would have otherwise. For instance, a simple web page with a couple of `iframe` in it, [The Acid3 Test](http://acid3.acidtests.org/):
-Added memory footprint: Left = no extension. Middle = Adblock Plus. Right = uBO.
+Added memory footprint: Left = no extension. Middle = ABP. Right = uBO.
-A good stress test which further demonstrate this is the [infamous vim test](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus-memory-consumption).
+A good stress test that demonstrates this is the [infamous vim test](https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/wiki/Adblock-Plus-memory-consumption).
##### uBO vs. Adblock: memory usage differential during reference benchmark
-Above picture gives an overview of how much more memory Adblock Plus consumes over uBO. It represents the **extra memory** ABP consumes relative to uBO -- so essentially uBO is the horizontal axis. If memory consumption of ABP and uBO were exactly the same, there would be no graph. The [reference benchmark](/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Reference-benchmark) was used, which consists of visiting 60 front pages of high traffic web sites.
+The above picture shows how much more memory ABP consumes over uBO. It represents the **extra memory** ABP consumes relative to uBO, so, essentially, uBO is the horizontal axis. If memory consumption of ABP and uBO were the same, there would be no graph. The [reference benchmark](/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Reference-benchmark), consisting of visiting 60 front pages of high-traffic websites, was used.
-The vertical axis represents MB. The horizontal axis is time in seconds, and the data was tediously extracted from [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKM78oV_ftg) (consider the video to be the raw data -- [here is the spreadsheet](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/doc/benchmarks/ublock-vs-abp-timeline.ods) so people can double check in doubt).
+The vertical axis represents MB. The horizontal axis is time in seconds. Data extraction occurred from [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKM78oV_ftg). (Consider the video to be the raw data. [Here is the spreadsheet](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/master/doc/benchmarks/ublock-vs-abp-timeline.ods) so people in doubt can double-check).
-The blue area represents how much more ABP itself consumes more memory than uBO. The orange area represents how much more ABP causes the web pages themselves to consume more memory. ABP systematically causes web pages to consume more memory, and often quite a lot, north of 100 MB for some sites. This kind of added short term memory overhead is not cheap, as it also means the CPU is working harder.
+The blue area represents how much more memory ABP consumes than uBO. The orange area represents how much more ABP causes the web pages to consume more memory. ABP systematically causes web pages to consume more memory, and often quite a lot, north of 100 MB for some sites. This kind of added short-term memory overhead is not cheap, as it also means the CPU is working harder.
### Added CPU overhead to web pages
-This is the benchmarks comparing CPU usage in the background page when loading [si.com](http://www.si.com) ten times (so you can shift one decimal to the left for per page figures). Each page load was triggered after the previous page load completed.
+Here is the benchmark comparing CPU usage in the background page when loading [si.com](https://www.si.com/) ten times (so you can shift one decimal to the left for per page figures). Each page load was triggered after the last completed.
-**Top:** Adblock Plus 1.8.3. **Bottom:** uBO 0.5.1.0.
+**Top:** ABP 1.8.3. **Bottom:** uBO 0.5.1.0.
-I did measure CPU usage for content scripts (above benchmarks are for background pages), but given the web page used for the benchmark is quite a bloated one, the useful figures were drowned in a sea of noise. But the fact that ABP inserts 14,000+ CSS rules caused the CPU to used be much more than uBO (2-3 to 1 ratio) when comparing content script CPU usage (again, above is background page CPU usage).
+I measured CPU usage for content scripts, but any information was drowned in a sea of noise because the web page used for the benchmark is quite bloated.
-Also, the amount of work uBO does in its content scripts is proportional to the complexity of a web page. So given uBO did much better CPU-wise than ABP in its content script for such a bloated web site means it was a worst-case scenario for uBO, and yet it did its job of hiding elements between 2 and 3 times faster.
+But the fact that ABP inserts 14,000+ CSS rules caused the CPU to use much more than uBO (2-3 to 1 ratio) when comparing content script CPU usage (again, above is background page CPU usage).
+
+Also, the amount of work uBO does in its content scripts is proportional to the complexity of a web page. Although uBO did much better CPU-wise than ABP in its content script for such a bloated website, that means it was a worst-case scenario for uBO, and yet it did its job of hiding elements between 2 and 3 times faster.
### Related wiki pages